BK2 Land off Windmill Close

I am writing to register my objection to the above proposed housing developments on land on the outskirts of Barkway Village.

The proposed plan would increase the size of the village by 50%, which clearly would change the character of the village permanently, while affecting the natural environment known as the Chiltern Ridge. The NHDC have declared their intention to protect this feature in the past, and have also worked to save the linear character of the village. The proposed housing developments destroy the historic linear character of the village. This contravenes NPPF 11 and also contradicts their previous commitments.

The proposed plan will increase the footprint of the village hugely beyond its existing boundaries: NHDC does not normally consider development proposals which result in this effect.

The developments will prove impossible to integrate into the village, and there is a strong danger that a two tier village will develop, with resulting damage to social cohesion.

Each household will require at least one car, which means more than 173 more cars. The village is already blighted by lorries using it as a shortcut, as well as the lorries from Anstey quarry: noise and pollution from traffic will only increase at a time when sustainability is a key objective of government planning. Also, those without means to own a car will be isolated due to the near absence of public transport. There are no jobs available in the village for house buyers, so they will need to become commuters to another town/village. It is clearly more sustainable to build houses close to places of employment. I submit that this contravenes NPPF30,34,35, 95, NOOF 38 and NHDC Policy SP6.

Infilling has, on observation, constantly been a feature of life in Barkway, and this has not significantly blighted the village (though the result is that it becomes ever more compact) As I write, 2 more applications have recently been granted for building and conversion respectively. The village is confronting the matter of housing need in a continual process of evolution, and in so doing meeting growth in a sustainable way.

I would like to object to the above planned developments, they are poorly conceived and will detract from the village and the quality of life of both existing residents of this country village and of the potential residents of this housing complex. The site is distinctly separate from the current historical largely linear housing along the high street. This means a large number of vehicles will be leaving and entering this estate, and this development will be bolted on to the existing village in a completely unsympathetic manner. Alongside the excess numbers of vehicles this will generate, especially at commuting time- there are no jobs within the village and so this traffic will overwhelm a woefully inadequate road system. Additionally, there are no appropriate facilitates within the village to properly support these new residents, resulting in even more traffic. Whilst new housing is obviously required simply building disproportionate housing estates alongside small villages is clearly not the answer. We need all our communities in North Hertfordshire to build houses in a community sustainable manner. These developments particularly BK3 would blight the natural beauty of this country village.

I wish to raise the following points with regard to the NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031. Whilst the plan has been positively prepared, is justified, and will be effective.
The inclusion of the three sites in Barkway BK1, BK2 and BK3 creating an additional 173 dwellings, is not sustainable, This would increase the size of the village by over 50% with no improvement to infrastructure or amenities' guaranteed.
Whilst I agree there may be a need for some development within the village this should be of a small scale such as proposed by BK1 and BK2 which is sustainable and meets the needs of the local area and rural need.
Barkway is a small village of some 330 houses, there is no food shop or Doctors and all schooling above year 4 (age 9) requires either a bus or car journey to Royston or Buntingford. There are no safe footpaths or cycle ways connecting the village to other nearby villages or towns.
The nearest convenience store and doctors is located in the next village of Barley approx. 2.5 miles away. But for dentists and a larger weekly shop there is a requirement to travel to the larger towns in the surrounding area.
There is a proposal of a Village shop on the BK3 site but there is no evidence that whilst it is mentioned in the local plan that it will be built and run as a successful business. Barley stores already operates the Post office counters service which means any proposed store would not be able to offer this service so again a need would be created to travel to the surrounding area to get such services.
BK3 a development of 140 houses appears to be an isolated development detached from the rest of the village, bolted on the northern end of the village, this design will not encourage integration. The west side of the site (Royston Road) has no footpaths or street lights and the east side (Cambridge road) has just one street light and is on a narrow path.
This is in contradiction of the proposed local plan sections 3.77 Strategic objectives Econ 6 which states sustain the vitality of our villages and the rural economy in supporting rural diversification whilst ensuring development is of an appropriate scale and character.
BK3 is an unsustainable site and also contravenes NPPF Para 11 & 109 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment and NPPF Para 112 Agricultural land use.
Two thirds BK3 is grade 2 agricultural land is still currently farmed the other third has lain fallow for a number of years due the land owner no longer living in the village. The site is also the end of the Chiltern ridge and forms part of the East Anglian Heights. It is also a place where pipistrelle bats are found and is a corridor for wildlife travelling from the Cokenach estate across Royston Road and then on to Reed. V NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan Para 3.3 Spatial strategy. Which states:
3.3 Our spatial strategy is one of promoting sustainable development by supporting the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings and by focusing the majority of development on our towns (including urban extensions) in order to make maximum use of existing facilities, social networks and infrastructure, and maximise opportunities to deliver new infrastructure. It also allows for some growth of our villages in order to allow those communities to continue to thrive.
And Proposed Submission Local Plan para 11.62 which states [plans should] emphasise the importance of natural networks of linked habitat corridors to allow the movement of species between suitable habitats and promote biodiversity.
Reference to NHDC landscape Character Assessment for Area 230 Barkway)

*This states the importance of Barkway for pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats, known to be present in the BK3 area, as supported by AGB Environmental, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, for land within BK3. (page 15 )
*It states that, for large urban extensions and new settlements of greater than 5 ha, this type of development would be inappropriate within this character area, due to its rural and small scale nature. It would introduce elements that would alter the character and affect the existing key characteristics such as the historic ribbon development form and the small scale regular patter of field boundaries. Extensive development could disrupt the rights of way (bridleways 017 and 018) and could reduce accessibility to the countryside.
*In addition, it states that major transport improvements would not be appropriate in this area.

NPPF Para 17 Core Planning principles
Amongst the 12 principles of this policy, there is a clear indication that planning should be plan-led and empower local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the area.

Developing this land would also be in contradiction of NPPF paragraph 17 which states [planning shall] "take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it"
"Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework".

The development of BK3 would detract of the intrinsic character and beauty of the country side and remove valuable Grade 2 Agricultural land permanently.

Additionally, Para 17 states planning should "support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate" and "actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable"
The inclusion of BK3 with the combined totals of the other proposed sites will increase the carbon footprint of our community due to the requirement for the use of the private car, there is a lack of employment with in walking or safe cycling distance of the village and without any provision with in the proposed local plan to improve our infrastructure, public or road network.
The inclusion of BK3 does not appear to create any significant employment beyond the building phase this is a clear contravention of NPPF Para 28 Creation of employment and prosperity
Plans should "support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses".

Barkway is an ancient linear village on the B1368 (traveling north to south) most travel however will be taken using the C class roads traveling to the A10 or down to Royston. These roads are narrow and winding and with steep gradients and blind summits.
Whilst there is a bus service to Royston and to Hertford it is infrequent and does not reach Royston in time to make it a viable connection to Royston train station in time for links to London or Cambridge.
The development of BK3 further contravenes NPPF policies on sustainable transport as listed below as mentioned before Barkway has frequent bus service and is most residents rely on private cars to provide transport and with little employment nearby residents travel to Cambridge, London or other areas of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
NPPF Para 30 Promoting Sustainable transport

This paragraph emphasis that planning should:

"Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Proposed Submission Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.
Plans and decisions should take account of whether:
the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;
Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe."
NPPF Para 34 states:
"Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised".
NPPF Para 35 states:
Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to
accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;
give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;
create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;
incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and
consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport

This is also supported by Proposed Submission Local Plan 3.7 Strategic Objectives, ECON7 Improve access opportunities, minimise the need to travel, and encourage journeys to be made by sustainable means of transport to ease congestion, reduce carbon emissions and the impacts on air quality management areas.

For all the reasons listed above I believe that BK3 should be removed from the local plan.

I wish to object to the current Local Plan for Barkway housing developments BK3 BK2 & BK1. My main objections are firstly that to increase the number of dwellings from circa 350 to 520, an increase of circa 50%.

The current school could not easily take the increase in students, resulting in a requirement for the use of a car/bus.
Barkway in a small historic village with little transport links nor amenities.

In recent times the increase of transport from the quarry in Anstey has put a strain on all roads through Barkway. Since which there have been several issues with roads, being damage to culvert and sizeable car killing pot holes. More traffic from the housing would push the road quality to the limit.

I could go on quoting my personal objections but will end for now with these plans appear to be breaching several NHDC national & local policies as highlighted in detailed by our Parish Council.

We write to express our concern about the proposed development in Barkway, BK3 on the plan.

Plots BK1 & 2 have already had approval in principal for 33 houses. We understand the need for more housing and do not object to this development, as the proportional increase in housing stock would be within sustainable limits.

However, the additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3, when added together with those on BK1 & 2, constitute an increase of over 60% of the existing housing stock of Barkway. To effectively increase the size of Barkway by over half will place a huge strain on the existing infrastructure and is therefore unsustainable.

The closest town to Barkway is Royston, some 6 miles away, and to travel there obviously means a journey by car or public transport. The 140 dwellings on BK3 could see an increase of at least 200 vehicles, maybe more, with these probably being used to and from work every day, meaning at least an extra 400 vehicle movements per day on the already over crowded roads in and around Barkway. Coupled with this is the very limited bus service to and from this village.

It is the case that NHDC has never included BK3 in the development plans as the minimum criteria was not met and there are insufficient amenities existing in Barkway to support such overdevelopment.

We would urge NHDC to seriously reconsider this proposal and withdraw it from the development programme forthwith.

See attachment