Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to object very strongly to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031 proposals relating to development at Great Ashby (referenced GA1 and GA2 -comprising 330 and 600 houses respectively ), especially GA1 (Roundwood). Both sites are within the Green Belt and my reasons are as follows:

* Due to its location at the extreme edge of the NHDC area, development at GA1 and GA2 does not address the housing needs of North Herts and therefore no 'exceptional circumstances' have been demonstrated which would warrant relaxing planning restrictions in the Green Belt (GB). Development here would be to serve the needs of Stevenage only. Stevenage planners should be looking to resolve their own housing needs (using brown field sites, more flats, better use of available land, etc), but if NHDC wish to work with Stevenage to solve their housing needs they should collaborate on more appropriate and most importantly, sustainable sites, such as West of Stevenage (with its close proximity to the town centre shopping district, business and leisure centres, rail/road connections) .This is the most logical and sustainable area for development in the Stevenage area and should be the first priority for development, rather than designating it as 'safeguarded land' for development at a later date.

* The current GB boundary at GA1 along Weston Road has already been re-located once as part of the wider GB expansion to enable the initial Great Ashby development to be built (which now comprises approximately 3,000 homes) and was only completed in 2011. When defining the boundary, planners would/should have satisfied themselves that the boundary would endure and not need to be altered, in accordance with guidance current at that time and with current NPPF policy. By developing at GA1 and GA2 NHDC would effectively be moving the GB boundary for as second time in this location. Other more appropriate sites should be considered before re-defining the Stevenage boundary here for a second time.

* Weston Road was selected by planners to define the GB boundary in the location of the proposed GA1 area, because it was considered 'robust' and 'defensible' and this was endorsed by the Environment Secretary of the time, Nicholas Ridley. I understand the condition of 'exceptional circumstances' already existed at that time, so if the current boundary was designed to be robust and defensible then, why is NHDC planning to disregard it and develop within the GB. This is completely against one of the key objectives of GB policy which is their permanence.


* Development at GA1 (and to a lesser extent GA2) is not sustainable and therefore should not be considered for housing. The proposed plan already acknowledges there would be significant problems with development here.

Developing the sites at GA1 and GA2 on the edge of Stevenage would have the effect of moving the green belt margin further away from Stevenage. According to the NPPF, when reviewing GB boundaries planners should 'take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development' (NPPF). Development at GA1 would not be sustainable and therefore extending Stevenage into the GB at these locations should not be considered. All the access roads to a potential development at GA1 are very narrow and widening would be either impossible or impractical. To be viable there would need to be a link road around the north of the sites, either connecting Great Ashby to A1M at Junction 8 or to more major roads into Stevenage. This would be either very expensive or in the latter case impossible due to the lack of available land/narrow roads through residential areas. There is no provision for such a road in the development plans.

The country lanes from Gravely and Weston are barely passable for 2 cars and Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Gt Ashby is traffic calmed, single track and with houses on both sides, so the development would not be easily accessible by car and impossible by bus. It is understood a new local access road linking Gt Ashby to GA1 via Hay Bluff Drive (crossing Weston Road) is being considered by developers, but again Hay Bluff Drive is too narrow and frequently choked with parked cars, due to the failure of earlier planners/developers to insist on sufficient parking provision in the existing Gt Ashby development. Parking is a particular problem as Gt Ashby has one of the highest concentrations of homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs) in the county. Widening Hay Bluff Drive to accommodate buses for GA1 would just exacerbate an already intolerable parking problem, according to local residents. They are concerned that emergency services may not be able to access houses in the HBD/Martins Way area already, so taking away more parking spaces to widen access could make the area unsafe.

* Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Gt Ashby/Stevenage is single track. This narrow (and very effective) traffic calmed road was specifically included as a planning condition of the first phase of development at Gt Ashby, to reduce rat running from Stevenage through Weston and Gravely. To make GA1 sustainable there would have to be better access to the site (as discussed above). This would specifically breach the traffic calming (effectively voiding the planning condition which has proved so effective to date) and would result in the flood gates being opened for rat running from all over Stevenage into Gravely and Weston. Breaching this earlier planning condition is totally unacceptable.

* One of the key purposes of GB is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Development at GA1 and GA2 will result in very significant encroachment into the countryside around the hamlets of Warrens Green and Halls Green, as well as the village of Weston.

Similarly, GB is designated to 'prevent urban sprawl' by keeping land permanently 'open'. Development at GA1 and GA2 will contribute yet again to the continued urban sprawl of Stevenage with the resultant slow merging of Stevenage, Hitchin , Letchworth and Baldock , all of which causes great harm to the GB and is completely contrary to GB guidance. Planning guidance states 'special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations' (NPPF). The proposed plan gives no explanation of why planners consider this harm is outweighed by other considerations in these locations. I do not believe it is.

* The proposed developments do not appear to have clear boundaries that would be defensible in future, (contrary to the NPPF) and further coalescence with Halls Green, Warrens Green and Weston would be inevitable, in the short term.

* It seems NHDC have based their proposal for development s GA1 and GA2 on the land being made available for development by the land owner and the desire of a developer to pursue a development, rather than any sound planning criteria.
I am not opposed to appropriate development in GB in accordance with planning guidance, where appropriate eg in my own village of Weston. Here the proposed development and effective new GB boundary is logical, defensible, durable and importantly development on the released land would be accessible, sustainable and clearly defined by the main road into the village.

I do not believe any criteria for demonstrating exceptional circumstances are met at GA2 or GA1. Neither site is sustainable and GA1 especially should be taken out of the Plan altogether. Efforts should be concentrated on West of Stevenage development and other proposed locations where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

I wish to object very strongly to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031 proposals relating to development at Great Ashby (referenced GA1 and GA2 - comprising 330 and 600 houses respectively ), especially GA1 (Roundwood). Both sites are within the Green Belt and my reasons are as follows:

* Due to its location at the extreme edge of the NHDC area, development at GA1 and GA2 does not address the housing needs of North Herts and therefore no 'exceptional circumstances' have been demonstrated which would warrant relaxing planning restrictions in the Green Belt (GB). Development here would be to serve the needs of Stevenage only. Stevenage planners should be looking to resolve their own housing needs (using brown field sites, more flats, better use of available land, etc), but if NHDC wish to work with Stevenage to solve their housing needs they should collaborate on more appropriate and most importantly, sustainable sites, such as West of Stevenage (with its close proximity to the town centre shopping district, business and leisure centres, rail/road connections) .This is the most logical and sustainable area for development in the Stevenage area and should be the first priority for development, rather than designating it as 'safeguarded land' for development at a later date.

* The current GB boundary at GA1 along Weston Road has already been re-located once as part of the wider GB expansion to enable the initial Great Ashby development to be built (which now comprises approximately 3,000 homes) and was only completed in 2011. When defining the boundary, planners would/should have satisfied themselves that the boundary would endure and not need to be altered, in accordance with guidance current at that time and with current NPPF policy. By developing at GA1 and GA2 NHDC would effectively be moving the GB boundary for as second time in this location. Other more appropriate sites should be considered before re-defining the Stevenage boundary here for a second time.

* Weston Road was selected by planners to define the GB boundary in the location of the proposed GA1 area, because it was considered 'robust' and 'defensible' and this was endorsed by the Environment Secretary of the time, Nicholas Ridley. I understand the condition of 'exceptional circumstances' already existed at that time, so if the current boundary was designed to be robust and defensible then, why is NHDC planning to disregard it and develop within the GB. This is completely against one of the key objectives of GB policy which is their permanence.

* Development at GA1 (and to a lesser extent GA2) is not sustainable and therefore should not be considered for housing. The proposed plan already acknowledges there would be significant problems with development here.

Developing the sites at GA1 and GA2 on the edge of Stevenage would have the effect of moving the green belt margin further away from Stevenage. According to the NPPF, when reviewing GB boundaries planners should 'take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development' (NPPF). Development at GA1 would not be sustainable and therefore extending Stevenage into the GB at these locations should not be considered. All the access roads to a potential development at GA1 are very narrow and widening would be either impossible or impractical. To be viable there would need to be a link road around the north of the sites, either connecting Great Ashby to A1M at Junction 8 or to more major roads into Stevenage. This would be either very expensive or in the latter case impossible due to the lack of available land/narrow roads through residential areas. There is no provision for such a road in the development plans.

The country lanes from Gravely and Weston are barely passable for 2 cars and Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Great Ashby is traffic calmed, single track and with houses on both sides, so the development would not be easily accessible by car and impossible by bus. It is understood a new local access road linking Great Ashby to GA1 via Hay Bluff Drive (crossing Weston Road) is being considered by developers, but again Hay Bluff Drive is too narrow and frequently choked with parked cars, due to the failure of earlier planners/developers to insist on sufficient parking provision in the existing Great Ashby development. Parking is a particular problem as Great Ashby has one of the highest concentrations of homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs) in the county. Widening Hay Bluff Drive to accommodate buses for GA1 would just exacerbate an already intolerable parking problem, according to local residents. They are concerned that emergency services may not be able to access houses in the HBD/Martins Way area already, so taking away more parking spaces to widen access could make the area unsafe.

* Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Great Ashby/Stevenage is single track. This narrow (and very effective) traffic calmed road was specifically included as a planning condition of the first phase of development at Great Ashby, to reduce rat running from Stevenage through Weston and Gravely. To make GA1 sustainable there would have to be better access to the site (as discussed above). This would specifically breach the traffic calming (effectively voiding the planning condition which has proved so effective to date) and would result in the flood gates being opened for rat running from all over Stevenage into Gravely and Weston. Breaching this earlier planning condition is totally unacceptable.

* One of the key purposes of GB is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Development at GA1 and GA2 will result in very significant encroachment into the countryside around the hamlets of Warrens Green and Halls Green, as well as the village of Weston.

Similarly, GB is designated to 'prevent urban sprawl' by keeping land permanently 'open'. Development at GA1 and GA2 will contribute yet again to the continued urban sprawl of Stevenage with the resultant slow merging of Stevenage, Hitchin , Letchworth and Baldock, all of which causes great harm to the GB and is completely contrary to GB guidance. Planning guidance states 'special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations' (NPPF). The proposed plan gives no explanation of why planners consider this harm is outweighed by other considerations in these locations. I do not believe it is.

* The proposed developments do not appear to have clear boundaries that would be defensible in future, (contrary to the NPPF) and further coalescence with Halls Green, Warrens Green and Weston would be inevitable, in the short term.

* It seems NHDC have based their proposal for development s GA1 and GA2 on the land being made available for development by the land owner and the desire of a developer to pursue a development, rather than any sound planning criteria.
I am not opposed to appropriate development in GB in accordance with planning guidance, where appropriate eg in my own village of Weston. Here the proposed development and effective new GB boundary is logical, defensible, durable and importantly development on the released land would be accessible, sustainable and clearly defined by the main road into the village.

I do not believe any criteria for demonstrating exceptional circumstances are met at GA2 or GA1. Neither site is sustainable and GA1 especially should be taken out of the Plan altogether. Efforts should be concentrated on West of Stevenage development and other proposed locations where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

I wish to object very strongly to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031 proposals relating to development at Great Ashby (referenced GA1 and GA2 - comprising 330 and 600 houses respectively ), especially GA1 (Roundwood). Both sites are within the Green Belt and my reasons are as follows:

* Due to its location at the extreme edge of the NHDC area, development at GA1 and GA2 does not address the housing needs of North Herts and therefore no 'exceptional circumstances' have been demonstrated which would warrant relaxing planning restrictions in the Green Belt (GB). Development here would be to serve the needs of Stevenage only. Stevenage planners should be looking to resolve their own housing needs (using brown field sites, more flats, better use of available land, etc), but if NHDC wish to work with Stevenage to solve their housing needs they should collaborate on more appropriate and most importantly, sustainable sites, such as West of Stevenage (with its close proximity to the town centre shopping district, business and leisure centres, rail/road connections) .This is the most logical and sustainable area for development in the Stevenage area and should be the first priority for development, rather than designating it as 'safeguarded land' for development at a later date.

* The current GB boundary at GA1 along Weston Road has already been re-located once as part of the wider GB expansion to enable the initial Great Ashby development to be built (which now comprises approximately 3,000 homes) and was only completed in 2011. When defining the boundary, planners would/should have satisfied themselves that the boundary would endure and not need to be altered, in accordance with guidance current at that time and with current NPPF policy. By developing at GA1 and GA2 NHDC would effectively be moving the GB boundary for as second time in this location. Other more appropriate sites should be considered before re-defining the Stevenage boundary here for a second time.

* Weston Road was selected by planners to define the GB boundary in the location of the proposed GA1 area, because it was considered 'robust' and 'defensible' and this was endorsed by the Environment Secretary of the time, Nicholas Ridley. I understand the condition of 'exceptional circumstances' already existed at that time, so if the current boundary was designed to be robust and defensible then, why is NHDC planning to disregard it and develop within the GB. This is completely against one of the key objectives of GB policy which is their permanence.

* Development at GA1 (and to a lesser extent GA2) is not sustainable and therefore should not be considered for housing. The proposed plan already acknowledges there would be significant problems with development here.

Developing the sites at GA1 and GA2 on the edge of Stevenage would have the effect of moving the green belt margin further away from Stevenage. According to the NPPF, when reviewing GB boundaries planners should 'take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development' (NPPF). Development at GA1 would not be sustainable and therefore extending Stevenage into the GB at these locations should not be considered. All the access roads to a potential development at GA1 are very narrow and widening would be either impossible or impractical. To be viable there would need to be a link road around the north of the sites, either connecting Great Ashby to A1M at Junction 8 or to more major roads into Stevenage. This would be either very expensive or in the latter case impossible due to the lack of available land/narrow roads through residential areas. There is no provision for such a road in the development plans.

The country lanes from Gravely and Weston are barely passable for 2 cars and Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Great Ashby is traffic calmed, single track and with houses on both sides, so the development would not be easily accessible by car and impossible by bus. It is understood a new local access road linking Great Ashby to GA1 via Hay Bluff Drive (crossing Weston Road) is being considered by developers, but again Hay Bluff Drive is too narrow and frequently choked with parked cars, due to the failure of earlier planners/developers to insist on sufficient parking provision in the existing Great Ashby development. Parking is a particular problem as Great Ashby has one of the highest concentrations of homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs) in the county. Widening Hay Bluff Drive to accommodate buses for GA1 would just exacerbate an already intolerable parking problem, according to local residents. They are concerned that emergency services may not be able to access houses in the HBD/Martins Way area already, so taking away more parking spaces to widen access could make the area unsafe.

* Calder Way which would link GA1 to the rest of Great Ashby/Stevenage is single track. This narrow (and very effective) traffic calmed road was specifically included as a planning condition of the first phase of development at Great Ashby, to reduce rat running from Stevenage through Weston and Gravely. To make GA1 sustainable there would have to be better access to the site (as discussed above). This would specifically breach the traffic calming (effectively voiding the planning condition which has proved so effective to date) and would result in the flood gates being opened for rat running from all over Stevenage into Gravely and Weston. Breaching this earlier planning condition is totally unacceptable.

* One of the key purposes of GB is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Development at GA1 and GA2 will result in very significant encroachment into the countryside around the hamlets of Warrens Green and Halls Green, as well as the village of Weston.

Similarly, GB is designated to 'prevent urban sprawl' by keeping land permanently 'open'. Development at GA1 and GA2 will contribute yet again to the continued urban sprawl of Stevenage with the resultant slow merging of Stevenage, Hitchin , Letchworth and Baldock, all of which causes great harm to the GB and is completely contrary to GB guidance. Planning guidance states 'special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations' (NPPF). The proposed plan gives no explanation of why planners consider this harm is outweighed by other considerations in these locations. I do not believe it is.

* The proposed developments do not appear to have clear boundaries that would be defensible in future, (contrary to the NPPF) and further coalescence with Halls Green, Warrens Green and Weston would be inevitable, in the short term.

* It seems NHDC have based their proposal for development s GA1 and GA2 on the land being made available for development by the land owner and the desire of a developer to pursue a development, rather than any sound planning criteria.
I am not opposed to appropriate development in GB in accordance with planning guidance, where appropriate eg in my own village of Weston. Here the proposed development and effective new GB boundary is logical, defensible, durable and importantly development on the released land would be accessible, sustainable and clearly defined by the main road into the village.

I do not believe any criteria for demonstrating exceptional circumstances are met at GA2 or GA1. Neither site is sustainable and GA1 especially should be taken out of the Plan altogether. Efforts should be concentrated on West of Stevenage development and other proposed locations where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.