14 Delivery

Support

Representation ID: 4186

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: The North Hertfordshire Archaeological Society

- NHAS will monitor compliance with these polices (SP13 and HE 1-4), and seek discussion with the NHDC if we have any concerns about implementation.

Object

Representation ID: 4503

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Transition Town Letchworth

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object to Delivery:
- Measures needed to address the causes and consequences of climate change
- References to the co-operation with authorities during planning work appear to be inconsistent
- Focus of co-operation with public authorities and bodies overlooks no-public bodies of local significance, such as Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Support

Representation ID: 5422

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Pirton Parish Council

Support Ch.14: Essential for NHDC to ensure constant and consistent communication and negotiation across all relevant bodies. Attending to adverse impacts must be a prime consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 5489

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Welwyn and Hatfield District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Para 14.31: Additional text requested to reflect potential role of North Herts in accommodating future unmet needs

Object

Representation ID: 5494

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Luton Borough Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Ch14: Specific policy providing circumstances and triggers for plan review are required

Object

Representation ID: 5515

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Natural England - East of England Region

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Chapter 14: Monitoring indicators will not appropriately measure effectiveness of the plan

Support

Representation ID: 5655

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: NHS England Midlands and East (East)

Support:
- NHS England Midlands and East (East) who cover the Royston area use a different formula for capacity planning than Central Midlands (majority of North Herts.)
- to increase primary healthcare capacity as a result of development growth set out in the Local Plan, NHS England Midlands and East (East) intend to seek mitigation from relevant proposed developments, likely in the form of a suitable capital contribution to form an appropriate proportion of required capital cost to create additional capacity in the area.
- an options appraisal recently took place to review GP provision in Royston

Object

Representation ID: 5717

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Highways England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Comments on delivery: Further assessment of junctions on A1(M) required, no decision on CIL, means of assembling contributions required, should not be assumed that Highways England will fund additional non-committed works

Object

Representation ID: 5932

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Hitchin Town Action Group (HTAG)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object 14:
-Progress in working with nearby authorities to identify one or more sites for a major new settlement beyond the Green Belt needs to be monitored regularly and progress reports to Council on at least an annual basis.

Whilst indicator and target for SP11 are reasonable, confined to those areas of the policy that are designed to protect the environment and mitigate impact of development. There is no indicator by which the effect of SP11 a. on renewable and low carbon energy can be measured.

-cannot agree that congestion is not a constraint (para. 14.9).

Support

Representation ID: 6056

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Comment on Ch.14: Important to emphasise need for proper masterplanning, NHDC should seek to co-ordinate with neighbours where sites are inter-related