Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Mr James Merrell search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

AS1 Land west of Claybush Road

Representation ID: 3295

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr James Merrell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to AS1:
- Highway infrastructure, congestion and safety
- Pedestrian facilities
- Landscape Character
- Not consistent with NPPF
- Historic environment
- Heritage Assets
- Councils consultation process

Full text:

I am writing to object to the local plan, particularly the inclusion of the Claybush Road site in Ashwell.
* 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 (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1). The road sees high speed traffic every day - at all times of the day and night - with no pavement and extremely poor lines of visibility. I was almost hit by cars almost every day that I walked down the hill to school with my mum and sister - I cannot imagine more cars using the road - it will be a disaster.
* 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.
* 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).
* 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.
Ashwell has proposed alternative, more suitable sites for development - and despite extensive consultation processes - where we have been asked repeatedly to write in with our objections, these alternative suggestions and our objections have been completely ignored.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.