Full text:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of approximately 11,000 new houses in and around Ashley and the surrounding countryside.
This scale of development would represent an unprecedented and irreversible change to the character of the area. I strongly believe that the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on the local environment, infrastructure, roads, agricultural land and existing communities, while causing significant and permanent harm to the openness and character of the countryside.
I respectfully ask the Planning Authority to refuse the proposal for the following reasons.
1. Incompatibility with the Spatial Settlement Hierarchy and National Planning Policy
The scale and location of this development appear fundamentally incompatible with the established spatial settlement hierarchy and the principle of directing substantial development towards appropriate and sustainable locations.
A development of approximately 11,000 homes would effectively create a substantial new urban settlement rather than represent proportionate growth appropriate to the existing character and role of Ashley and surrounding settlements.
The proposal should be assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and all relevant development-plan policies. Particular consideration should be given to whether such a large-scale expansion is genuinely sustainable and whether the development would cause unacceptable harm to the purposes and openness of the Green Belt and the established pattern of settlements.
2. Severe Traffic Generation and Unsafe Rural Roads
The development would inevitably generate a significant increase in traffic, placing considerable additional pressure on the existing road network.
Many of the surrounding roads are narrow, rural roads that were not designed to accommodate the volume of traffic associated with a development of this magnitude. Increased traffic would raise concerns regarding highway safety, congestion, pedestrian safety, cyclists, horse riders and other vulnerable road users. We already have multiple crashes on Castle Mill Lane this will increase if housing is approved.
The cumulative impact of thousands of additional households travelling to work, schools, healthcare facilities, shops and other services must be properly assessed rather than considering individual access routes in isolation.
It would be unacceptable for existing rural communities to bear the consequences of such a substantial increase in traffic on roads that are already constrained.
3. Harm to Green Belt Openness and the Merging of Distinct Towns and Villages
The proposed development would cause substantial and permanent harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
The scale of the proposal would significantly urbanise currently open countryside and would fundamentally alter the relationship between existing settlements and the surrounding landscape.
Of particular concern is the potential for development to contribute to the merging or coalescence of distinct towns and villages. Maintaining the separation and individual identity of existing settlements is an important planning consideration.
Once this countryside is developed, the loss of openness and separation between communities would be permanent and cannot realistically be reversed.
4. Permanent Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The proposal would result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including potentially Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
The loss of productive agricultural land should not be treated simply as an unavoidable consequence of development. Agricultural land is a finite resource and has long-term value for food production, the rural economy, biodiversity and landscape character.
Before permitting development on such land, the Planning Authority should require robust evidence demonstrating that there are no suitable alternatives that would avoid or reduce the loss of BMV land.
5. Harm to Heritage Assets and Local Landscape Designations
The development would also risk causing significant harm to the setting of Grade II listed buildings within and surrounding the affected area.
The setting of a listed building is an important part of its significance, and large-scale housing development, associated roads, lighting, infrastructure and urban activity could substantially alter the historic rural context in which these buildings are experienced.
There are also concerns regarding harm to Local Landscape Designations and the wider landscape character.
The cumulative visual impact of thousands of houses, roads, lighting, utilities, drainage infrastructure and associated development would fundamentally change the appearance and character of the countryside.
6. Lack of Adequate Core Infrastructure
There are serious concerns regarding whether the necessary infrastructure exists, or can realistically be delivered alongside development of this scale.
In particular, the proposal must demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity for:
Primary and secondary schools
GP surgeries and other healthcare services
Emergency services
Water supply
Electricity and other utilities
Wastewater infrastructure
Deep drainage and surface-water management
Road and transport infrastructure
Public transport
Walking and cycling infrastructure
Community facilities and open space
It would be wholly inappropriate for thousands of new residents to be placed into an area before essential infrastructure is available and capable of meeting the resulting demand.
Particular attention should be given to deep drainage, wastewater capacity and surface-water management, given the potential consequences of large areas of new impermeable development in a predominantly rural area.
7. Cumulative and Irreversible Impact
The individual impacts of the proposal should not be considered in isolation. The combined effect of 11,000 homes, associated roads, schools, utilities, drainage, lighting and other infrastructure would fundamentally transform the area.
This is not simply a question of adding housing to an existing settlement. It is a proposal capable of permanently changing the identity, landscape and character of Ashley and the surrounding countryside.
The Planning Authority should therefore give significant weight to the cumulative environmental, heritage, agricultural, highways and infrastructure impacts of the proposal.
Conclusion
I strongly object to the proposed development of approximately 11,000 houses affecting Ashley and the surrounding countryside.
The proposal would result in:
* Unacceptable pressure on an existing rural road network;
* Significant highway-safety and traffic concerns;
* Harm to Green Belt openness;
* Increased risk of settlement coalescence and loss of separation between communities;
* Permanent loss of potentially Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
* Harm to the setting of Grade II listed buildings;
* Harm to local landscape character and designated landscapes;
* Significant pressure on schools, healthcare and other public services;
* Serious concerns regarding utilities, wastewater and deep drainage;
* Permanent urbanisation of currently open countryside; and
* A development scale that appears incompatible with the established settlement pattern and the principles of sustainable development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Planning Authority refuse planning permission for this proposal unless and until the applicant can demonstrate, with robust and independently scrutinised evidence, that these significant impacts can be avoided, adequately mitigated and that the development is genuinely sustainable and compliant with national and local planning policy.
The protection of Ashley's countryside, agricultural land, heritage, landscape character and the identity of its surrounding communities should be given substantial weight when determining this application.
Yours faithfully,
Miss Melissa French
