Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing to object to your local proposed plan GA2 for a number of
reasons:

Core Planning Principles state that planning policies and decisions should 'encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land)' (see NPPF 17), provided that it is not of higher environmental value (see NPPF 111).

On focusing development around principle towns, it would seem that no attempt has been made to prioritize brownfield sites within these areas. Commentary in SP1(a) that 'new development making use of previously developed land where possible' and in SP8.11 (d) 'target the completion of 20% of new homes over the plan period on previously developed land' merely serves to highlight the inadequate efforts of NHDC to identify Brownfield sites and the strong reliance on Green Belt land.

NPPF 79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

As stated in 80. - it also assists in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment.

I feel that the proposal with regards to the green belt and the planning of this is not sound and unjustified. The NPPF states 83.
Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
It would seem that NHDC have not prioritised in looking for old employment sites etc but have just put forward a substantial number of green belt areas for proposed planning. As stated in the NPPF - a want for housing is NOT considered 'exceptional circumstances' and the residents of North Hertfordshire would suffer a great loss by losing the countryside that NHDC have proposed for GA2. I would also like to point out, as stated by the Rt Hon G Clarke, Minister of Planning.

Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives - I can honestly say that after the number of responses to the first consultation NHDC received, views and opinions of many residents and what they actually want has not been taken into consideration. Mr Clarke also states that, 'This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and
communities.' I would like to point out that I have not seen any
literature regarding GA2 during this period, until I recently became aware of it from a newspaper article in the Comet which was by a local resident. Surely if residents of the NHDC are being given the chance to have their say, they should at least be made aware of it in the first place. I have since spoken with numerous people who also were not aware of GA2 until a local resident knocked on their doors.

The proposed area of GA2 is used by hundreds of people each week, particularly over the summer months. It is used by dog walkers, ramblers, bird watchers, families and couples to unwind and relax. It is of huge importance to many residents of Stevenage, Great Ashby and residents from Graveley, Weston, Halls Green and other areas. The area is one of huge diversity of many species of mammal and birds and a development of this kind would have a huge impact which is also against NPPF 109.

The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

This is further established with regards to NPPF 118.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

This would have a huge impact on the wildlife in this area.

Another main concern is the pressure on infrastructure and access. I do believe that Hertfordshire Highways already had concerns regarding access to GA1; Mendip Way is at gridlock some mornings, having a further possible 1200 cars coming from GA2 out through this area would surely be conceived as dangerous. I am aware than local groups have commissioned a separate transport report which highlights numerous flaws in the report put forward by NHDC.

With regards to infrastructure; secondary schools are at capacity, many businesses have closed down within the area forcing redundancies, it is already difficult to obtain doctors/dentist appointments within Stevenage and waiting lists have increased a long with pressure on the ambulance service/A&E particularly since the QEII closed down.

I do believe that the proposed plan of GA2 is not sound and to build this development on green belt along side all the other issues would be unjustified in line with the NPPF and I therefore ask that NHDC seriously think about this proposal.