BK3 Land between Cambridge Road and Royston Road

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 83

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 67

Received: 19/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Neville Davis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Disproportionate, local character, infrastructure

Full text:

The scale of the development is wholly inappropriate in the context of the scale of the village, it's infrastructure and it's communication links.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 155

Received: 20/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jane Greening

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to site BK3: Disproportionate, infrastructure, access

Full text:

Why should a relatively small village like Barkway be increased in population by so much when the facilities provided by this rural, historic village are so limited: one school, one pub?

From the maps you provide, the allocation of housing is totally out of proportion to other hamlets and villages in the area. Why is this?

What steps are you proposing in increase safety on all roads approaching Barkway from the west?

I look forward to hearing your response.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 326

Received: 09/11/2016

Respondent: Mr David Tomkins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
lack of public transport;
increased traffic on country roads;
lack of local amenities;
education provision;
impact on local character;
no plan to create employment or support economic growth; and
no acknowledgement of the neighbourhood plan, contravening para 17 of the NPPF.

Full text:

I would like to object to the proposed development plans for Barkway, in particular to the proposed development of the BK3 site. There are a number of reasons for my objections and I believe that the proposals also contradict the National Planning Policy Framework as follows.
Transport
The plan is for 140 new homes on BK3, there is no meaningful public transport in the village therefore travelling to work or to make any journey will mean travelling by car. I viewed the plans when they were presented in the Pavilion at Barkway a couple of months back and this was estimated as, and I cannot remember the exact figure, something like 60 journeys during the rush hour. I believe this is a very low estimate - at least one member of each household will travel to work which means this figure will be at least double. I suspect that it will be even higher with more than two cars within each household and journeys to the shops, the school run and for recreational purposes. The roads in and around Barkway were not built for and are hardly able to cope with the existing weight of traffic. This is a complete contradiction of NPPF30, 34, 35 and 95.
Local amenities
Barkway has a primary school which currently has 28 pupils, with an additional 140 homes priced to attract young families, the school will not be able to cope without significant expansion which I do not believe is part of the plan. There is also no middle or secondary school within the village requiring children over primary school age to travel outside of the village to Royston or Buntingford for their education.
The other amenities in Barkway are a pub, at the other end of the village the best part of a mile away (more car journeys!), a hairdressers, petrol station and garage - clearly not all needs are catered for. There is no bank or even a post office.
These I believe are contraventions of NPPF 38, 55 and 72.
Impact on the local character
BK3 is situated on a road known as 'The Joint' which forms part of the Chiltern Ridge. NHDC have in the past stated that this should be protected.
Economic growth
There is no plan to create employment or to support economic growth in the area contravening NPPF 28.
Core planning principles
The local parish council spent a long time consulting the village inhabitants and developing a neighbourhood plan which appears to have been completely ignored contravening NPPF 17.
I would be very grateful if you could take these views into consideration before approving any future development on BK3.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 370

Received: 13/11/2016

Respondent: Dr C L Corton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3 on the grounds of:
- infrastructure
- traffic
- character of the village
- breach of national and local policies
- number of new houses is disproportionate to the size of Barkway
- lack of local amenities will mean car use
- separation and access of new housing to village - community integration

Full text:

I feel strongly that the above development should not take place as it will put too much pressure on the existing infrastructure of the village, especially increasing traffic within the village. It will change the character of the village enormously. Moreover, the NHDC is breaching national and local policies with this development.

This many new houses clustered at the north of the village is disproportionate to the size of Barkway, which numbered 329 houses in 2011, and will pose serious traffic dangers. Due to a lack of local amenities each adult will need a car. The estate will also be separated from the rest of the village without clear access to it, which could lead to low integration of the residents within the rest of the community.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 496

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Gordon David Baker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to KB3:
- To summarise, the plan is flawed because so many NPPF policies are contravened and most particular, BK3 for Barkway is a proposal that does not have any positive attributes towards the enhancement and sustainability of the village of Barkway
- As aforementioned, it meets very few criteria of the governments requirements for the addition of new homes and would have a detrimental effect on the area and would destroy a village which has value and beauty in a rural area
- The addition of over 200 houses (over 60% increase) is totally disproportionate and unsuitable

Full text:

I object to paragraph 13.37 and in particular to the land ref BK3 in Barkway. I am not convinced that a target of over 14,500 new houses for NHDC is warranted. When so many houses are being repossessed, such a target is unrealistic and its apportionment over the towns and villages in North Herts is disproportionate. Barkway is a linear village comprising currently 329 houses. The proposals under BK3 are totally disproportionate to the size of Barkway. Barkway, in the plan, has been categorised as an "A" village along with the likes of Ashwell and Barley. This is wholly wrong and if the only criterion that Barkway meets is to have a school, this is an incorrect categorisation. Barkway has few amenities unlike Ashwell and Barley. There is no shop, no doctor, no dentist and few businesses. And poor public transport with badly maintained roads.
BK3 was in 2012 deemed to be inappropriate for valid reasons. Those reasons still apply, so why later on has BK3 been allocated and adopted. There has been no change to the original reasons for not allocating BK3, so one can only presume that an accommodating landowner has come forward with a proposal in respect of BK3 which helps NHDC meet the government's target for new houses. The plan is flawed as it contravenes so many of the governments policies. The National Planning Policy Framework states "the presumption in favour of sustainable development. BK3 in its entirety when combined with the other proposed developments for Barkway clearly breaches this policy. BK3 contravenes so many NPPF requirements there are almost too many to mention but to list the main ones:
The infrastructure and amenities of Barkway are insufficient to accommodate a 62% increase in housing and BK3 would not be sustainable; BK3 does not conserve or enhance the local environment nor does it improve the landscape, in fact it would destroy the current landscape; site BK3 is grade II agricultural land and has been put forward ahead of lower graded land; BK3 would vastly increase and affect pollution in the area; the need for most new homes to have at least 2 cars will greatly affect traffic in the area due to poor public transport and will increase the risk of accidents; there is no evidence that BK3 will provide new business for the area and in fact will increase the need for people to travel far and wide to find work, thus putting more pressure on the already poorly maintained roads, and moreover will have a negative effect on the prosperity of the area; noise in the area will increase and will have an adverse effect on the adjoining stud farm where valuable foals and horses graze - the effect on this business and current employment could be severe; an estate of the proposed size of BK3, bolted on to the edge of Barkway will not encourage integration, no amenities will be in walking distance and therefore occupants will have to drive everywhere causing greater pollution, hazard and isolation; in fact BK3 contravenes not only many of the governments policies but also many of those decreed by NHDC. Therefore it should be removed from the plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 552

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Elena Sapsford

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
change to the linear character of the village;
expansion of the village outside the existing boundaries;
damage to social cohesion in the village;
traffic impact of additional cars;
lack of employment opportunities; and
infilling has not blighted the village.

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 563

Received: 13/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs V Bradford

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Unsustainable increase in size of village, impact upon village shop in Barley, middle schools in Royston and Buntingford oversubscribed, limited bus service, reliance on car, traffic, unsustainable.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 586

Received: 31/10/2016

Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: No evidence for change of status since preferred options consultation, previous permission refused, unsustainable location, lack of facilities, lack of commensurate employment opportunities, highway safety, loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, impact on adjoining wildlife sites, impact on existing employers, landscape and visual impact, does not conform with emerging Neighbourhood Plan, impact upon village character, heritage impact, traffic impact, not practical to incorporate PROW as a green corridor, no pedestrian access to the village and access to facilities will require use of vehicular transport.

Full text:

See attachments

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 596

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Alison Williams

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Support parish council response, traffic, highway safety, loss of historic linear character, landowner not selling for good of village but financial gain only

Full text:

As a resident of this village that lives along the high street I am concerned about the increase in traffic that building this many new houses will bring. Many households have at least 2 cars and currently some of the older properties are being structurally affected by the current through traffic. Many haulage companies which includes Anstey quarry use the village as a short cut or are mistakenly guided by Sat Navs which causes the older houses to be shaken. The width of the high street does not allow for cars to pass and residents cars regularly have wing mirrors knocked and broken. Speeding is an ongoing problem and there are no detergents in place. The infrastructure and facilities that the village offers cannot sustain this large amount of new homes and the historic linear character will be changed forever.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 598

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Warren

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Site previously excluded, lack of amenities, disproportionate, unsustainable, infrastructure, impact on historic linear character, traffic, highway safety, separated from rest of village, lack of public transport, lack of employment, education, impact on Chiltern Ridge, rejection of emerging Neighbourhood Plan, impact on Newsells Stud Farm, no prior consultation.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 614

Received: 16/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Unsustainable, limited public transport, reliance on private transport, limited amenities, impact on Chiltern Ridge, impact on historic linear character, rejection of Barkway & Nuthampstead emerging Neighbourhood Plan, no new employment, no prior consultation

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 622

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Robert Chisnall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3 (part): Object to 100 homes west of bridleway, disproportionate addition, lack of employment, high amount of car journeys, lack of amenities, does not continue linear pattern of village, loss of agricultural land

Full text:

I do not object to the building of the complete site just the 100 house left of the bridle way. The right hand side of 40 houses I think could be acceptable if it had the shop built to create some jobs.

I object to the to the left hand side for the following reasons:
This many houses would mean that the village will grow in size by 62% since 2011 which I believe is a massive over development of the village.
Apart from the creation of a shop (max 10 jobs) there would be no other employment in the area meaning that a high amount of car journeys would be created as the bus service is highly inadequate this is in contravention to NPPF30, NPPF34, NPPF35, NOOF 38.
The village has very few amenities and could not support this type of growth.
The complete site of BK3 does not continue with the linear line of the village whereas just the right hand side would.
Currently the left hand side is grade 3 agricultural land which the country needs to grow food whereas the right hand side is waste land.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 666

Received: 17/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Jim Dalton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Barkway has taken fair share, Neighbourhood Plan progress frustrated by NHDC, disproportionate, previous consultation responses not taken into account, support parish council analysis, no sustainable transport improvements, reliance on private transport, limited local amenities, education provision, impact upon Chiltern Ridge, impact upon Newsells Stud Farm, lack of prior consultation

Full text:

This is my letter to confirm my reasons for objecting to the proposal to build extra houses in Barkway on land identified as BK3 .
This is not a cut and paste job from any letter created by others but I imagine you will receive such documents but they are equally valid as objections
My understanding is that NHDC have been given a mandatory target to build a certain number of dwellings between 2011 and 2031 and my calculation is that this amounts to just less than 30% of the housing stock as at 2011. As Barkway has only a small number of houses, my calculations are that, to equal the average that NHDC need to build each year, this average amounts to 5 houses per year.
Houses already built/approved plus BK1 and BK2 have fulfilled our fair share until 2024. There are also several small sites currently under discussion. This shows that Barkway is, as it always has, contributing its fair share. It can absorb and get benefit from gradual sustained increase in its population and the draft Neighbourhood Plan which was created two years ago confirms that the residents back the continued expansion at this level.
It is unfortunate to say the least that the NP has not been able to be progressed because the NHDC Local Plan is not yet approved. BPC have been told that they cannot take their NP any further until NHDC agree that it can go forward and that has not yet happened.
There are therefore ways in which NHDC are abusing their power and ignoring their electorate. The absolute reverse of National Government's push for localism.
1. The size of development is grossly disproportionate
2. The residents have already by survey supported a plan which does support expansion at or even above the average needed across NHDC but objects to excessive expansion
3. The properly organised survey and NP have been frustrated by NHDC which at this moment removes any statutory obligation on NHDC to fulfil the wishes of the residents
4. The actions of NHDC are that they take the soft options.
I appreciate that just words like the above are simply that; words.
HOWEVER, It is necessary to fight this proposal based on an item by item analysis showing how the current proposal flies in the face of NPPF criteria. On this I take my lead from BPC and wholeheartedly support their analysis. The problem is always to reduce emotion and argue on whether proposals meet National Guidelines and not local prejudices.

I therefore also list below the legal arguments.
Sustainable transport
A local plan should have sustainable transport plans which include measures to reduce the use of private cars by replacing them with public transport or low carbon alternatives. There are no plans to improve local public transport links, this will increase the use of private cars to access local amenities in Barley, Buntingford and Royston. It will not discourage use of private transport to access schools and will affect public bridleways and footpaths, and does not recognise the needs for access to existing amenities by those of impaired movement. As no jobs are being created, persons will be required to rely on private transport to commute to work outside the village.
Contravention: NPPF30 NPPF34, NPPF35, NOOF 38 and NPPF95 as well as NDHC Policy SP 6 - sustainable transport. And their sustainability objective 2c as well as NHDC policy 29.

Local Amenities
Barkway has limited amenities, comprising a pub, a school, hairdressers, petrol station and car service stations. The current local school is able to accommodate 50, 5 to 9 year olds. Currently it has 28 pupils. The additional houses on BK 1&2 plus other infill homes will help keep the school viable.
Under NPPF policies Local plans should take into account local Amenities and access to them. The BK3 proposal does not promote sustainable communities that enhance or maintain our rural community, and does not ensure a sufficient supply of school places above primary level.
Contraventions NPPF 38, 55 and 72.

Impacts on character and appearance of surrounding areas and conserving and enhancing the natural environment
The road, known as the 'joint', leading into Barkway and ridgeline running along the top of the Field known as BK3 are part of the East Anglian Heights, known locally as the Chiltern Ridge. NHDC have stated the need to protect this, and have constantly strived to protect the historic linear character of the village. BK3 will detract from this in a massive way
This contravenes their own statements and NPPF 11 and NPPF 11.

Core Planning Principles
NHDC have thus far rejected the Barkway and Nuthampstead emerging Neighbourhood plan.
A contravention to NPPF para 17.

Economic Growth
BK3 will not create employment, or support economic growth. It may even have a negative impact on Newsells Stud Farm which currently employs some 30 people.
Contravention to NPPF para 28.

NHDC Policy 7 Selected Villages beyond the Green Belt
NHDC will normally permit development proposals if the site lies within the main area of the village; and the proposal would maintain or enhance the character or visual quality of the village.
NHDC are seeking to extend the permitted development boundary of the village to include BK3 without prior consultation

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 734

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Neill Swan

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Disproportionate, unsustainable

Full text:

Development is out of proportion with the size of the village and its facilities. It is unsustainable.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 737

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan M Collins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
plan is contrary to paragraphs 29, 30, 32 and 42 of the NPPF;
effect on road infrastructure;
increase in traffic; and
need to improve technological infrastructure.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 739

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Kate Collins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
plan is contrary to paragraphs 29, 30, 32 and 42 of the NPPF;
effect on road infrastructure;
increase in traffic; and
need to improve technological infrastructure.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 752

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr George Collins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
little public transport;
additional traffic;
no proper community facilities;
no involvement with the local community;
brownfield land should be used first before green belt; and
few employment opportunities in the area.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 775

Received: 22/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Ines McIntyre

Agent: Kaz Ryzner Associates

Representation Summary:

Support - the site continues to be readily available for residential development.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 870

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs M T Napper

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
size of development is disproportionate to the size of the village;
poor public transport links;
development will detract from character and appearance of the village;
no creation of employment opportunities;
development would be beyond the permitted development boundary; and
no local consultation.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 903

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Anne Smalley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
development contrary to NPPF policies;
increased use of private transport;
limited local amenities;
impact on character and appearance of the local area;
does not protect the historic linear character of the village;
no creation of new employment or support for economic growth;
development is outside the permitted development boundary; and
no prior consultation.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 906

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Susan Blount

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
the village with few amenities cannot absorb substantial development; and
planners should devise a plan for small amounts of development in all villages.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 909

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr & Mrs R Humphreys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
no consideration of neighbourhood plan;
site is outside the settlement boundary;
site classified as least likely to be acceptable;
proposals are disproportionate to the size of the village;
no employment or industry opportunities in Barkway;
increased traffic movements;
limited local amenities;
impact of infrastructure, e.g gas, electricity, water, refuse collections;
impact in the landscape; and
impact on the conservation area.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Steve Alsop

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3:
- Green Belt
- Country Side
- Scale of developments and impact of village character
- Sustainable development

Full text:

I believe that the Local Plan is not 'sound' in respect to the above named land allocation.

The reasons for this objection are as follows:
( Section references are as indicated within the NHDC draft plan document )

1. At the 2011 census Barkway recorded 329 dwellings. Since 2011, 31 houses have been built or been granted planning permission. Though there is an acceptance that BK1 (11 houses) and BK2 ( 20 houses ) can be viewed as reasonable additions to the village structure this cannot be true with the proposed housing number of 140 within BK3. The proposed scale of BK3 is completely disproportionate to the existing character and size of the village and will detract from its historic linear pattern.
BK3 was not allocated in the NHDC Local Plan Preferred Options in 2014 and there appears to be no material changes which would warrant its inclusion in the 2016 final plan.

2. Section 2.83.
'Any new development will need to be located in places which have good access to jobs, shops, services and public transport.'
Barkway has very few opportunities for local employment. There are no services within the village apart from a a primary school, hairdressers, public house and a garage. Local public transport is minimal.
This view is acknowledged within section 13.35 which states that ' facilities are limited and so residents would likely travel to either Royston or Buntingford.'

3. Section 3.7 ( Econ 7)
' Improve access opportunities to minimize the need to travel, and encourage journeys to be made by sustainable means of transport and to reduce carbon emissions .'
It is highly likely that a substantial numbers of the occupants within this proposed development will travel outside the village to attend middle and upper schools, to commute to work or access amenities. Most of these travel movements will be by private car, thus increasing traffic volume on the minor roads which serve the village plus the resultant impact on carbon emissions.

4. Section 3.7 (Econ 8)
' Ensure all development is supported by the necessary provision of, or improvements to infrastructure, services and facilities in an effective and timely manner.'
There is no evidence provided in the Plan that there will be an enhancement to public transport or improvements proposed to the minor roads which provide the links from Barkway to facilities at Royston , Buntingford or Cambridge.

5. Section 4.5.9
This section states the need for a policy of restraint within areas which have the highest quality of countryside in the district. BK3 would lie within this category and therefore, does not represent a policy of restraint. It would detract from the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and remove valuable agricultural land from the food supply chain.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1331

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Janis Baker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

- Contravenes with the NPPF
- does not have any positive attributes towards the enhancement and sustainability of the village
- Loss of village character and beauty in a rural area
- Scale of development
- Landscape Character
- Traffic
- Public transport
- Local employment

Full text:

I object to paragraph 13.37 and in particular to the land ref BK3 in Barkway. Barkway is a linear village comprising currently 329 houses. The proposals under BK3 are totally disproportionate to the size of Barkway. Barkway, in the plan, has been categorised as an "A" village along with the likes of Ashwell and Barley. This is wholly wrong and if the only criterion that Barkway meets is to have a school, this is an incorrect categorisation. Barkway has few amenities unlike Ashwell and Barley. There is no shop, no doctor, no dentist and few businesses. And poor public transport with badly maintained roads.
BK3 was in 2012 deemed to be inappropriate for valid reasons. Those reasons still apply, so why later on has BK3 been allocated and adopted. There has been no change to the original reasons for not allocating BK3, so one can only presume that an accommodating landowner has come forward with a proposal in respect of BK3 which helps NHDC meet the government's target for new houses. The plan is flawed as it contravenes so many of the governments policies. The National Planning Policy Framework states "the presumption in favour of sustainable development. BK3 in its entirety when combined with the other proposed developments for Barkway clearly breaches this policy. BK3 contravenes so many NPPF requirements there are almost too many to mention but to list the main ones:
The infrastructure and amenities of Barkway are insufficient to accommodate a 62% increase in housing and BK3 would not be sustainable; BK3 does not conserve or enhance the local environment nor does it improve the landscape, in fact it would destroy the current landscape; site BK3 is grade II agricultural land and has been put forward ahead of lower graded land; BK3 would vastly increase and affect pollution in the area; the need for most new homes to have at least 2 cars will greatly affect traffic in the area due to poor public transport and will increase the risk of accidents; there is no evidence that BK3 will provide new business for the
area and in fact will increase the need for people to travel far and wide to find work, thus putting more pressure on the already poorly maintained roads, and moreover will have a negative effect on the prosperity of the area; noise in the area will increase and will have an adverse effect on the adjoining stud farm where valuable foals and horses graze - the effect on this business and current employment could be severe; an estate of the proposed size of BK3, bolted on to the edge of Barkway will not encourage integration, no amenities will be in walking distance and therefore
occupants will have to drive everywhere causing greater pollution, hazard and isolation; in fact BK3 contravenes not only many of the governments policies but also many of those decreed by NHDC. Therefore it should be removed from the plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1359

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Keith Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Unsustainable, lack of sustainable transport options, limited amenities, impact on character and landscape, no commensurate employment, lack of prior consultation

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1404

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Dr Giuseppe Frapporti

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to Bk3: unsustainable, disproportionate increase to village population, puts too much pressure on infrastructure and transport/traffic and destroys the historic linear shaped character of the village.

Full text:

I object to the local plan regarding BK3. The proposed number of new houses of 173 is disproportionate and unsustainable for Barkway. Other villages with similar sizes are proposed to have none or very few houses. The 173 houses for BK3 will increase the village and its population by over 50%. Since Barkway has few amenities this will lead to unsustainable transport by 50%, as no provisions are made to increase economic growth/employment (contravenes NPPF para 28), schools (contravenes NPPF 38, 55 and 73; [...]), and infrastructure (contravenesNPPF and NDHC policy on many paragraphs, see below). I know from my own experience, with a family of young children, we need to rely on two cars to provide commute, trips to shops and Royston market, and school runs on multiple journeys a day during week and weekend. Local roads are already very busy and bottlenecks such as road into Royston and Flint Cross junction become even more congested . This contravenes NPPF30, 34, 35, 95 and NOOF38, as well as North Herts policies SP6 and 9 on sustainable transport.
The BK3 development will further threaten the environment and character our linear shaped village.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1617

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Macpherson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Impact on local character, too large, infrastructure, limited employment, traffic contravenes NPPF.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1708

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Karin Frapporti

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3:
Concerns that have been raised,
-the impact of traffic increases on the wider area around Barkway
-the impact of traffic increases on the Rights of Way use in the area around Barkway, in particular by horse riders
-the impact of the proposed site on the character of the Conservation Area of Barkway

Full text:

The effects of this potential development I would like to highlight are
-the traffic impact on the area
-the impact on Rights of Way use in the area
-the impact on the character of the Conservation Area of Barkway

Barkway is a commuters village and of necessity it has a high ratio of car ownership (1 per adult). The proposed development for site BK3 is 173 homes. This would represent a large increase in traffic movements for a village which at present has approximately 370 dwellings. Trips would include school runs for children above year 4, shopping, doctor and dentist visits, and commuting to work places in Royston, Buntingford, Cambridge, London or other nearby towns. Therefore, the traffic impact would not just be noticed in Barkway itself, but would likely result in more congestion on the southern entrances to Royston along the A10, and along the B1039. It would also affect Barley and the A505 in Cambridgeshire at Flint Cross, which is already a busy junction at peak times. A map with the key congestion points coloured in red is attached (BK3_traffic_impact.jpg).

The local area has several equestrian businesses (Newsells Stud Farm, Barkway Equestrian Centre, Barkway Stud, Barley Lovely View Stables, Burloes Farm) as well as several premises with horses kept for recreational purposes. Therefore it is not unlikely to encounter horses on the road. The local roads in the area, also those of a lesser status than B-roads, already are very busy with cars, lorries, delivery vans and considerable movement of quarry lorries from Anstey. Use of the bridleways on the Rights of Way network, will incorporate some movement of horses on the roads. The minimum road usage of horses in the area necessary to connect to existing bridleways has been displayed in red lines on the attached map (BK3_ROW_impact). As can be seen, there is a large impact of increased traffic on the riding of horses in the surrounding countryside. Furthermore the development itself directly affects Barkway Bridleway 17 and 18, which are an important gateway to off-road riding possibilities on the Newsells Estate and an off-road connection to Barley.

Lastly, the proposed development, BK3, would have a negative impact on the character of the Conservation Area of Barkway village. The historic village itself being of a linear nature, and the new development of a more insular design. This could cause problems of integration between the old and new parts. Traffic increases would affect the old linear part of the village worse, and result in a decrease in the quality of living for that part of the village.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1875

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Dr Neil Johnston

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to BK3: Employment, emerging Neighborhood Plans, parking facilities, highway facilities, sustainable transport, landscape/village character, density assumptions.

Full text:

I wish to make the following comments to this plan.
1. Extension of village boundary. I believe NHDC will generally permit development if it lies within the existing village boundary but plot BK3 lies outside the current boundary and I do not recall any consultation on this extension.
2. I have seen no evidence that allowing housing development on plot BK3 will provide or stimulate economic growth beyond the temporary construction jobs thereby contravening NPPF paragraph 28. The provision of a village shop may create employment but it is unlikely that Barley and Barkway can sustain two shops so one would likely close so no net gain.
3. There is an emerging neighbourhood plan for Barkway and Nuthampstead but I understand this has been rejected by NHDC in contravention of NPPF paragraph 17.
4. Sustainable transport is a key element of the National Planning Policy Framework but there is an assumption that each household in the new development will only have one car apiece. Given the poor bus service and the limited local amenities, I believe this is a significant under estimate. Families with children are likely to need two cars and the road infrastructure is not currently adequate let alone with the additional number of vehicles. I believe this contravenes several National policies: NPPF 30, 34, 35 and 95 as well as NHDC Policy SP6.
5. Scale. I recognise that North Herts along with every other Council has to increase housing and that, over the District this amounts to an increase of c. 15% on existing stock. The proposed increase in Barkway, taking account of BK 1, 2 and 3 is over 60%! How can this be justified? It is out of all proportion to the existing size of the village, the road infrastructure, village character and local amenities in contravention of NPPF 38, 55 and 72.
6. Density. Given the fact that Cambridge Road is a better road than Royston Road and there are fewer dwellings along this road, the plan would be more acceptable if the density of housing were higher to the East, ie closer to Cambridge Road.
I, therefore, wish to register my strong objection to the plan currently proposed.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1896

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mr John Maxted

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection to BK3: In general, transport, pedestrian facilities, landscape character.


Full text:

I wish to register my objection to the above plan.
Plan BK3 is disproportionate to the National Planning Policy Framework, and as such should be rejected by NHDC.
NHDC has indeed previously rejected this site for development!
Nothing has changed regarding it's suitability from when NHDC made that decision.
On the plan BK3 there is only one entrance and exit point onto an already busy Royston road. This is used by the village residents to get to Royston. It is also used by the surrounding villages as a RAT RUN to get to the A10 and Royston.
There certainly would be accidents at this blind junction but even more concerning is that there are no pavements on BK3 side of the road and children would be at risk of been knocked down and heaven forbid killed.
The Barkway amenities could not support this increase in population that this number of houses would cause.
This contravenes many NPPF policies and NHDC can not ignore these facts.

The local Barkway Plan submitted by the Parish Council is well planned well thought through and in keeping with the size and amenities of this rural village.
It looks to expand the village proportionally and in keeping with its rural aspects.