Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

In the opening statement you state "We support the principles of the Green Belt and recognise the intrinsic value of the countryside.", then you go onto move the green belt as suits and give back a meaningless section between Stevenage and Luton.

The government is quite clear on the purpose of green belt, to stop exactly the development you are trying to force through

The National Planning Policy Framework (published on 27 March 2012) is clear on this and Section 80 States:
Green Belt serves five purposes:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

this scheme contravenes these guidelines from the government. The land n GA2 is not just agricultural land, it is green belt and is used as amenity space for the residents of Great Asby.

Also referencing the District Local Plan alterations 2 - it states

"Green Belt

In the Green Belt, as shown on the Proposals Map, the Council will aim to keep the uses of land open in character. Except for proposals within settlements which accord with Policy 3, or in very special circumstances, planning permission will only be granted for new buildings, extensions, and changes of use of buildings and of land which are appropriate in the Green Belt, and which would not result in significant visual impact.

Policy 3 - Settlements within the Green Belt

In settlements within the Green Belt, the Council will not normally permit development proposals, except for:

that strictly necessary for the housing and employment needs of agriculture, forestry, leisure and local services in the rural areas that cannot practicably be met outside the Green Belt; or
the local facilities and services needs of the settlement within which the development is proposed; or
the meeting of an identified rural housing need in compliance with Policy 29; or
a single dwelling on a small plot located within the built core of the settlement, which will not result in the outward expansion of the settlement or have any other adverse impact on the local environment or other policy aims within the Green Belt."

Noen of the above is satisfied with regards to the proposals for GA1 & GA2

I strongly object to the proposal for development at GA2 in the Green below for the following reasons:
1) Contravention of the following:
a. East of England Planning policies:
* Policy SS1 - Achieving Sustainable Development
* Policy SS7 - Green Belt
* Policy SS8 - The Urban Fringe
* Policy ENV2 - Landscape Conservation
* Policy ENV3 - Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
* Policy ENV5 - Woodlands
* Policy ENV7 - Quality in the Built Environment
b. North Herts District Local Plan with alterations
i. Policy 2
ii. Policy 4
iii. Policy 14
c. Great Ashby Woodland & District Park - Green Space Action Plan - 2015 - 2020

2) Poor and incorrect notification of affected residents
I live within 4m of the proposed GA4 boundary, I have not received any correspondence from HNDC, there has been no posted information along the boundary of the development, HNDC are trying to get this through by stealth. The consultation period should be extended and correct / formal letter / notification to all Great Ashby residents. If there is a lack of objections it is because people do not know of the development, not that they support it. No one I speak to along Cleveland Way knows about the proposals for GA2.

3) NHDC historic inability to masterplan and enforce condition on previous applications:
Previous historic planning policy and masterplanning by HNDC for Great Ashby has been short-sighted and negligent. Numerous issues with parking provision, the litany of failed healthcare provision for Great Ashby (we still have no Doctors surgery) and the woeful under provision of school places shows that HNDC cannot plan nor enforce even when they agree section 106 agreements with the developers.
4) Development in green belt in contravention of government guidelines:
To add to this the lazy planning policy to build on green belt rather that strategically focus on a new centre (Stevenage West) that is close to road & rail links and does not affect large numbers of existing residents. In addition to this the extended area for GA 2 did not form part of the last consultation, this large area incorporates woodland and comes within 4m of my house. I have not been formally notified of this consultation and as such I feel that the consultation process has not been correctly carried out. HNDC are trying to sneak in an expanded GA2 through the back door.
5) Previous application for GA11 considerations & protection of woodland
Looking back at the previous applications for GA11 (99/01135/1, 00/01793-1, 00/01285/1) the woodland north of Cleveland way is denoted as structured planting, I assume to reinforce the green belt line from the GA11 development and to protect the link between Brooches Woods and Claypitshill Woods, how can this now be incorporated into GA2, do the considerations of GA11 suddenly not apply ? they also reference drawing CDR00062-8B2/LZ tree protection zone to prevent destruction to Brooches Mead, this is now under threat from the GA2 proposals.
Reference to the Thomas Alleyne School re-location application:
Looking back at this application that was proposed to be on part of the land in GA2, it is clear in the application that the justification for development in green belt for the school was a 'very special circumstance', building more houses is and never will be a 'very special circumstance' to destroy Green Belt
6) Loss of secondary amenity spaces used by Great Ashby
I am sure that during the previous Great Ashby application great emphasis was put on the location of the houses to the Green belt and the use of the public footpaths as secondary amenity for the houses, this will be lost. The area of GA2 is a busy and well used walking and amenity space for all of the residents of Great Ashby, it needs to be protect not built on. In addition to the formal paths there are a number of informal paths, has anyone form the planning department even studied the impact of destroying this land will have on the local residents.
7) Access
The roads of Great Ashby are a danger, with the historic under provision of car parking spaces on street parking is rife and we are constantly being reminded by the Local Fire Brigade of the difficulty they have navigating Cleveland Way
8) The current denoted GA2 area did not form part of the previous consultation
The last consultation on HNDC development (Local Plan 2011 - 2031 preferred Options Dec 2014) did not have GA2 as large as this, it had been effectively been discounted from the previous to that consultation. How has this been enlarged when it formed no part of the previous consultation ? The consolation should be referred back to the previously denoted sizes & areas of GA2.
9) Destruction of Woodland, Biodiversity and the sanitisation / isolation of existing District woodlands
The opening statement states: "whilst ensuring the natural environment is protected and enhanced"
By destroying woodland and fields in GA2 does not serve to protect or enhance biodiversity, looking for net gains by substituting one area for another is not a strategic planning policy, it is a fix for a problem that does not exist. The woods to the north of Cleveland Way and to the south of GA2 are highlighted as part of the area for development this is a key biodiversity link between a number of woodland areas. this was planted in the 1980's to link these other woods and have ended up being a critical aspect of the biodiversity in Great Ashby. In addition to this the NHDC Great Ashby Woodland Walk (Appended) document clearly shows the importance of the woodland to the north of Cleveland way in connecting the two areas of wildlife. The proposals for GA2 will destroy this woodland walk.
The GA2 scheme is in contravention of the HNDC Green Space Action Plan 2015-2020 which shows the critical link between these woodland areas. This is reinforced in the HNDC District Green infrastructure plan, highlighting both woods as 'District Woodland and 'upland Oakwoods' and Wet Woodlands'. To enclose such areas in residential development will kill the ability for wildlife to migrate too and from them and they will be destroyed.

Nine acre spring is also denoted in the development area, this woodland has been in existence since the 19th Century and will be destroyed. All of the following woodland have been in existence since at least 1878 - Brooches Woods, Woods to the north of 'Chalk Pit' now called Nice Acre Spring. Again referring back to the Thomas Alleyne school application Vincent & Gorbing carried out a review of the woodland around the site and denoted the woods to the North of Cleveland Way as Woodland' along with Nice Acre Spring and clearly shows it linking the 'Major wildlife sites of Brooches Wood & Claypitshill. (Vincent & Gorbing Drawing 4682 019d appended)

The opening statement states: "whilst ensuring the natural environment is protected and enhanced"
By destroying woodland and fields in GA2 does not serve to protect or enhance biodiversity, looking for net gains by substituting one area for another is not a strategic planning policy, it is a fix for a problem that does not exist. The woods to the north of Cleveland Way and to the south of GA2 are highlighted as part of the area for development this is a key biodiversity link between a number of woodland areas. this was planted in the 1980's to link these other woods and have ended up being a critical aspect of the biodiversity in Great Ashby. In addition to this the NHDC Great Ashby Woodland Walk (Appended) document clearly shows the importance of the woodland to the north of Cleveland way in connecting the two areas of wildlife. The proposals for GA2 will destroy this woodland walk.
The GA2 scheme is in contravention of the HNDC Green Space Action Plan 2015-2020 which shows the critical link between these woodland areas. This is reinforced in the HNDC District Green infrastructure plan, highlighting both woods as 'District Woodland and 'upland Oakwoods' and Wet Woodlands'. To enclose such areas in residential development will kill the ability for wildlife to migrate too and from them and they will be destroyed.

Nine acre spring is also denoted in the development area, this woodland has been in existence since the 19th Century and will be destroyed. All of the following woodland have been in existence since at least 1878 - Brooches Woods, Woods to the north of 'Chalk Pit' now called Nice Acre Spring. Again referring back to the Thomas Alleyne school application Vincent & Gorbing carried out a review of the woodland around the site and denoted the woods to the North of Cleveland Way as Woodland' along with Nice Acre Spring and clearly shows it linking the 'Major wildlife sites of Brooches Wood & Claypitshill. (Vincent & Gorbing Drawing 4682 019d appended)