Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

With particular reference to Ashwell:
Regarding CLAYBUSH ROAD (site AS1) for 33 houses

The inclusion of this site in the emerging plan seems ignore a number of principals that have been enshrined in both the current and proposed district plans. For instance:

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1). There is no footpath possible on Bygrave road and the Bear Lane footpath has 19 steps.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging. These two directives seemed to have been ignored while drawing up the new plan.

NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 ( within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations. As stated before the extension of the boundary goes against all previous planning rules especially when consideration is taken into the fact that other large ( for Ashwell) developments have already been built in recent years - Walkdens, Broadchalke, Philosopher's Gate, and Sunnymede - and according to the research the Parish council have put in there is no proven need for the type of housing proposed.

Site AS1 has a history of planning applications which have been rejected by NHDC, and on appeal, because of the adverse impact on the environment ( ref; NPPF Policy 1) and there is now reason to suppose that this has lessened.

I agree with Ashwell Parish Council that there is no objection to the principle of development and am pleased that it has been proactive, through its Neighbourhood Plan , in identifying what type of development is desired and required to satisfy the housing needs of the village and the sites suitable for it. These would more than adequately satisfy the number of units required.

It seems unjust that NHDC seems to have ignored both the work of Ashwell Parish Council in identifying the real needs of the community, and the widespread concerns of the residents. This is undemocratic and fails to satisfy the requirements for local democracy (Localism Act 2011)