Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
Search representations
Results for Ms Karen Bartha search
New searchObject
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
MM 075 / FM 008
Representation ID: 8799
Received: 22/06/2021
Respondent: Ms Karen Bartha
I would like to submit my objections to the proposed development in Great Ashby in Stevenage, commonly known as GA2.
Why does NHDC feel the need to destroy more of our Green Belt land for a high density development of what is likely to be overpriced, poorly constructed boxes, with limited car parking spaces for the amount of population and most likely very limited green space for children to play in.
The Government recently committed to no more Green Belt land being built on, but Brownfield sites are the way forward. In these times of a fragile eco system we should be striving to save and preserve our natural habitats and wildlife, not concreting over them.
The infrastructure in Stevenage is not sufficient to support and sustain any new major housing developments. I understand that this development would come under NHDC jurisdiction, but the infrastructure that will be utilised will mainly come from SBC, and that is struggling now with dental and doctors surgeries not taking on new patients - there was supposed to be a doctors surgery built in Great Ashby, but that never came, and that land was given over to yet more housing. There is a lack of leisure and shopping facilities in the town, despite the regeneration of Stevenage town centre. The emergency services cannot cope with the number of people in the area now, with the only A&E hospital servicing the surrounding area being at the Lister, so how could they be expected to cope with the 900 or so proposed dwellings.
The roads will not be able to cope with all the additional vehicles, they are already in a state of disrepair, and in some parts are just too narrow for the amount of traffic that will come. Schools will be a major pinch point too. New developments never incorporate senior schools, only primary which I have never understood that line of thinking. The sewage systems will be put under great strain, as will the power to all these new dwellings, where will it all go and come from?
All too often profit of developers is put first. They will promise the moon to the local authority, but gradually as the development progresses, give nothing but excuses as to why the number of social and affordable housing has to fall well below what is required and needed so that their profit margins stay at their highest level. Developers should be forced to build sustainable properties with solar panelling, and any other form of eco friendly building methods, rather than the quickest, cheapest route.
It is time the local authorities joined the real world, and took a long hard look at the real need here which is the environment. We are destroying it at an alarming rate, and a new development such as this will only decimate more than is necessary, and if we continue in this way there will be no planet left to build on.
I urge you to reconsider the application for this new development in GA2 and decline the application to build it. I am not an eco warrior, just a very worried individual, who can see where we are heading if we don’t stop destroying our countryside. There is already an issue with too much habitat being taken away from the wildlife, and only now are shifts in the eco systems being noticed, and they are not good shifts, and will have long lasting detrimental effects on all of us. The council would be better to buy the land from the developers and turn it over to a country wildlife park. Your council tax payers would thank you very loudly for doing something as innovative as that. And you should also ensure that any new developments are not big sprawling masses of houses, but smaller lower density building, something that has imagination built on brownfield sites instead.
There is a school of thought that if every village allowed 10 or 20 houses to be built in or around it, every town allowed 100 and every city 1000, there would be no need to encroach on so much of our green space, as space for such building could be found easily. Not as profitable as building en-mass, but certainly better for the environment, and if its homes that are needed, what better way to do it, and that way people would integrate into the local communities better and there would be a lot less drain on the resources and infrastructure.
I would like to submit my objections to the proposed development in Great Ashby in Stevenage, commonly known as GA2.
Why does NHDC feel the need to destroy more of our Green Belt land for a high density development of what is likely to be overpriced, poorly constructed boxes, with limited car parking spaces for the amount of population and most likely very limited green space for children to play in.
The Government recently committed to no more Green Belt land being built on, but Brownfield sites are the way forward. In these times of a fragile eco system we should be striving to save and preserve our natural habitats and wildlife, not concreting over them.
The infrastructure in Stevenage is not sufficient to support and sustain any new major housing developments. I understand that this development would come under NHDC jurisdiction, but the infrastructure that will be utilised will mainly come from SBC, and that is struggling now with dental and doctors surgeries not taking on new patients - there was supposed to be a doctors surgery built in Great Ashby, but that never came, and that land was given over to yet more housing. There is a lack of leisure and shopping facilities in the town, despite the regeneration of Stevenage town centre. The emergency services cannot cope with the number of people in the area now, with the only A&E hospital servicing the surrounding area being at the Lister, so how could they be expected to cope with the 900 or so proposed dwellings.
The roads will not be able to cope with all the additional vehicles, they are already in a state of disrepair, and in some parts are just too narrow for the amount of traffic that will come. Schools will be a major pinch point too. New developments never incorporate senior schools, only primary which I have never understood that line of thinking. The sewage systems will be put under great strain, as will the power to all these new dwellings, where will it all go and come from?
All too often profit of developers is put first. They will promise the moon to the local authority, but gradually as the development progresses, give nothing but excuses as to why the number of social and affordable housing has to fall well below what is required and needed so that their profit margins stay at their highest level. Developers should be forced to build sustainable properties with solar panelling, and any other form of eco friendly building methods, rather than the quickest, cheapest route.
It is time the local authorities joined the real world, and took a long hard look at the real need here which is the environment. We are destroying it at an alarming rate, and a new development such as this will only decimate more than is necessary, and if we continue in this way there will be no planet left to build on.
I urge you to reconsider the application for this new development in GA2 and decline the application to build it. I am not an eco warrior, just a very worried individual, who can see where we are heading if we don’t stop destroying our countryside. There is already an issue with too much habitat being taken away from the wildlife, and only now are shifts in the eco systems being noticed, and they are not good shifts, and will have long lasting detrimental effects on all of us. The council would be better to buy the land from the developers and turn it over to a country wildlife park. Your council tax payers would thank you very loudly for doing something as innovative as that. And you should also ensure that any new developments are not big sprawling masses of houses, but smaller lower density building, something that has imagination built on brownfield sites instead.
There is a school of thought that if every village allowed 10 or 20 houses to be built in or around it, every town allowed 100 and every city 1000, there would be no need to encroach on so much of our green space, as space for such building could be found easily. Not as profitable as building en-mass, but certainly better for the environment, and if its homes that are needed, what better way to do it, and that way people would integrate into the local communities better and there would be a lot less drain on the resources and infrastructure.
