BK3 Land between Cambridge Road and Royston Road

I am writing to object to the inclusion of BK3 in the local plan. The evidence base for the local plan includes a landscape study for Barkway (source
http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/sites/northherts-cms/files/files/230_2011.pdf ) which contains many of the reasons why BK3 is not a sutiable development for Barkway.

In more detail these are

1. To quote the report: "The historic settlement pattern in the main settlement of Barkway is characterised by ribbon development along the B1368 and would be sensitive to inappropriate of unsympathetic development and any form of development not in scale with the village"

BK3 does not fit in with the ribbon development along the B1368 and will destroy the historic linear nature of the village. This appears to contravene NPPF 11

2. The report also states

"Large urban extensions and new settlements (>5ha).
This type of development would not be appropriate within this Character Area, due to its rural and small scale nature"

BK3 is a development that is >5ha so not appropriate and totally disproportinate to the existing size of Barkway. Even if BK3 was only to be partly developed to keep it under 5ha the report also states that smaller developments would not be appropriate due to the rural and undeveloped character.

3. Unsuitable roads and sustainable transport
The report states that increased housing will effect the existing minor roads but also states that the landscape capacity for improving these roads is low and would erode the character, peace and tranquility.

Given the lack of amenities and employment in the local area there is no viable alternative to car use for any new developments in Barkway. The increased reliance on private transport seems to contravine 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.

I suspect a large amount of taxpayers money has been used on the North Herts Landscape Study. This study rules out a development such as BK3 for the above reasons. If BK3 is not going to be removed from the plan then can I ask why taxpayers money was spent on a report if it is to be ignored and also ask how much of our money was spent on the report?

I am writing to you to object to the access point onto Royston Road, Barkway (BK3) to then enable up to 100 houses and a shop to be built.
Firstly, this would be more traffic coming in and out of the village. The condition of the roads into Barkway are already inadequate. The Reed joint road is barely a 2 lane road for 2 cars, let alone lorries and heavy goods vehicles. It is full of pot holes at the edges causing damage to wheels of cars pulling over to allow bigger vehicles to pass. This is also the same on the Newsells Road with lots of sharp and blind corners as well as hills with accidents recently occurring, these roads would be even more hazardous if 100 houses are built.
Living in Windmill Close in Barkway, in the past couple of years, I have witnessed a younger generation of people with families moving into the bungalows and houses previously occupying older people. These newer families all have cars, most have 2 per property causing a big issue in parking down the road. This isn't helped by people not even living down our road parking here, some due to the new houses being built in Chapel Close. If the road is built where will the workers park their vehicles? Once the road is built and 100 houses built where will the construction vehicles and workers park? Once completed will there be enough parking for the houses allowing at least 2 cars per household? There is no plans to improve public transport in the village (which has a minimal bus service) so private cars will be essential. This will produce a higher carbon footprint for this village. Also with only the possibly of a shop being built on site which will only create a minimum amount of jobs people will need their cars to travel to work, shops and schools. (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 NDHC policy 29).
BK3 is also outside the village boundary at present and building the houses would take away the character of Barkway by having a housing estate which will be separate from the rest of the village leading to low intergration of the residents within the rest of the community. It will also be a 62% growth in size of Barkway which is ridiculous when there will be a minimum amount of jobs created by the building of a shop, with no plans to improve public transport and other amenities.
I moved to Barkway for the village life for my family. I want fields around me as my views which can grow crops to provide food for us and not for it to be replaced by an estate of houses.

We are writing to object to the proposed development in Barkway known as BK3. While we agree with the need for additional housing we believe that the 33 new homes which have been agreed in principle is the right level for a community the size of Barkway which has few amenities.

The proposal for 140 new homes on BK3 contravenes both local and national planning policies. NHDC have previously excluded BK3 as it did not meet the minimum criteria or have sufficient amenities to promote sustainable development.

There is limited local public transport. People will need to access shops etc in neighbouring towns and villages by car. There is very little local employment and the proposed development will not create or support economic growth therefore cars will be required for daily commuting to work. These factors will greatly increase the volume of traffic through the village and on surrounding roads. (NPPF28, NPPF30, NPPF34, NPPF35, NOOF 38, NPPF55, NPPF72, NPPF95)

BK3 is part of East Anglian Heights which has previously been identified as an area that must be protected. BK3 will have a negative impact on this area. As the site of BK3 is outside of the existing permitted development boundary, this development extends the boundary without prior consultation. So far NHDC have rejected the Barkway and Nuthampstead Neighbourhood Plan in contravention of core planning principles. (NPPF17)

We hope that our objections outlined above will be taken into serious consideration.

I wish to object to my local village plan, particularly that part proposing extensive new house building in the village, for the following reasons:

Barkway is a historic rural village and has been designated a conservation area. It has a mix of buildings ranging from ancient hall and manor houses to a small number of sympathetically built modern stock. The character and appearance of the village is special and needs to be protected from drastic change. The building of 140 houses in an estate at one end of the village would significantly damage this.

Another special aspect of Barkway is that it is surrounded by unspoilt and undeveloped countryside (with the exception of the recently built solar farm nearby which I also feel was a mistake). Building a large number of houses on part of this will adversely effect my enjoyment of this countryside as I regularly, along with many other residents, walk the footpaths around the village.

All of the roads leading to Barkway have accidents on them regularly due in part to blind bends and heavy traffic. Adding a large number of houses will increase the number of car journeys, particularly as it is necessary to use a car to access most amenities such as shops, schools and doctors. Increased car journeys will result in an increased accident rate. The reliance on car transport also has an adverse effect on carbon emissions and global warming.

I would be grateful if you would consider these points and my opposition to the plan for a large number of new house builds.

I write to you with regards to the inclusion of site BK3 in your NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031. I would strongly request that site BK3 is removed from the NHDC Local Plan.
It would appear that the NHDC Plan is not sound or justified to have included BK3 as it contravenes many of its own planning policies and those of the National Planning Framework Policy (NPPF).
Site BK3 is an unsustainable development. It will be built on Grade II agricultural land. This land as well as being farmed to grow food, is also a known wildlife corridor for fallow deer and a roosting place for endangered pipistrelle bats. In previous drafts of the Local Plan this site has been excluded or rejected. Nothing has changed regarding site BK3 so the same reasons for it being classed as unsuitable must still be applicable.
The proposal of 140 additional homes on site BK3 is totally inappropriate and disproportionate for the small historic village of Barkway. It would be situated at the north western edge of the village and would become a satelite area and would not integrate easily with the rest of the village. Access to the site would be difficult for pedestrians as there is no street lighting or continuous footpaths. I cannot see any intention by NHDC to improve infrastructure to accommodate this.
As Barkway has very few amenities, no shop or doctors, very limited public transport and minimal employment opportunities, most adults require the use of a private vehicle. This could mean BK3 would create an additional 280 vehicles in the village. This surely is grossly unsustainable! There is also no mention that NHDC would ensure the upgrading of the C class narrow and hazardous road network to accommodate this additional traffic that would need to be used to access necessary day to day facilities away from the village.
Site BK3 is situated along the end of the Chiltern Ridge and is part of the East Anglian Heights. Light pollution from this new development will be seen many miles away from a northerly direction.
In summary, I believe that the inclusion in the NHDC Local Plan of site BK3 when combined with sites BK1 and BK2 within the village of Barkway, is not sustainable and is contrary to several paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF clearly states the "presumption in favour of sustainable development") and contradicts North Hertfordshire District Council's own policies. I would request that site BK3 is removed from the Plan.

My comments on the North Herts District Local Plan 2011-2031 are limited to concerns over future housing development. I understand the need to build more homes locally and nationally but I have reservations about the siting and type of development envisaged in this Plan.

Firstly, the bulk of housing development quite rightly should be close to existing larger conurbations where local amenities and infrastructure already exists and are capable of withstanding any proposed new developments. Unfortunately there are instances where the Local Plan does not appear to back this up. Largish proposed developments on the outskirts of small villages where amenities and infrastructure are inadequate to cope with these does not make practical sense. A very good example of this is Barkway BK3. Such developments on near small villages also have a disproportionate impact on the local community and on the environment. The increased use of vehicles to convey people to and from employment and shops in nearby towns will have a deleterious effect on pollution levels in rural areas. Should we not be finding ways and means to decrease our carbon footprint rather the opposite?

Secondly, regarding the size and type of housing proposed, I note with great concern an ever growing trend towards new housing being large dwellings with high market value. Whilst I appreciate that such developments maximise profits to land owners and building contractors, it may not be fullfilling a real local housing need. For instance, again in the smaller villages, there is a genuine need for truly affordable housing in order to retain at least some of the younger generation growing up in those villages now. Not providing such affordable homes will in time have a dramatic impact on the demographics in small villages and a deleterious effect on the working community spirit within them.

I trust that my comments will be noted and hopefully taken into account.

I understand the need for future home building and my comments below refer to my reservations on potential development in this area.

1. Royston does not have a significantly large number of businesses for employment, so that means many more people would have to commute some distance to work in other towns and cities
*Trains are already full to capacity so more passengers from new developments would frequently find the challenges of getting to and from work somewhat distressing.
*There are buses linking with other towns/cities, I do not know how full they are.
*Local amenities are already overloaded.

2. If there is a development in Barkway BK3 I believe this is impractical and environmentally unwise,

For example, 140 houses were to be placed in the village, two vehicles per household would most likely be travelling to Royston, if not further, each week day. This would be 1 litre of fuel per car for a Royston commute. I.e. an extra 280 litres of petrol contributing to carbon dioxide levels each day, (1400 litres per week). A very large extra carbon footprint! On reflection, would it therefore not be better for houses to be built in or closer to existing conurbations that already have regular (although possibly oversubscribed) local public transport?

I have been informed that today is the final day for which I can send in comments with regards to the proposed development by the Rand Brothers on the land adjacent to Royston road.

I am all for a sensible level of development in the village but the proposed development is totally excess and would drastically change the landscape of the village. The roads in/out of the village are already very busy and would struggle to accommodate the large increase in cars which would come with the development.

As a result, I strongly opposed the development in its current scheme and would like to see the planning office push back on the planning application on the above ground and request a more appropriate size of development in a future application.

Having reviewed the updated local plan I would strongly object to the inclusion of BK3 in the Barkway plan for the following reasons:
1, The surrounding roads are poor, and additional wider roads with additional traffic calmer would be required. Not just in Barkway but also from the other access points from Barley, Flint Cross, Reed, Buntingford.
2, not a sufficient public bus service to support an increased village population of whom some 40% are affordable housing and likely will need a public bus service.
3, no jobs in the village to support additional population.
4, Not safe to travel by other means - bike or foot to areas where there are jobs and greater transport links.
5, local amenities there are limited. The schooling in the village can only cater for a limited number of children that this development would likely exceed. The schooling only takes children to 9 , all the middle schools in the area are already over subscribed and it is not clear where the children will be going to school??
6, Such a large scale development will completely change the character of the village a smaller development would be much more appropriate. A larger development is more suited to a larger town like Royston that has the amenities/ transport to cope more adequately.
7, The character of the village, lots of period listed properties will be lost amongst such a large scale development.
8, previously there were 33 houses put forward and agreed for the local plan. There has been other backland developments that have increased this number. Growth in the village of this size and speed has been sustainable and not changed the character of the village.
9, Nothing to occupy young children in the village especially in the evenings.
10, create 2 seperate villages one new one old that do not operate as one and create a division leading to unrest.
11, The site sits outside the village envelope by a considerable way. The boundaries are there to protect historical villages such as Barkway retain their character and this is not doing this.

I would like to protest against the inclusion of site BK3 in the local plan for Barkway.
Our village is small and historic. We are not allowed street lights we have no shop. Public transport is a joke and the village school only goes up to year 4. There is no doctors surgery or any means of obtaining medicines.
We were considered so lacking in facilities the travellers decided we were a completely unsuitable site.
The proposal to build such a huge amount of new houses is madness. Especially as one of the points made at the presentation was a very high proportion of social housing.
Putting families of limited means in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to be successful for either them or our village.
The other major discrepancy is the number of car movements which has been estimated at 50 per day.
All the households in the village require cars, more than 2 per household ( we have 5 as our children still live at home ) so realistically it will start as 2 cars per household and will increase as cars are vitally necessary to do anything. That will be a minimum of 280plus car movements. More if school runs are considered.
The local school does not have capacity for a huge number of children who will have to attend other village schools nearby.
As a village we have worked hard on our local plan trying to preserve the historic nature of the village but recognising that there is a need for further housing. So far the recent small developments have been sympathetic and not altered the nature of our village.

This development will open the doors to Barkway becoming a new old Stevenage and will ruin everything that both our village and the council conservation officers have fought for over the years.

Large scale developments should take place where the infrastructure is available to accommodate them and the decision should not be based on the fact that landowners feel it is a good idea.
I might like the idea of a satellite dish but would need permission to do so. I can't even paint my house without being given permission and discussions about permitted colours.

I am also at a loss as to why our village plan was not ratified when we worked so hard in it.
We are just not set up to accommodate this level of development and am amazed that anyone has considered it a good idea because it is obvious to anyone that it isn't. The only benefits would be to the landowners and they should not be the only opinions considered.

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 would like to comment on the planning permission sort by the Rands (Farmers) for 100 dwellings 0n the BK3 Site Barkway. I have lived in Barkway for 19 years, and over those years the traffic in the village has become a big problem. If you know the village, and you should, if you are to make decisions on it, the High Street and Royston road are quite narrow with cars parked either side. We have six days of Ansty quarry lorries constantly running through the village also farm vehicles,bigger than ever moving through the village. It is also a Rat Run between the A10 and the 505 at Flint Cross. By adding these houses to Barkway there will be at least 300 more car journeys passing in and out.
I can not understand why there is a need for 100 dwellings, PLUS, in a village so small as Barkway. Perhaps that answers my question. The position of BK3 site will only extend the village. These New Houses will not be intergrated in to the Village. It will become a separate Settlement. As for 40% Social Housing included.IN a Village with no shop a Pub a the opposite end, and a Bus service if your lucky!
If you grant this application, your judgement should be closely questioned. The Rand Family have a lot of land that is Adjacent to the A10 that would be far more Favourable to house building than this plot in Barkway.
Barkway can take developments of 10 to 20 small development, but nothing of this size.

I write to object the site known as BK3 in NHDC's Local Plan.

I am concerned about the effect that this disproportionate area of housing would have on our historic village. NHDC has proposed the allocation of three sites at the north end of our village:

The addition of these 173 houses, in addition to those already built or for which planning has been granted since 2011 will create an increase of approx 60% in the village size.

Whilst I do agree with development within our community I do consider that they need to be proportionate to the existing village and not to change the scale or character. I personally have no objections to sites BK1 and BK2 within Barkway, BK2 proposal is situated adjacent our back garden, as I believe they are proportionate to the size of our village. BK3 however is unsustainable as a development.

Barkway is extremely limited for amenities and is dependent on the need to travel to access facilities in neighbouring towns and villages. With our extremely poor local bus service, I think it would be safe to assume that almost every journey would need to be made by car. On average Barkway residents have two cars per household, thereby adding for site BK3 alone, another 280 cars to our local roads, with multiple journeys each day.

Proposed inclusion of Area Bk3 in NHDC Local Plan for Barkway, Hertfordshire

I wish to register my objection to the proposed inclusion in the Local Plan for Barkway, of the area marked as Bk3.

The proposed development of Bk3 is not sustainable development as -

. Barkway has few amenities and no street lighting along the main High Street, Cambridge Road, Royston Road, etc.

. There is only a minimal bus service with poor connections to nearby towns.

. Development of Bk3 would mean a vast increase in the number of private cars using the narrow local roads.

The total proposed development included in Bk1, 2 and 3, of 173 houses represents a 62% increase in the size of the village and would therefore be entirely inappropriate.

I wish to register my opposition in the strongest terms to the paragraph in the above document dealing with the potential proposed massive increase in number of houses in Barkway village.
The following statements express my opposition in statement format.

NPPF Para 14 Presumption in favour of sustainable development.
* The benefit of new homes on site BK3 must demonstrably outweigh their adverse effect.
* BK3 is a proposed development that is on the edge of the current village development boundary.
* It is still separate from the main village
* it is an insular development which is likely not to encourage integration with the rest of the community.
* Barkway is a small village of approx. 330 dwellings
* No shop, doctors or schooling for children beyond year 4 (age 9).
* the nearest small convenience store, doctors
* Even further for Higher education, larger shops etc.
* There is a limited bus service
* No safe well-lit pathways or cycle ways connecting the village to other local villages or towns.
* The size of this disproportionate development will overwhelm the village, changing it negatively rather than enhancing it.
* There are no proposals to improve the infrastructure or local amenities.
* Whilst the Proposed Submitted Local Plan proposes the provision of a shop, there is no guarantee a developer would include this in any development
* NHDC cannot provide any evidence that the business would be sustainable.
* The addition of a further 173 houses at the north end of the village, in addition to those already built or for which planning has been granted since 2011, will create an increase of 62% in the village size, which is disproportionate and inappropriate.
This contradicts Proposed Submission Local Plan Section 3.7, Strategic Objectives, ECON6, 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.

I would like to register my opposition to the implementation of your planning proposal for the suggested development in Barkway of the area known as BK3.

The development is too large for the current size of the village, moreover such a large increase at one time and in one area will make it very hard to integrate with the rest of the village which will certainly create problems.

I believe this contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework in the following ways of ways.
* The development is too large for the infrastructure of the village and there appear to be no plans to improve public transport to the village. There is no shop or doctor's surgery in the village and very limited opportunities for employment therefore new residents will be using their car every day to travel to work. This will lead to a great increase in traffic. Many current households in the village have at least two cars and sometimes three so one can assume the new households will be the same.
This appears in contravention of NPPF30, NPPF34, NPPF 35 and NPPF38

2011 - 2031 BARKWAY Site BK3
I wish to register my objection to Local Plan Proposed Submission paragraph l3.37 in particular with respect to land Ref BK3 and I request that this site be removed from the Plan.
Site Bk3 is not sustainable and is contrary to several paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework and contradicts North Herts District Council's own policies.
In all other previous drafts of the Proposed Submission Local Plan, site Bk3 has been excluded or rejected on the same grounds as I summarize below:
. Barkway is a long-established village constructed on a linear plan, on the B1368.
. In 2011 it consisted of 329 dwellings. To date, another 31 homes have been built or given planning permission.
. The local architecture is varied and of period design.
. The village has no local shop and is poorly served by public transport. Therefore in order to access any facilities, each new home will add an average of two cars to the existing traffic flow.
. Three sites are proposed at the north end of the village, e.g. Bk1: 13 homes, Bk2: 20 homes, and Bk3: 140 homes.
. As can be seen, Bk1, 2 and 3, represent a disproportionate 62% increase in the size of the village. This will overwhelm the village and not enhance it.
. Currently the village has the benefit of few street lights. The proposed development located on the Chiltern Ridge at the highest point of the village will cause horrendous light pollution for many miles in all directions.
At the Government's request, Barkway has submitted to NHDC two draft Proposed Submission Local Plans which were based on residents' survey results. NHDC has rejected both plans, thereby not considering the expressed wish and will of the community.
I wait to see if NHDC listens to the will of the people this time.

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 Cokenhach 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 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.

* Barkway is a small, linear village of some 330 houses. It has had various in-fill houses built over the years and now has three sites proposed by NHDC: BK1 - 13 houses, BK2 - 20 houses and BK3, a further 140 houses.

* I contend that BK3 is wholly disproportionate in size to the rest of the village.
* It breaches a raft of National and Local Planning Policies, as will have been extensively reported upon by Barkway Parish Council.

* My core objection is that as Barkway has almost no amenities, each adult will require a car to access shops, secondary schools and doctors' surgeries etc. This make the site unsustainable, breaching carbon footprint guidelines. The local roads are narrow and already dangerous. Most cars will access a road called the Joint, which links the village to the A10. It is single-track with crumbling passing places and several cars fall off it each winter. It hosts the intermittent bus service and many large agricultural machines.

* The houses will bring no local employment into the village and may adversely affect Newsells Thoroughbred Horse Stud, which employs some 35 people.

* The need for housing should be linked to infrastructure and amenities available, which is why they should be built around existing towns and not attached to isolated villages just because a local land-owner offers up his filed for the purpose.

* I urge you to remove BK3 from your Local Plan.

Concerns with the proposed local plan for Barkway:

The proposed plan includes changing the permitted development boundary to include the area BK3, a site that appears to fall short of many of the criteria previously used by NHDC and parts of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. The limited local amenities, these have not changed and in the past have meant that BK3 was not included in the local plan.

2. Limited public transport means that adults living in the village will need private transport resulting in increased strain on the local infrastructure.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for more housing in North Herts, Barkway included, the proposed development of BK3 throws up many issues apart from the overall size, which would result in the rapid growth of the village, including the fact that concentrating the development in one area on the outskirts of the Village could well lead to the development of two distinct communities within the village rather than one integrated community.

As a resident of Barkway with concerns for the village preserving its historic and rural identity, I wish to object most strongly to the above plan and in particular to the aspects of it known as BK3 and request that this proposed development is removed from the plan.
My objections are as follows:
* The size of the development is out of all proportion to the size of the village.
* As there is a lack of local transport ie regular bus services the residents of the proposed development will be forced to use cars. Assuming 2 cars per household this will cause severe congestion at peak periods on the village inadequate road structure, particularly B1368.
* A development the size of this proposal would require a complete revamping of the sewage system in the village otherwise there will be an overload. This in turn will cause inconvenience to village residents.
* The development will cause unnecessary and extreme noise.
* The development will mean large plant and equipment moving in and around the village causing extreme pollution, noise and inconvenience to village residents.
* The lack of local amenities in the village to cope with a large increase in population ie Doctors, schools and shops.
* The impact on the appearance of the village, the character (Grade II buildings) and the natural environment.
* If the new development is allowed to take place there will be a considerable increase in light pollution severely impacting on the area.
* North Herts District Council appear to be trying to extend the permitted development of the village to include BK3 without prior and proper consultation.
* The development will have no economic benefit to the village or surrounding area and it will not create employment.
* The development is unlikely to provide housing for local young families.
I agree with the Parish Council that this development BK3 contravenes the main presumption of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Sustainable Transport - contravention NPPF30, NPPF35, NOOF38 and NPPF95, NDHC Policy SP6 and NHDC Policy 29 - 2C.
Local Amenities - contravention NPPF38, 55 and 72.
Impact on Character and appearance of surrounding areas and conserving and enhancing the natural environment - contravenes NPPF11 and their own statements.
Core Planning Principals - contravention NPPF par 17.
Economic Growth - contravention to NPPF par 28.
NHDC Policy 7 Selected Villages beyond the Green Belt extension of this.

In conclusion as a Barkway resident I am concerned that my Local District Council is not doing more to protect the environment from inappropriate development at the behest of greedy landowners!!

As a resident of Barkway with concerns for the village preserving its historic and rural identity, I wish to object most strongly to the above plan and in particular to the aspects of it known as BK3 and request that this proposed development is removed from the plan.
My objections are as follows:
* The size of the development is out of all proportion to the size of the village.
* As there is a lack of local transport ie regular bus services the residents of the proposed development will be forced to use cars. Assuming 2 cars per household this will cause severe congestion at peak periods on the village inadequate road structure, particularly B1368.
* A development the size of this proposal would require a complete revamping of the sewage system in the village otherwise there will be an overload. This in turn will cause inconvenience to village residents.
* The development will cause unnecessary and extreme noise.
* The development will mean large plant and equipment moving in and around the village causing extreme pollution, noise and inconvenience to village residents.
* The lack of local amenities in the village to cope with a large increase in population ie Doctors, schools and shops.
* The impact on the appearance of the village, the character (Grade II buildings) and the natural environment.
* If the new development is allowed to take place there will be a considerable increase in light pollution severely impacting on the area.
* North Herts District Council appear to be trying to extend the permitted development of the village to include BK3 without prior and proper consultation.
* The development will have no economic benefit to the village or surrounding area and it will not create employment.
* The development is unlikely to provide housing for local young families.
I agree with the Parish Council that this development BK3 contravenes the main presumption of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Sustainable Transport - contravention NPPF30, NPPF35, NOOF38 and NPPF95, NDHC Policy SP6 and NHDC Policy 29 - 2C.
Local Amenities - contravention NPPF38, 55 and 72.
Impact on Character and appearance of surrounding areas and conserving and enhancing the natural environment - contravenes NPPF11 and their own statements.
Core Planning Principals - contravention NPPF par 17.
Economic Growth - contravention to NPPF par 28.
NHDC Policy 7 Selected Villages beyond the Green Belt extension of this.

In conclusion as a Barkway resident I am concerned that my Local District Council is not doing more to protect the environment from inappropriate development at the behest of greedy landowners!!

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.

I write, so far as they relate to the village of Barkway, with my representations in response to your letter of 17 October regarding your final consultation before the local plan is submitted to government for examination.

1. First, I (and I know others) would like to know what consultation you carried out during the Research Stage of the Plan Preparation leading to the draft so far as Barkway and its surrounding area are concerned, as to both whose views you sought and who approached you. Particularly is that so given (a) what your Statement of Community Involvement says about consultation prior to publication and (b) that Barkway Parish Council was not consulted by you when the effect of your draft plan if implemented would affect this village and its surrounding area to a very much greater extent than is proposed for any other village in the north Hertfordshire area. The Planning Inspectorate will also want to know this, especially when, I understand, the plan contravenes your own previous guidelines and recommendations.
2. Second, I am not clear what the position is about the Parish Council's Neighbourhood Plan. My understanding is that it has been rejected by you on more than one occasion on the basis that it is incomplete. The Parish Council has spent a great deal of time in the preparation of this document and you and the Inspectorate need to take account of it whether or not you think it is in acceptable form. It represents the views of a significant majority of those who live in or around this village.
3. Your plan envisages an increase of more than 60% in the number of houses in the village. That is clearly disproportionate given the proposed increases in other places within your area and is also, in my and many others' view, entirely inappropriate.
4. Barkway Parish Council will tell you that the village supports some housing development. That seems to me to be a very reasonable and co-operative response to the general need for more new housing and is a view I support.
5 Others will no doubt tell you about the problems such large scale development as proposed in your plan will create but for the record I list them here.
(a) Local roads are narrow and dangerous. You will have the statistics showing the history of serious and fatal accidents. Traffic consultants engaged by the Parish Council report that the increased traffic deriving from housing development such as proposed in your plan is not sustainable. The local bus service is minimal.
(b) So are local amenities minimal. The Parish Council will no doubt make the point that the neighbouring village of Barley has greater amenities (including a shop / Post Office and a doctors' surgery) with considerably less proposed housing development in your plan. Something else the Inspectorate will, I hope, question.
(c) No employment will be created so new inhabitants will need to travel to work, so further increasing the problem with local roads.
(d) I understand that the pressure to maintain the existing water supply to the village is only just adequate and will not be able to cope with considerably increased demand.
(e) Similarly, a new sewage treatment plant would be needed.
6. The single most significant driver of these problems is the inclusion of the site marked BK3 in your plan, the owners of the larger part of which have already outlined to the village their plans to apply for permission to build 100 plus houses on that part alone (to, I am told, considerable local hostility). The simplest way to deal with the problems referred to is to remove the BK3 site from your plan. Apart from the points already made I would add (a) that the site has previously been rejected for various reasons (so it is a surprise to many that it is proposed now to be included) and (b) that it is immediately adjacent to Newsells Park Stud.
7. The stud is locally (indeed nationally and internationally) important, employing as it does some 40 people, representing tens of millions of pounds of investment by its owners to the benefit of the local community in many different ways. Now to have the prospect of 150 houses built on its doorstep, ten or so years after granting it permission to expand its operations (and thus invest those millions), will not be welcome given what will follow in terms of, for example, much increased use of the bridle and footpaths that cross its (and our) land which is grazed by very valuable livestock. No doubt the stud will make its own representations to you but I support its objections.
8. Finally, your letter speaks of the Tests of Soundness. I can only say that the inclusion of BK3 in the plan when previously rejected, the apparent lack of prior consultation and the excessive housing allocation to this particular village with so few amenities by comparison with other places hardly gives confidence that the Justified test has been met.

I hope that, so far as Barkway is concerned, you will decide when you have considered all responses, that the plan needs amending before submitting it for examination to the Planning Inspectorate.

My wife will email you separately to say she agrees with what I say in this letter but which should be recorded as a separate response.

My husband has just emailed you about your local plan. I agree with all that he says but please ensure that this is recorded as an additional and independent response.

I write to object to the inclusion of the site known as BK3 in NHDC's Local Plan 2011-2031 and ask that it be removed from the plan.

It is my belief that BK3 breaches many National and Local Planning Policies and I am particularly concerned about the effect that this disproportionate area of housing would have on our historic village. NHDC has proposed the allocation of three sites at the north end of our village:

* BK1 - 13 dwellings
* BK2 - 20 dwellings
* BK3 - 140 dwellings

The addition of these 173 houses, in addition to those already built or for which planning has been granted since 2011 will create an increase of 62% in the village size, wholly inappropriate for our rural community.

Whilst I am not against development within our community I do consider that they need to be proportionate to the existing village and not to change the scale or character. I personally have no objections to sites BK1 and BK2 within Barkway as I believe they are proportionate to the size of our village. BK3 however is unsustainable as a development.

Barkway is extremely limited for amenities and is dependent on the need to travel (by private transport) to access facilities in neighbouring towns and villages. With our extremely poor local bus service, I think it would be safe to assume that almost every journey would need to be made by car. On average Barkway residents have two cars per household, thereby adding for site BK3 alone, another 280 cars to our local roads, with multiple journeys each, per day.

I understand that in previous drafts of the Proposed Submission Local Plan, site BK3 has been excluded or rejected and none of the grounds for these previous refusals have changed, so quite how it can be included now is beyond me.

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.

I am writing to express my very strong objections to the proposed development plans for Barkway and list my main objections as follows:-

1) The proposed number of dwellings is a huge increase over the existing number of homes in the village and will swamp the limited local amenities. NPPF38, NPPF55 and NPPF72 will all be contravened.

2) The number of proposed houses will dramatically increase the number of car journeys as there are no proposals to improve public transport. Hundreds of additional car movements per month would be generated and this will no doubt increase the accident number on the local roads. There would also be a large negative impact on the local footpaths as well as the bridleways. This is in contravention of NPPF30, NPPF34, NPFF35, NPPF95 and NOOF38. Also NHDC Policy SP6 for sustainable transport. On top of this the NHDC sustainability 2c and policy 29 will also be contravened. What is the point of having policies that are ignored when it is considered to be convenient? It would be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of all members of the Planning Department if such proposals were supported.

3) The entrance to the site on Barkway Road leading to Reed Joint is not suitable for the number of proposed properties and NHDC have previously stated that the Chilton Ridge, part of the East Anglian Heights should be protected. The BK3 site will absolutely detract from the existing views in this area and will obviously contravene NPPF11 - yet another statement that would prove to be worthless if the development goes ahead.

5) There would be no additional employment created by the proposed development and it will not support economic growth either - contravening NPPF para 28.

6) In the past NHDC have considered that BK3 did not meet the minimum requirements for sustainability due to insufficient amenities and nothing has changed so why consider such proposals now?

7) Including BK1 and BK2 where 33 new properties have in principal been agreed the additional proposals for BK3 would mean that the total number of dwellings proposed of 173 would increase the housing numbers in Barkway by over 50%. This would undoubtedly mean a dramatic detraction to the linear character of the old village as well as the approaches to BK3 on Royston Road and Cambridge Road. Beautiful views desecrated for ever if NHDCC employees take the easy way out and endorse the proposals.

8) There are still plenty of smaller potential development sites behind the High Street which because they would be hidden from view would not detract from the character of the existing village and these should be investigated rather than permanently destroy one large area and essentially create a kind of ghetto separate from the existing village.

9) The only amenity proposed for the development is a single storey 'general store', where are the 300 or more additional residents going to go for their doctor etc?

I would appeal to the Planning Department to not take the easy way out and allow this proposal - history will no doubt judge you if you simply rubber stamped it when it goes against National and Local Policies in so many ways. Policies are there to protect the environment, the historical character of the village and to protect the existing residents who pay their Council Tax. If the Policies are not to be complied with then they serve no useful purpose so what was the point in drawing them up?

We strongly object to the plan to build 140 new homes outside the permitted boundary of our village.

This proposal, given its size and location is seriously disproportionate to the size of Barkway and contravenes both the National Planning policy and NHDC's own policies, which, by definition, compromises and undermines the integrity of the entire planning process. This must not happen.

In particular, the proposed development breaches the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the area of sustainable transport via clauses NPPF30, NPPF34, NPPF35, NPPF38 and NPPF95, in addition to your own NHDC policy SP6 - 6 sustainable transport, sustainability objective 2c and NHDC policy 29.

Furthermore, it also breaches the NPPF rules re local amenities via clauses NPPF38, NPPF55 and NPPF72

NHDC have previously excluded BK3 from past land allocation plans on the basis that the proposed site did not meet the minimum criteria or have sufficient amenities to promote sustainable development - this has not changed and neither should your previous decision.

The scale of the proposed B3 developments in addition to the B1 and B2 developments would result in a 65% increase in the number of houses in Barkway since 2011, which is clearly not sustainable.
The current infrastructure could not absorb this increase in population, specifically the highways, sewage system, employment and transport. It would have a detrimental effect on our rural community and a negative impact on the surrounding environment.
We urge you in the strongest possible terms and for the above reasons, to reject the proposed BK3 development.