BK3 Land between Cambridge Road and Royston Road

Barkway and Nuthampstead's villages and its Parish Council have in accordance with government guidelines spent numerous hours creating a suitable Neighbourhood Plan which had the approval of the majority of the parishioners. This plan was not ratified by the NHDC because they constantly changed the requirements. Therefore it is still not ratified.
The plan suggested an increase in house building of 65 extra houses on small sites of not more than 20 houses. Approximately half of this number have already been build or authorised. This number was considered to be appropriate for the size of the village of Barkway.
Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed building of 140 houses on the BK3 site, which I consider to be wholly inappropriate in number for a village of 329 homes in 2011.
My objections are:
Site:
NHDC has previously rejected BK3. The site is profitable Grade 1A agricultural land. It is important the UK should have food security as one of its priorities, and supplying our own food instead of importing it is important. Therefore using agricultural land in this way is unethical. (NPPF Para 112 Agricultural land use). Building on this land would change the intrinsic beauty of the local countryside forever.
BK3 is on the Chiltern Ridge, which is part of the East Anglian Heights, which the NHDC has already highlighted the need to protect. (Proposed Submission Local Plan para 4.150)
BK3 is separate from the main village and is likely to remain insular from the rest of the village community.
The site is a roosting area for at least two types of bats (the common pipistrelle bats, listed as endangered, and the brown long-eared) (NHDC Character Assessment for Area 230 Barkway)
The site is part of the corridor used by herds of fallow deer. (Proposed Submission Local Plan para 11.62)

Transport:
Barkway has very little public transport, the nearest train station is In Royston 4 miles away. The bus service is minimal, which is inadequate for commuting, social activities, school runs or shopping. The building of an extra 140 homes on BK3 will increase the vehicle ownership in the village by at least 280 (using the village average). Commuting to work outside of the village would equate to a minimum of 560 vehicle movements a day, this does not include deliveries etc. There is no possibility of complying with any future carbon emission and improved air quality. (NPPF Para 95 and Proposed Submission Local Plan 3.7 Strategic Objectives, ECON7).
Infrastructure:
The village school (up to age 9) has some 20 spare places, which will be taken up by the building of BK1 and BK2 plus the other homes already authorised.
Barkway has one hairdressers, one pub, a garage repair / petrol station and one other car repair station, a village hall and social club. The nearest post office is in Barley (3 miles), as is the doctors. The nearest shops, banks, dentists are situated in Royston or Buntingford. (Contraventions NPPF 38, 55 and 72).
Safety:
Barkway is mainly a street light free village. The area near BK3 has no footpaths. The bus stops are not well-lit.
It is not possible to access the nearest village on footpaths or cycle ways.
The main road through the village is already compromised by the amount of parked vehicles on both sides of the road and the school entrance.
All the local roads, B1368 and the roads linking off of it are unlit. All are narrow and dangerous. There have been 28 serious accidents and 1 fatality (data supplied by the police) during 2004 to 2014.
It should also be noted that during a severe winter with snow fall these roads are dangerous, requiring a four wheel drive vehicle. Some are impassable without the intervention of road clearance.
In summary, the proposal for BK3 seems a wholly opportunistic attempt to make money by the land owners because of the inability of the NHDC to adopt the Neighbourhood Plan as presented by the Parish Council. Which has left an opening to exploit this land without regard to the village of Barkway, its inhabitants and wildlife.
While it is only right that the current villagers should point out the inadequacies of this development, we should not lose sight of the fact that many of the problems I have highlighted in the plan will also become the problems of the very people who will occupy these homes, should they ever be built.

Barkway and Nuthampstead's villages and its Parish Council have in accordance with government guidelines spent numerous hours creating a suitable Neighbourhood Plan which had the approval of the majority of the parishioners. This plan was not ratified by the NHDC because they constantly changed the requirements. Therefore it is still not ratified.
The plan suggested an increase in house building of 65 extra houses on small sites of not more than 20 houses. Approximately half of this number have already been build or authorised. This number was considered to be appropriate for the size of the village of Barkway.
Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed building of 140 houses on the BK3 site, which I consider to be wholly inappropriate in number for a village of 329 homes in 2011.
My objections are:
Site:
NHDC has previously rejected BK3. The site is profitable Grade 1A agricultural land. It is important the UK should have food security as one of its priorities, and supplying our own food instead of importing it is important. Therefore using agricultural land in this way is unethical. (NPPF Para 112 Agricultural land use). Building on this land would change the intrinsic beauty of the local countryside forever.
BK3 is on the Chiltern Ridge, which is part of the East Anglian Heights, which the NHDC has already highlighted the need to protect. (Proposed Submission Local Plan para 4.150)
BK3 is separate from the main village and is likely to remain insular from the rest of the village community.
The site is a roosting area for at least two types of bats (the common pipistrelle bats, listed as endangered, and the brown long-eared) (NHDC Character Assessment for Area 230 Barkway)
The site is part of the corridor used by herds of fallow deer. (Proposed Submission Local Plan para 11.62)

Transport:
Barkway has very little public transport, the nearest train station is In Royston 4 miles away. The bus service is minimal, which is inadequate for commuting, social activities, school runs or shopping. The building of an extra 140 homes on BK3 will increase the vehicle ownership in the village by at least 280 (using the village average). Commuting to work outside of the village would equate to a minimum of 560 vehicle movements a day, this does not include deliveries etc. Therefore there is no possibility of complying with any future carbon emission and improved air quality. (NPPF Para 95 and Proposed Submission Local Plan 3.7 Strategic Objectives, ECON7).
Infrastructure:
The village school (up to age 9) has some 20 spare places, which will be taken up by the building of BK1 and BK2 plus the other homes already authorised.
Barkway has one hairdressers, one pub, a garage repair / petrol station and one other car repair station, a village hall and social club. The nearest post office is in Barley (3 miles), as is the doctors. The nearest shops, banks, dentists are situated in Royston or Buntingford. (Contraventions NPPF 38, 55 and 72).
Safety:
Barkway is mainly a street light free village. The area near BK3 has no footpaths. The bus stops are not well-lit.
It is not possible to access the nearest village via footpaths or cycle ways.
The main road through the village is already compromised by the amount of parked vehicles on both sides of the road and the school entrance.
All the local roads, B1368 and the roads linking off of it are unlit. All are narrow and dangerous. There have been 28 serious accidents and 1 fatality (data supplied by the police) during 2004 to 2014.
It should also be noted that during a severe winter with snow fall these roads are dangerous, requiring a four wheel drive vehicle. Some are impassable without the intervention of road clearance.

I am writing to object to the proposed development in Barkway with respect to its inclusion in the North Herts District Councils Local Plan. In particular:

* With such a large proposed development with a lack of amenities and an infrequent bus service, this will mean that each house will need to have at least one vehicle. This will have a major impact on traffic throughout the village, create a non-sustainable development with negative impact on the environment. The carbon footprint of our beautiful village will be increased due to the dependency of vehicles and the lack of infrastructure - ie no employment within walking or cycling distance. At no time have NHDC provided evidence that jobs will be created on the new development and therefore it must be assumed that private vehicles will be needed by a high proportion of residents to commute. Due to the very limited bus service residents will need to rely on their own transport to get in and out of the village. There has been no evidence in all of the discussions surrounding this development that there will be any enhancement of sustainable transport or improvement to roads to the nearest local towns. Private vehicles will be needed for children attending middle or secondary schools as there is no free bus to any other school other than Greenway which is oversubscribed and the cost of the bus to other schools would not make it economically attractive to residents of the new development, so therefore they would have to rely on their own vehicles.
* Safety will be a major issue as there is a lack of continuous footpaths and pedestrians are forced to walk on the road.
* This proposed development appears to be on the edge of the current village boundary. A development of this size will simply overwhelm the village which is not a positive enhancement. Integration into the village is something to be considered. Barkway is a linear village and with such a large additional community 'bolted on' to the village, integration is somewhat a concern as this development will create a totally separate community.
* This development will have an impact on light pollution. The beauty of this village is that we don't have street lights. A development of this size is contradictory to the impact of light pollution set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
* The NPPF is all for conserving and enhancing the natural environment and a development of this size contradicts this. A proportion of this land has been successfully and profitably farmed for years, the land being grade II agricultural land, and is also host to a variety of wildlife which will be destroyed in the event of the plans being approved.

The proposal for this development contravenes many of the guidelines set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and will destroy and have a negative impact on the environment, character and beauty of Barkway and the surrounding countryside. This proposed development is wholly disproportionate and inappropriate and appears to be in breach of many National and Local Planning policies. The negative impact of such a large development will be huge and far outweighs any benefits.

I therefore strongly object and have grave concerns over such a large development.

We are writing to express to express our concerns and objections to the plan to build 140 new homes outside the permitted boundary of our village. Barkway has already grown considerably since 2011 and accommodated new housing developments to support the National Planning Policy. This proposal however, given its size and location, would appear to contravene that policy. It will not be part of the village and the increase in traffic would pose a serious risk on a road that has already seen fatalities in recent years.

The current infrastructure could not absorb this increase in population, specifically the highways, sewer system, employment and transport. It would have a detrimental effect on our rural community and a negative impact on the surrounding environment.

Barkway has no doctor, dentist or local shop. The public transport of one bus a day is woefully inadequate to support the current residents. There are no local jobs and this plan does nothing to address any of these issues. Simply put it would have a negative effect on the village, it's residents and the surrounding area.

I trust you will give take these concerns seriously in your decision making.

I consider the Local Plan to be unsound, not being consistent with National Policy, for the following reasons:
*Increased disruption/pollution
o Increased vehicular emissions/ congestion due to potentially > 200 additional cars (Breach of NPPF paragraph 30).
o Generation of significant additional vehicular movement in a location where the need to travel is not minimised. No probable use of sustainable transport modes (Breach of NPPF paragraph 34).
o No evidence of the development of strategies with transport providers to establish the necessary infrastructure (Breach of NPPF paragraph 31)
o No balance of land use is being addressed. The rural location of the site, the limited amenities and lack of provision for transport, means that journey lengths cannot be minimised in respect of day to day activities (Breach of NPPF paragraph 37).
* Negative impact on appearance/ character of village
o Disproportionate number of houses proposed compared with existing number currently in the village which will not bring economic gain (Breach of NPPF paragraph 55).
o The valued landscape/ geological interest of the Chiltern ridge has been ignored (Breach of NPPF paragraph 109).
o There is no evidence to suggest that the development will increase the overall quality of the village, resulting in a disjointed extension, removed from the central core of the village and amenities (Breach of NPPF paragraph 55).
* Lack of amenities
o No consideration to schooling for pupils aged 9+ which will put strain on schools distant from Barkway. (Breach of NPPF paragraph 109).
Utilise BK1 and BK2 sites for development as outlined in the local plan (13.37) and remove BK3 from the proposal.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

I wish the express my deep concerns and objections to part of the Local Plan for Barkway concerning the building of some 140 new houses on the site identified as BK3. I write as a resident of the village for nearly 25 years. During my time in the village, I have been actively involved in an official capacity in a large number of community organisations including; Barkway School, Barkway village hall, and Barkway Church, which have given me considerable knowledge of the village community and its resources.

The Council's plan proposes a massive housing estate relative to the current size of the village, and I believe it is not only disproportionate but contravenes many of the council's own policies as well as the National Planning Policy. From the plans made available to date, I believe that the design and placing of the estate will be a major blight on an historic village with a currently vibrant community and create a complete division within the village. For a village of this size to successfully integrate the number of people living within such a estate, it would require significantly more resources than will be available in Barkway. A lack of integration is likely to significantly increase social issues within the village and would be a breakdown of the strong community sprit which those of us who live in the village value and have worked hard to achieve. This is not sustainable housing. I believe it is patently obvious that people who currently chose to live in Barkway do so as they wish to be part of a small community and value the heritage and rural feel of the village. If we wanted to live near a major, modern housing estate, we would live in a town. There is strong resentment and much anxiety being generated that we are having such a large housing estate foisted on the village simply to 'make up the numbers' rather than being properly considered and planned as sustainable housing should be as stated in the government's own framework.

Specifically I would like to point out the areas where this plan breaches national and local policies.
There are no plans to improve the minimal public transport servicing the village. As someone with a (secondary) school-aged child to get to school and who works outside of the village, I know how limited public transport is. Realistically, it is extremely likely and highly probably that for each adult moving into the proposed housing estate there will be at least one additional car on the local roads to access facilities in neighbouring towns and villages which are not available in Barkway (food/clothing stores/middle and secondary schooling/doctors etc). This does not seem to have been taken into account in the plans which show limited parking for residents let alone visitors. The additional traffic / parking would also impair the quality of life of those living in the village and would inevitably create an increased risk of road accident and injury. This would breach NPPF30,NPP34, NPPF35, NOOF 38 and NPPF95 as well as NHDC policy SP 6 - sustainable transport, as well as sustainability objection 2c and NHDC policy 29.

Small is beautiful where Barkway is concerned, but not even the village's strongest supporters can argue that it has a wealth of amenities. The BK3 proposal does nothing to either maintain or improve local amenities. Schooling is only available within the village up to year 4 and with other housing developments within recent years bringing new people to the village, the school may be unable to accommodate the BK3 residents' children anyway. On these grounds the proposed estate contravenes NPPF38, 55 and 72. As a resident I see no potential benefit to the village at all, only a negative impact.

There is no indication that the proposed housing estate will create any new employment or support economic growth, which is required according to the NPPF at paragraph 17. The estate may even have a negative impact on the Newsells Stud Farm business, and so should not go ahead.

The proposed housing estate will also contravene the council's own statements and NPPF 11 due to its negative impact and appearance on the Chiltern Ridge, leading into Barkway, which the council has previously stated needs to be protected. BK3 will clearly be not just a negative but also a significant impact on the locality's appearance, and cannot be reconciled with the council's stated aims for the area. Additionally the estate is completely contrary to the existing linear nature of historical development of the village and so will particularly grate and stand out as inappropriate.

I also wish to register my anger and dismay at the council's plan to extend the permitted development boundary so that BK3 can be included as part of the village. This feels an underhand and undemocratic approach and is likely to generate further antipathy towards the estate and increase the village's sense of grievance at what appears to be an arbitrary development, ill-thought out and introduced without proper consideration for either planning policy or local wishes. The site has been ruled as inappropriate for development against the council and governments own criteria and simply to relax or ignore these criteria will create an estate which will not be sustainable - for all the good reasons it has previously been deemed as inappropriate! I am not against any new houses being built in the village, but to be sustainable within a community such as Barkway, any development must follow planning policy (which this proposed estate does not) and must be proportionate to the existing community (which this proposed estate is not).

The Council have also not accepted the village Neighbourhood Plan, which also contravenes paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

This proposed housing estate is not, in the Minister for Planning's own words, 'change for the better' and I sincerely hope that the genuine concerns raised by the village will be listened to and this proposal rejected. I would add that I thorough support the stance and arguments put forward by Barkway Parish Council, whose view, I believe, accurately reflects not only my own, but the views of many within this historic community.

I wish to place an objection to the Local Plan proposed Submission paragraph 13.37, and request that site ref BK3 is removed from the plan. I am of the opinion that the Plan is not sound as this paragraph contravenes National Planning Policies under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The NPPF clearly states the "presumption in favour of sustainable development".
I do not think that site BK3, together with sites BK1 and BK2 in the village of Barkway, is sustainable. It goes against several sections of the NPPF and is contrary to NHDC's own policies.
Barkway is a historic village of a linear character. It is situated at the end of the Chiltern ridge. Since 2011, when dwellings numbered 329, planning permission has been granted for an additional 31 homes, which have been carefully designed to be in character with the rest of the village. Barkway has very limited amenities, so necessitates nearly every adult to own a vehicle.
NHDC proposes allocating 3 sites at the northern end of Barkway. BK1 (13 dwellings), BK2 (20 dwellings) and BK3 (140 dwellings). I do appreciate that some development is necessary and that NHDC has to meet the target for providing more housing across the region and that in that respect small scale sites such as BK1 & 2, which are carefully located and designed, are appropriate for Barkway. The proposal for BK3 is a totally disproportionate size to the existing village and as Barkway has such few amenities it will lead to a massive increase in the carbon footprint of the community with necessary use of private vehicles. It should be noted that the nearest shop/doctor is 2.5 miles away and secondary schooling even further. The bus service is very limited and there is no safe, lit pathways or cycleways to connect Barkway to other villages or towns. It should also be mentioned that Barkway has very little employment opportunity within walking or cycling distance. These points emphasise the total unsustainability of a development such as BK3 within this village.
It must be mentioned that NHDC has not acknowledged the proximity of site BK3 to Newsells Park, which is the largest employer in the village. This thriving stud farm will be grossly negatively affected by the closeness of site BK3 to their prime grazing field. The owners are now concerned about the future of their business. This contravenes NPPF para 28 - Creation of employment and prosperity.
In all other previous drafts of the Proposed Submission Local Plan (PSLP) site BK3 has been excluded or rejected. Nothing has changed since the previous drafts in relation to site BK3, so the same reasons should still apply, making this proposed site unsuitable.
NPPF paragraph 14 - "Presumption in favour of sustainable development". The benefit of new homes on site BK3 must demonstrably outweigh their adverse effect....
The proposed development on site BK3 is right on the edge of the existing village development boundary and the design makes it separate from the rest of the village and it is very likely to become a satelite area and not integrate well with the community. The size of the development will overwhelm Barkway, having a negative effect on the village. There are no proposals to enhance infrastructure or local amenities. Although there is a mention of the provision of a shop, NHDC cannot guarantee that a developer would include this or that somebody would want to take on the financial risk of running a shop. Village shop businesses are notoriously likely to fail. This proposal also contradicts PSLP section 3.7, Strategic Objectives, ECON6, which says "Sustain the vitality of our villages and the rural economy in supporting rural diversification whilst ensuring development is of an appropriate scale and character".
This site is also shown to be unsustainable by:
NPPF para 112 - Agricultural land use. Site BK3 is grade II agricultural land. This fact was stated as a reason for previously rejecting this site. Lower graded sites have been rejected in villages with far more available amenities than Barkway.
NPPF para 125 - Impact of light pollution - NHDC's PSLP (para 4.150) says it needs to protect the East Anglian Heights which include the Chiltern Ridge. BK3 is now proposing a housing development with street lighting! This exposed site will be visible for many miles from the north.
NPPF paras 11 and 109 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - BK3 is a wildlife corridor for fallow deer and a roosting place for the endangered pipistrelle bats.
In the NHDC landscape character Assessment for Barkway it emphasised the need for the Barkway Plateau to be improved and conserved.
The BK3 development contravenes the following NPPF policies on Sustainable Transport: NPPF, para 30 (reducing emissions), 34 (maximising use of sustainable transport), 37 (minimise need for travel for work, shopping, leisure and education) and 95 (moving to a low carbon future). An additional homes could mean 280 more private vehicles in the village.
NHDC has not given any evidence that there will be any improvement of public (sustainable) transport or enhancement of the minor road network which connects the village to necessary amenities. This contravenes PSLP Strategic Objectives Econ 8 - "Ensure that all development is supported by the necessary provision of, or improvements to infrastructure, services and facilities in an effective and timely manner to make development sustainable and minimise its effect upon existing communities".
It should also be mentioned that, although Barkway does have a primary education facility for up to age 9, there would be no safe way of walking to school from site BK3 as there is no street lighting or continuous pavement.
A recent representation from Campaign for Rural England Hertfordshire concluded that it thought BK3 was not sound as it was not consistent with the NPPF and was not justified.
I believe that the inclusion of site BK3 in the PSLP would lead to an unacceptable growth of the village (62% increase between 2011 and 2031) and is contrary to the wishes and vision of residents for the future of the village (as demonstrated by the Barkway and Nuthampstead emerging Neighbourhood Plan). It contradicts numerous policies within the NPPF and would lead to a non-sustainable development which would irreversibly negatively alter the historic character of Barkway and adversely affect the environment, all far outweighing the benefit of the development. I would strongly urge that site BK3 is removed from the Plan.

We are residents of Barkway, and welcome the chance to air our views on the proposed local plan for our village.
We believe that the NHDC local plan for Barkway and the numbers of proposed new homes is well out of scale for the existing village.
Whilst well aware that people have to have somewhere to live, it makes no sense for a village with approx 330 houses to add 100 to 140 new ones.
Having studied the proposed local plan, the National Planning Policy and the NHDC's own policies, it is clear that the proposed local plan contravines all these policies.
One of the major issues would be the increase in road traffic, on already busy ,rural roads, indeed one of the proposed developments would exit on to a single path road.
We gather that there are no plans to improve the public transport in the area so every home would have at least two vehicles,as the employment in the parish is nearly non existant, so every one would be leaving in cars at peak commute times these facts to me contravene NPPF30,34,35,95 NOOF 38,as well as NHDC policy SP6 and 29.
The facilities available in Barkway to support these proposed developments are non existant, we have no doctors surgery and the local one is over subscribed and appointments take ages to get.
The village school at present has 30 of 50 places taken, modest expansion would help to justify the schools existence but developments as the BK3 one, would swamp it.
Historically local amenities, and their availability to the residents has always formed a major part of NPPF policies and I feel that the proposed local plan is, in breach of NPPF 38,55 and 72.
The geographic and aesthetic aspects of Barkway should not be over, looked either, situated as it is on the eastern side of the East Anglian Heights, that are directly adjacent to the proposed BK3 development.
Historic planning has managed to retain the linear footprint of the village, and, retaining the village style as the old coaching town on the main London road.
Any of the proposed large developments on the Northern end of the village would certainly ruin that aspect, yet worse would be the creation of a separate community, with occupants not integrating in to the village as it is.
The jepordising of the historic footprint of the village is contravening your statements and NPPF 11.
It would also appear the proposed expansion North is proposed without any visable consultation to incorporate the proposed BK3.
It is noted that the new development could have a negative impact on the Newsells stud as the wealth owners could go any where they chose the stud does employ 30 people and many local businesses benefit from its being there this we believe to be in contrabention of NPPF, para 28.
To sumerise we are not happy with the proposed plan and the implications on our community moving on.
We must stress that we are not anti development but we think that the plan and its implications are wholly unacceptable in its current form.

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

Barley Parish Council wish to make the following representation in respect of North Herts District Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011 - 2031.

Barley Parish Council has reviewed the Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011 - 2031 currently out for consultation and are broadly supportive of the approach the District Council has taken, particularly with its emphasis on sustainable development, its recognition of "the value of local knowledge and the importance of local choice" and its further recognition of the need to be flexible to respond to the views of Parishes. Whilst we agree with the statement that it is important to allow some degree of growth in villages to allow communities to function, this must not be at the expense of existing communities and environments, and must be respectful of the views of residents.
We are, however, concerned at the level of housing being proposed by the draft local plan for Barkway and the adverse impact we believe this scale of development will have on Barley. There are currently three sites identified for housing in Barkway:-

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

A total of 173 new dwellings, equating to an increase of over 50% on the existing number of dwellings; allowing for two cars per dwelling and a minimum of four traffic movement per day that will mean an additional 346 traffic movements per day. There can be no doubt that the majority of that traffic will use the B1368 and we would expect the majority of journeys to be north, to and through Barley, accessing Royston, Cambridge and Audley End. Traffic volumes and speed are already major concerns of Barley residents and such an increase in traffic movements from the proposed developments in Barkway ,with particular reference to site BK3, would only exacerbate the situation. Government policy is clear that the purpose of planning is to achieve sustainable development but in supporting growth, this should not be at the expense of the natural and historic environment. Barley Parish Council is firmly of the opinion that the level of increased traffic through the village as a direct result of the proposed development of site BK3 in Barkway would have a prejudicial impact on the historic setting and environment of Barley.

The Parish Council would further expect the majority of the increased traffic to continue north of Barley to the junction of the B1368 with the A505 at Flintcross. This junction struggles to cope with existing traffic flows, waiting times at peak periods regularly exceed 15 minutes and there are numerous accidents throughout the year; it is our opinion that the junction could not safely accommodate the substantial increase in traffic as a result of the proposed Barkway developments.

We would ask the District Council to recognize the adverse impact these proposed developments will have on the wider area and to reconsider these allocations. We understand that Site BK3 has previously been considered by the District Council as part of this Local Plan process and been rejected by it and would urge the Council to remove this site from the plan.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

See attached

See attachment