MM216 - Page 144 Policy BK3 (ED148A)

See attached

Whilst I am disappointed that not one site in North Hertfordshire was deemed to be unsuitable by the Inspector. I am hardly surprised, since I and the population of North Herts now know that the purpose of the Inspectors examination was primarily not to establish site suitability.

Equally, the thousands of members of the public and organisations that spent thousands of hours putting together their representations were all largely wasting their time.

Moving on. The Inspectors conclusions, particularly in respect of site Barkway BK3 and possibly elsewhere, bring me to the conclusion that the Local Plan is currently unsound and is probably illegal for the following.

As I pointed out at the public hearing, site BK3 was not physically visited by the Programme Officer Mr Nigel Smith, prior to its selection, to ascertain its suitability. He relied on what he called a "desk top study". I assume, that many sites were visited by him and therefore the site selection process was inconsistent. The selection of sites that were not visited is flawed. They may have been visited later, however that will mean that their selection will have been coloured by the earlier decision to include them without seeing them. For a decision as important as this, it would surely be logic, custom and practice for all sites to be physically inspected.
This inconsistent methodology would, I believe, be a reason for a Judicial Review.
Proposed Main Modifications BK3. Wrong information and conclusions.

Page 110 (LP1) 143 Barkway

Does not have the largest population of the 3 villages. I believe that you have included Newsells, which is a totally separate Hamlet, some distance away by road from Barkway. Depending upon which information is used, Barkway and Barley have similar populations. This paragraph also says. "facilities are limited and so residents would presently be likely to travel to either Royston to the north or Buntingford to the south for many day to day items". Contradicts many requirements within NPPF and the logic of allowing an estimated 173 additional homes into this remote village. Fundamental contradictions of NPPF policy makes the ELP unsound.

Page 111 (LP1) 144

There is little logic to the statement of allowing lower density housing to the eastern part of the site. Surely it should be to the northern part of the site. A visit to the site would confirm this.

The correction "incorporation of a bridleway Barkway 017", attempts to mitigate the earlier mistake of describing it as a footpath.

Similarly. "Explore opportunities for connecting road from Royston Road to Cambridge Road" is unrealistic, since it would need to cross the existing bridleway/green route. In addition this paragraph does not mention that the bridleway is also an essential green route, which cannot be crossed by a road. This is pointed out on page 48 of CAG Consulting's document. It is therefore unrealistic to construct a road east-west across the site. This north south divide inhibits the development of this unsuitable site. This will need to be corrected to reflect the actual situation. The current description misleads the public and the land owner. These errors, unless corrected also make the ELP unsound.

I concur with the Inspector's view that any development would it be to the detriment to Newsells Park Stud. "In terms of proximity to built development, noise and increased activity". As pointed out many times, BK3 will place the future of the Stud in jeopardy.

The Directors of Newsells Park Stud may decide that, as a result of a housing estate on BK3, the stud should close. It's only future would then be farmland; employing perhaps 2 people. The Stud currently employs 35 people, plus supporting suppliers and local businesses. The owners also planted 70,000 trees when they created the Stud 20 years ago. These trees do not have preservation orders and would no doubt be removed by a farmer. An environmental and employment disaster. Again, the loss of jobs would fundamentally contradict NPPF making the ELP unsound.

The proposed changes to the Policies Map for Barkway.

Site BK3 is now shown as incorporating the reserved school site; described as "Legend housing allocation". This is confusing and incorrect in that the reserve school site was never selected or included as part of BK3. The land is owned by HCC and has not been put forward by them within the ELP. It is not available for housing and must be omitted. In addition the incorporation of the reserved school site was not part of any earlier consultation. The map also shows a path north south. This is incorrect, it is a bridleway/green route. These errors need to be corrected.

CAG Consulting Sustainability Appraisal.

Page 20 policy SP6. "We will deliver accessibility improvements and promote the use of sustainable transport modes insofar as reasonable and practicable". As is pointed out later in the document, there is only an infrequent bus service. There are no plans and it is not practical to introduce any regular sustainable transport.

Page 50 "Likely to be some residual impact on motor vehicle use, given village location" this is a significant under statement. An increase in the village population of 70% also concentrated in one area is not residual, it is significant and should say so. This error needs to be corrected.

In general, the critical Analysis by CAG Consulting appears to have been ignored by including site BK3. Again, had the Programme Officer bothered to visit the site, BK3 it would not have been included. Clearly, this report has not been taken into consideration.

Land North of Mill Croft Appeal Dismissed.

I would like to draw to your attention the dismissed appeal decision in respect of the adjacent land as shown on the attached Inspectors report and sites plan (outlined in yellow). Application ref. 17/00700/1. As you can see this land corresponds in many ways to BK3 (outlined in red). It is at the same high elevation on The East Anglian Heights and at the entrance to the village. This dismissed appeal further substantiates the inappropriateness of BK3.

Objectively, it was clearly an error to include BK3.

One that last general point. "Presumption in favour of sustainable development". The actual definition of sustainable development is Economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources. Building houses on grade 2 farmland does deplete food production, which is a natural resource.

I believe, that by removing BK3 from the Emerging Local Plan will then establish the plan as sound and acceptable. This would then remove the need to seek a Judicial Review.

I wish to register my disbelief and anger that not a single site in North Herts has been withdrawn from the plan following consultation with local communities and a public Inspector's Hearing.
Local consultation has been revealed to be a farce - a pretence aimed at maintaining an appearance of democracy, while 'delivering' what the Government demands and enabling private landowners to take fields out of agricultural use for large personal profit. NHDC has failed to represent the taxpayers' concerns for the countryside as a valuable and unique resource, and has failed to stand up for North Hertfordshire's heritage.
NHDC have wasted years of people's lives as they sought to make a case for taking certain sites out of the Local Plan: good people who naively took the process to be a serious one.

I wish to register the following additional objections to the development of BK3 in Barkway, as an UNSOUND DEVELOPMENT within the Emerging Local Plan:

1. BK3 in Barkway was not visited by the Programme Officer in charge before being selected. How can a site be selected before being visited for assessment? It is irrelevant if a visit subsequently occurred: the process was begun without sight or inspection of the location.
This is completely contrary to all procedural norms and natural justice. Given that no site has been deselected since inclusion, it indicates that a foregone conclusion was part of the process.

In my view, this has to be taken up at the highest level, which would suggest a Judicial Review. Such proceedings are expensive for all parties concerned, but the level of unsound procedure here would appear to merit this action.

2. NPPF requirements have been ignored in terms of sustainability

a. Your report even points this out, most strangely, noting that 'facilities are limited and so residents would presently be likely to travel to either Royston to the north or Buntingford to the south for many day to day items'.
b. You have failed to take into account loss of farmland - a natural resource - when the population is expanding exponentially. Sustainable development is defined as 'Economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources'. BK3 is grade 2 farmland.
c. You have failed to take into account loss of wildlife habitat. Insect life is critically endangered in the UK.
d. Not only have you ignored the complete absence of work in Barkway, but you have failed to consider the harm to or closure of local businesses:
My business (one example) will start to decline in Barkway when traffic volumes increase. It is already under pressure because of the volume of traffic and associated noise. An estimated 350 more cars can reasonably be expected to be associated with a development allowing 170 new homes.
My business brings business to other parts of the local economy, including pubs and visitor attractions. Newsells Stud will be severely threatened and could decide to close: your selection of this site clearly threatens local employment.

3. Dismissed appeal Application ref. 17/00700/1

It cannot reasonably be stated that BK3 differs from the land - which is adjacent - for which planning permission was refused on solid grounds. It is on the East Anglian Heights (same elevation) and at the entrance to the village. It is totally inconsistent that the dismissed appeal has been ignored in order to pass BK3 for development.

4. Your document contains errors, and therefore cannot be used to justify the inclusion of BK3 in the Emerging Local Plan. One example: the population of Barkway is not the largest of the 3 villages, and has been misrepresented in order to support BK3.
Basic errors that a proper study of the local area would have revealed.

In conclusion, the entire process and justification by which BK3 came to be included in the Emerging Local Plan in North Herts needs to be taken up with the Secretary of State for Housing, James Brokenshire MP, among others, and a Judicial Review sought.

We refer to the consultation on the Main Modifications and the consultation period that is due to conclude on 4 March. As an adjoining owner to the proposed BK3 allocation we stand to be very significantly affected to our detriment by development at this site which could in turn have a wider impact on the local economy. Accordingly we are in the course of preparing submissions to assist the Inspector including a submission from a respected independent expert who is able to give evidence on the impact of development upon Newsells Park Stud. Unfortunately our expert is presently abroad not returning to the country until early next week and it is in these circumstances that we write please to seek a short extension of time of 10 days from 4 March for the purpose of completing our expert evidence and filing our submissions. In view of the considerable importance of this matter to Newsells Park Stud and the need to ensure that the Inspector has full information on which to base any decisions we respectfully ask that this extension of time be granted.

Following my earlier emails. An additional matter has just come to light which should be taken into consideration when considering site Barkway BK3.

I have been dealing with a planning application for a house in Reed Village within my Ermine Ward. This house would be provided by the social housing provider The Settle Group.

I am attaching a letter that they have written to NHDC which is not confidential and comments on the Reed application. I would draw your attention to the fifth paragraph. I have underlined their point.

As you can see large numbers of social/affordable housing is not required in rural locations such as Reed and similarly Barkway, which is more remote.

Therefore, it is clear that a developer would not be able to meet the criteria dictated by Government and NHDC of providing 40% social/affordable housing.

This is yet another reason why the development of BK3 is unsound and should be removed from the emerging Local Plan.

I refer to your email of 28 February at 12.35pm ( I'm afraid your signature is illegible) telling me that the consultation period for the Main Modifications and additional Examination Documents has been extended until tomorrow.
The volume of paperwork which this consultation process has so far generated is extensive and I have no wish to add to it, but I would like to know that the observations I made in my email to you (nearly two and a half years ago now) on 29 November 2016 have been/are still being considered by the inspector and where in that paperwork I can / will be able to find his reactions to them. I look forward to you telling me.
In particular my and my wife's concerns are about the appropriateness of including site BK3 (adjoining the village of Barkway) in the Plan and the prospect of the village being disproportionately increased in size by 60%.
Among my observations I raised various questions about the process NHDC had initially followed, for example in numbered paragraph 1 about prior consultation and in paragraph 2 about the need to take account of Barkway Parish Council's Neighbourhood Plan whether or not you thought it was complete. When can I expect answers to those questions?

See attached

See Attached

See Attached