IC2 Burford Grange, Bedford Road

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 91

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 133

Received: 01/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wallace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2; traffic issues, flooding, Green Belt (coalescence).

Full text:

I am objecting to the above proposed development. The site must be one of the most unsuitable for development due to traffic issues, flooding, destroying countryside within the Green Belt and also the fact that it will shrink the ever narrowing gap between Hitchin and Ickleford. Ickleford has been designated to take considerably more than its fair shares of additional dwellings without any improvement in infrastructure. The roads are already congested for parts of the day now.

If it is really necessary to build these extra homes (and bear in mind that our leaving the EU is very likely to reduce this demand) then the Burford Grange development is the last place that should be considered.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 554

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Sally Ozaydin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
increased traffic pollution is contrary to NHDC policy on air quality;
proposals will not protect and enhance the historic character of the village;
development is contrary to the NHDC strategic objective on green belt; and
proposals are contrary to the NPPF.

Full text:

I am writing to you concerning the North Hertfordshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan. I object to sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 on several grounds, as listed below:
1) There is a conflict between NHDC policy on air quality and the increased traffic pollution that will follow as a result of development at sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - for this reason I would argue that the local plan is not sound.
2) It is NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages - how could you propose to relocate our much loved village school? To do so will tear the heart out of Ickleford village and our close community. The local plan is not sound as the impact of development at site IC3, damage to our community and the character of our village, is in conflict with NHDC policy - PROTECT and ENHANCE the historic character of villages!
3) Development on sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 is in direct conflict with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt and also conflicts with the National Policy Planning Framework - these conflicts mean that the Local Plan is not sound.
4) The Local Plan is not legally compliant regarding site IC3 as NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site - this is an outrageous omission and our community is ready to oppose this development every step of the way.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 558

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Michael and Susan Hewitt

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
traffic congestion resulting from additional houses;
lack of infrastructure, e.g one shop, no post office, sewerage & drainage;
relocation of the historic and listed school;
lack of consultation; and
conflicts with the NPPF and NHDC Strategic Objectives on green belt.

Full text:

As residents in Ickleford for many years, these proposals disappoint my wife & I immensely, the historic village will be turned into a town with the 319 properties being proposed.

As anyone given thought to how this village which has won time after time, awards for best kept village, etc. would be able to cope with this development, to mention just a few, the traffic is already a major problem, and will get much worse, the village has 1 small shop, no post office, the sewage/drainage system cannot cope as it is, we have been the victims ourselves due to the aged pipe networks & pumping station, which cannot deal with the present flows let alone another 319 properties.
The historic & listed village school would appear to have to be relocated, because of the influx of additional pupils.

This proves 1 basic point, The Lack of Proper Consultation, which on its own is not Legally Compliant, not to mention coordination with neighbouring authorities, i.e. Central Bedfordshire.

Ickleford is a beautiful village, surrounded by green belt, farms, picturesque cottages, and common land, the Local Plan for sites IC1,IC2,& IC3 conflicts with the National Planning Policy framework, also with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

We strongly object to ALL sites mentioned above, for the reasons given, all the sites are NOT Sound,& Conflict with Policy or Strategic Objectives. And would urge the council to reconsider ALL the proposals.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 581

Received: 15/11/2016

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Kevin & Tracie Morgan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modeling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

I have serious and genuine concerns regarding North Hertfordshire District Council's (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan.
The sites in Ickleford for proposed development by NHDC for additional housing are I understand:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes

IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes

IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes

LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

I am submitting objections to sites IC1, IC2 and IC3, and express concerns about site
LS1, based on conflicts between the Local Plan and NHDC/national policies.
These objections and concerns are:

1. Building on Green Belt
For sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework
Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

2. Sewerage & Flooding
For sites IC1 and IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
Evidence shows that the main sewer cannot cope with current demand; IC1 and IC3
will add to this burden.
Conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce
the risk of flooding from new developments.

3. Lack of proper consultation
For sites IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Legally Compliant' for the following reason:
NHDC did not allow prior consultation on these sites.

4. Traffic
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
NHDC modeling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central
Bedfordshire, and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

5. Air quality
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

6. Relocation of the School
For site IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
The consequent impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

7. No coordination with neighbouring authorities
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 618

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Helen Feehan

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modeling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

I have several deep concerns about the effects on Ickleford if the following proposals are agreed.
My objections and concerns are as follows:

1) Building on Green Belt Land
IC1, IC2 and IC3. The local plan is not sound because it conflicts with the NHDC strategic objectives on Green Belt, and also it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework.
2) Sewerage and Flooding
IC1 and IC3. The local plan is not sound because:
Conflict with NHDC policies not to develop on flood prone areas, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.
Evidence shows the main sewer currently cannot cope with demand as it is, IC1and IC3 will make things even worse.
3) Lack of proper consultation
NHDC did not allow prior consultation on sites IC3 and LS1 so the local plan is Not Legally Compliant.
4) Traffic
The local plan is Not Sound for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 for the reason that NHDC modelling is flawed as it doesn't account for an increase in traffic from Central Beds, and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.
5) Air Quality
The Local Plan is Not Sound for sites IC1, IC2 IC3 and LS1 as increased traffic and ensuing pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.
6) Relocation of Ickleford School
The local plan is Not Sound for site IC3 because the impact on the village of moving the school conflicts with NHDC policy on protecting and enhancing the historic character of villages.
7) No Co-ordination with other Local Authorities The local plan is Not Sound for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 because NHDC has not taken into account any impact upon the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 626

Received: 20/11/2016

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Dermot & Rhian Hegarty

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modeling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

Sites IC1, IC2, IC3 not sound
Building on green belt this conflicts with national policy framework and NHDC objectives on green belt

IC1, IC3 not sound
main sewer could not cope with demand and conflicts with NHDC not to develop in areas prone to flooding and to reduce risk of flooding.

IC3, LS1 not sound
NHDC did not have consultation for these sites

IC1,IC2, IC3 and LS1 not sound
this is flawed and it does not account for increased traffic. Bedford Road and Traffic is already appalling and so this conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

IC1, IC2, IC3, LS1 not sound
increased traffic conflicts with NHDC on air quality

IC3 not sound
Relocation of school does not take into account the historic character of the village. The danger for children getting to the new school with increased traffic from new developments. This is not sound

IC1, IC2, IC3, LS1 not sound

The NHDC has not accounted on the impact to central Bedfordshire councils local plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 636

Received: 20/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mr Rob and Anna Carter

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modeling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

We are writing to object to the NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan ('the Local Plan') as it relates to the following proposed sites:

IC1 (Duncots Close, Ickleford)
IC2 (Burford Grange, Ickleford)
IC3 (Bedford Road, Ickleford)
LS1 (North Ickleford).

Our objections are as follows:

1.For sites IC1, IC2 and IC3, the Local Plan is NOT SOUND because it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt land.
2.For sites IC3 and LS1, the Local Plan is NOT LEGAL as there was not 'early or meaningful engagement with the local neighbourhood' contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. In fact there was no engagement and the first time the neighbourhood knew these sites were being considered for development was when the draft Local Plan was published a few weeks ago.
3.For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, the Local Plan is NOT SOUND as the NHDC modelling used to estimate traffic flows does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, in particular resulting from the closure of nearby RAF Henlow and the redevelopment of that large site to provide around 700 new homes. It can be expected that many of the residents of that recently announced development will travel along the A600 to Hitchin to access businesses in Hitchin, Stevenage or Luton (or beyond) or to commute by rail into London from Hitchin. Even without that development, the proposed additional homes at IC3 and LS1 will place an unreasonable burden on the traffic flow as the A600 approaches Ickleford at the mini-roundabout junction with Turnpike Lane. There appears to be no viable mitigation for this traffic flow such as a by-pass.
4.For sites IC3 and LS1, the Local Plan is NOT SOUND as NHDC has not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and/or the proposed redevelopment of RAF Henlow which has only recently been announced.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 784

Received: 18/11/2016

Respondent: Mr M J Barber

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object on the following grounds:
contrary to the NPPF;
conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objections on green belt;
traffic pollution;
increased traffic from surrounding areas; and
no consideration of impacts from Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 808

Received: 20/11/2016

Respondent: Ms B Charles

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Conflict with Green Belt policy and NHDC strategy, infrastructure (sewerage), lack of prior consultation, traffic.

Full text:

We object to development of IC 1,IC2, 1C3, for the following reasons , the local plan is not sound because it clashes with
Green Belt Policy and NHDC strategy, also because the sewer would not cope with such a massive development , NHDC
Did not allow prior consultation on the sites. There is already far to much traffic through the village and along the A600,
especially at peak times. As for the relocation of the school, this would destroy the nature of the heart of our lovely village
of which the school is an essential part.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 811

Received: 20/11/2016

Respondent: Miss C Charles Farrow

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Conflict with Green Belt policy and NHDC strategy, infrastructure (sewerage), lack of prior consultation, traffic.

Full text:

We object to development of IC 1,IC2, 1C3, for the following reasons , the local plan is not sound because it clashes with
Green Belt Policy and NHDC strategy, also because the sewer would not cope with such a massive development , NHDC
Did not allow prior consultation on the sites. There is already far to much traffic through the village and along the A600,
especially at peak times. As for the relocation of the school, this would destroy the nature of the heart of our lovely village
of which the school is an essential part.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 815

Received: 20/11/2016

Respondent: Mr A Farrow

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Conflict with Green Belt policy and NHDC strategy, infrastructure (sewerage), lack of prior consultation, traffic.

Full text:

We object to development of IC 1,IC2, 1C3, for the following reasons , the local plan is not sound because it clashes with
Green Belt Policy and NHDC strategy, also because the sewer would not cope with such a massive development , NHDC
Did not allow prior consultation on the sites. There is already far to much traffic through the village and along the A600,
especially at peak times. As for the relocation of the school, this would destroy the nature of the heart of our lovely village
of which the school is an essential part.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1467

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ickleford Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Development on Green Belt, conflict with plan's environmental objectives, traffic, air and noise pollution associated with increased traffic

Full text:

Development on Green Belt

The Parish Council believes that inclusion of this site, which is located on Green Belt land, means that the Local Plan is not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

1. The Local Plan proposes development on Green Belt around Ickleford at three sites; IC1, IC2 and IC3. NPPF Section 80 states the Green Belt aims 'to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas', 'to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another' and 'to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment'. NPPF Section 87 states 'Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.' NPPF Section 89 states exceptions to building on Green Belt might exist, such as 'limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan'. We do not believe that the overall proposals for building on Green Belt in Ickleford are either 'limited' or 'infilling', nor has NHDC provided a compelling case to suggest that these are exceptional circumstances.

2. The letter (attached) from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning dated 7th June 2016 is unequivocal on the subject of the Green Belt: 'Government has put in place strongest protection for Green Belt ... boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances, through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people' (our italics). As representatives of the residents of Ickleford we are confident in stating that these incursions into the Green Belt do not have the support of local people.

We believe that inclusion of this site, which is located on Green Belt land, means that the Local Plan has not been positively prepared for the following reasons:

1. North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review (July 2016) misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merging of neighbouring towns; this is given a low ranking of 1. However, the Ickleford Green Belt plays an important role in preventing the merger of Hitchin and Letchworth, and also that of Hitchin and Henlow/ Stondon.

2. Ickleford is listed as an 'Excluded' village in policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations. Within this policy, it is noted that that the Council will normally permit development for housing "only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries". The proposed developments at IC1, IC2 and IC3 fail the above test.

Environmental Objectives

The Draft Sustainability Appraisal of North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan cites a number of Environmental Objectives:

* ENV1 - Direct development towards the most sustainable locations which seek to maintain the existing settlement pattern
* ENV3 - Protect, maintain and enhance the historic and natural environment, its network of open spaces and rural landscapes

The Parish Council believes the Local Plan has not been positively prepared in relation to the following environmental objective:

1. To increase the housing stock of a village by 40% (the net effect of IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1), with minimal local resources and poor public transport links contravenes ENV1; this is not sustainable and does not maintain the existing settlement pattern.

We consider that the Local Plan has not been positively prepared and is not justified in relation to the following environmental objective:

1. The excessive development proposed for Ickleford damages our historic and natural environment and our open and rural spaces, and therefore contravenes ENV3.

Traffic

Traffic throughout the District is acknowledged as being already problematic. Table 17 of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal states: 'The density of traffic on the principal road network is high and increasing but the rural nature of the District makes the provision of sustainable travel modes more challenging'.

We consider that the Local Plan has not been positively prepared for the following reasons:

1. 13.158 of the Local Plan indicates no specific mitigation works required for the Ickleford road network according to NHDC transport modelling. We believe this to be flawed. Extensive current and proposed development is planned within the neighbouring authority of Central Bedfordshire, against which Ickleford abuts. For example, the town or Arlesey (4 km north of Ickleford) is earmarked for approximately 1,000 new dwellings, and the site at RAF Henlow (2km north of Ickleford) will close by 2020 with 780 new dwellings being proposed for the site. The attached Department for Transport National Travel Survey NTS9902 indicates 1.31 vehicles per household in the East of England in 2014/15, and a rural town/ fringe figure 19% higher than the average. For just these two sites, an additional 2774 additional vehicles (1.31 +19% = 1.56 per household x 1780) can reasonably be predicted. A significant number of these will flow through Ickleford (A600 and Arlesey Road/ Turnpike Lane), adding to an already-strained road network.

We believe that the definition of traffic problems used by NHDC is too conservative. Thus, the Local Plan Transport Modelling Report - Draft July 2016 states: 'A problem with network operation was defined as a location where the model shows there are still more than 100 vehicles queuing at the end of the AM or PM peak hour.' A more realistic definition would identify more traffic problem sites, possibly including some in Ickleford.

2. In addition, Central Bedfordshire has yet to publish its Local Plan, but it is inevitable that the latter will recommend yet further housing, traffic from which will affect Ickleford. Moreover, Table 34 of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal acknowledges this: 'Given the early stage of the [Central Bedfordshire] Plan preparation process, it is not possible to identify specific cumulative impacts'. This is particularly problematic for a village such as Ickleford which is adjacent to the county/ authority boundary.

These major traffic factors have been overlooked, and therefore, we believe NHDC transport modelling to be fundamentally flawed.

IC2 and IC3 are unsound because developments of that size could not be justified on these sites due to the adverse impact of the additional traffic on the road system when combined with traffic from Central Bedfordshire.

3. The Appraisal Framework of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal suggests that developments should 'avoid exacerbating local traffic congestion'. The traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document attempts to quantify the increase in traffic resulting from the Local Plan. We do not believe these figures are credible. For example, for IC3 the proposed 150 additional dwellings are projected to lead to an additional 63 trips in the morning and an additional 33 trips in the afternoon - see above data on projected vehicles per household based on Department for Transport NTS9902. Therefore, we do not believe the objective of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal can be met.

Air and noise pollution associated with increased traffic

The Parish Council believes that the Local Plan has not been positively prepared for the following reasons:

1. A 40% increase in the population of Ickleford will lead to a similar rise in car journeys. This will be dwarfed by the overall increases in traffic associated with the wider NHDC Local Plan, and the likely increases associated with the embryonic Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. The majority of Ickleford residents live within 25 metres of the two village thoroughfares (A600 and Arlesey Road/ Turnpike Lane), and will be subject to likely environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants.

2. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on local air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and even if it had, it would likely be based on the flawed transport modelling mentioned above.

3. The Appraisal Framework of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal suggests that developments should achieve good air quality and reduce ambient noise, especially from traffic. We do not believe either of these objectives can be met. Importantly, Table 17 of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal supports our assertion: 'Noise from air and road transport has a significant effect on quality of life in the District. Proposed developments will have significant additional impacts'.

We consider that the Local Plan is not consistent with national policy for the following reason:

1. The NPPF (Para 124) states 'Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas.'

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1494

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Dr Clare Tagg

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This proposed development is on green belt land between Ickleford and Hitchin. Ickleford is a historic village with many listed buildings and common land. It is important to preserve the character of this village so that it does not become part of Hitchin. Moreover this land is subject to regular surface water flooding.

Full text:

This proposed development is on green belt land between Ickleford and Hitchin. Ickleford is a historic village with many listed buildings and common land. It is important to preserve the character of this village so that it does not become part of Hitchin. Moreover this land is subject to regular surface water flooding.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1574

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Miss Laura Shipley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Conflicts with NPPF
- Conflicts with NHDC strategic objectives on greenbelt
- Sewage at capacity
- Flood Zone
- No prior consultation on these sites
- NHDC traffic modeling is flawed
- Increased traffic conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
- Village character
- Impact associated with the Centralbeds local plan

Full text:

Conflicts with national planning policy

Conflicts with NHDC strategic objectives on greenbelt

Evidence shows the sewer cannot cope with current demand

Conflicts with NHDCpolicies not to develop in areas prone to flooding

NHDCdidn't allow prior consultation on these sites

NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from central beds and conflicts with NHDC transport policy

Increased traffic conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality

The impact on the village conflicts with the NHDC policy to protect / enhance the character of villages

NHDC have not allowed for any impact associated with the centralbeds local plan

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1656

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Cala Homes (North Homes Counties) Ltd

Agent: DLA Town Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Support as landowner / promoter, broadly agree with SHLAA assessment and Green Belt review, object to the dwelling estimate

Full text:

Summary - We support the proposed allocation of site IC2 (Burford Grange). We broadly agree with the findings of the Council's assessment of the site in the SHLAA and the Green Belt review. While supporting the allocation, we object to the dwelling estimate for the site of 40 dwellings. This is based on retaining the Grange building which should not be retained in the interests of meeting housing needs and using land efficiently. A dwelling estimate of 50 dwellings would be more appropriate.

Introduction to the site
The report site extends to around 2.4 hectares. It is accessed from the A600 Bedford Road running north and south past the site. The site currently contains a large dwelling, together with various outbuildings and lorry storage. Part of the site is also used for commercial purposes. The site is adjacent to residential development within the village of Ickleford and is well contained by existing landscape features.

Ickleford is a village just north of the town of Hitchin in North Hertfordshire district. It has a population of around 1,800 people. The village has a primary school, 3 pubs, a hair salon and a general store. Ickleford is described in the draft Local Plan as a Category A Village, the 2nd tier of the Settlement Hierarchy. As such it is a sustainable location for future growth.


Pre-application advice
A pre-application submission to NHDC was made by DLA Town Planning on behalf of CALA Homes in July 2016. The submission consisted of a draft layout and accompanying Planning Report. This submission is attached as appendix B to these representations. The pre-application advice from Tom Rea, Area Planning Officer, is attached as appendix C to these representations. The original layout has been revised to meet highways standards in terms of the site access from Bedford Road. This layout is attached as appendix A to these representations. Further refinements of the layout are currently being made to take on board officer comments made through the pre-application process.

The pre-application advice was largely positive. No substantive technical issues or barriers were raised and the layout was considered "largely acceptable". In particular, the provision of the central green area was welcomed. Changes were recommended to the draft layout to provide for a less urban frontage on Bedford Road and a greater mix of dwelling types. These changes are being incorporated into a revised layout for further pre-application discussions with the Council.

The pre-application advice, based on a development of 51 units, indicated that this scale would be "broadly in line with a density guideline of 20 dwellings per hectare, which has been used to calculate dwelling capacity on new housing allocation sites." The officer raised no concerns about the loss of Burford Grange itself.

The layout submitted with the pre-application submission comments demonstrates that 51 dwellings can comfortably be accommodated on the site. Even taking into account officer comments about the Bedford Road frontage, the site is still capable of delivering 50+ dwellings. The dwelling estimate for this site should therefore be increased from 40 dwellings to 50 dwellings.


Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)
The Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2016 update) assessed the Burford Grange site as follows:

Agricultural Land Classification Grade 3
Air quality Management Area No
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty No
Archaeological interest No
Common land/CROW No
Conservation Area No
Contaminated Land No
Flood - river No
Flood - surface No
Green Belt Yes
Habitats No
Listed Buildings No
Local Nature Reserve No
Public Rights of Way No
Registered Park and Garden No
Scheduled Ancient Monument No
Groundwater Source Protection Zone No
Site of Special Scientific Interest Impact zone > 100 dwellings
Wildlife Site Adjacent

The only items of interest here is the Green Belt designation of the site (which is the same as all the sites around Ickleford and Hitchin) and the adjacent Wildlife Site. The remaining 17 criteria confirmed no constraints. In confirming that the Burford Grange site was suitable, available and achievable, the SHLAA concluded as follows:

"Rectangular site consisting of existing Grange building and adjoining undeveloped land. Site well defined by surrounding planting and site capable of achieving satisfactory relationship with existing residential properties on Westmill Lane. Would require release from the Green Belt and amendment to village boundary. For the purposes of the SHLAA, it is assumed that the existing Grange building is retained and the dwelling estimate has been reduced to reflect this."

The dwelling estimate of 40 dwellings provided in the Local Plan for site IC2 is 40 dwellings. This is a reduction from 48 dwellings in the Preferred Options Local Plan from December 2014. The revised estimate is based on the assumption in the SHLAA that the existing Grange Building would be retained, although the text makes clear that this assumption is "for the purposes of the SHLAA". This conclusion was reached in the absence of a proposed layout. As set out above, a proposed layout is now attached to these representations showing how 51 dwellings could be accommodated on the site.

There is no reason to retain the Grange building as part of any development scheme. The building is not Listed, nor locally listed, nor within a Conservation Area. It was built in the 1960s/70s and is of no particular architectural or historic interest. At pre-application stage, the Council raised no concerns about the proposed loss of Burford Grange itself. In the interests of maximising the contribution towards the district's housing need and of using land efficiently, the dwelling estimate for this site should be increased to 50 dwellings.


Green Belt review
The Council has undertaken a review of the Green Belt in North Hertfordshire at both the strategic and local level. At the strategic level the value of the Green Belt around Ickleford is in preventing the northward expansion of Hitchin. In line with the NPPF, the Green Belt is not judged to perform a function in preventing the coalescence of Hitchin with Ickleford, nor of the outward expansion of Ickleford itself. At the local level for site IC2, the Council's review found:

"The site makes a moderate contribution to Green Belt. The site is outside settlement boundaries although adjoins existing development on one side. The site is close to Hitchin, however as Ickleford isn't a town, this isn't significant in Green Belt terms."

We support the Council's conclusion. While the site is within the Green Belt, it could be developed without causing harm to the fundamental principles of Green Belt designation.


Landscape Impact
A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was undertaken by ACD Environmental in July 2016 (see appendix D). This report provides an assessment of the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed development on the receiving landscape. The report states:

"Given the substantial existing landscape framework and nature of local landform, the proposed site is very contained visually and physically. As a result, the potential for clear views from surrounding landscape will be limited and consequently the potential for visibility and effect on the locally defined network of local green spaces, including Oughtonhead Nature Reserve and the green belt land to the south and west, will also be limited."

Further:

"It can be determined that the introduction of new residential units at this point, with a similar offset from the river Oughton as existing residential development to the south of the river would not be uncharacteristic. Given the extent of mature boundary enclosure visual intrusion would be low and the character of the River Oughton would be retained."

The report concludes that "the introduction of residential development within the existing landscape framework would not be considered out of character when considered as part of the wider setting."

In terms of mitigation the report recommends that the scale of the development should be limited to 2.5 storey to retain the same skyline to views from the local landscape. It is also recommended that development should be kept back from the site boundaries, principally to the north, to allow for existing boundary vegetation to mature and new visual barrier elements to establish to minimise the potential impact of built form. These measures have been incorporated into the layout attached at appendix A and will help to minimise the landscape impact of the scheme.


Heritage
The Burford Grange site is some distance from the Conservation Area and has no specific heritage designations affecting it. As such, development of this site would have no impact on local heritage features. The site was not included in the Council's Heritage Assessment of Ickleford undertaken by Amec Foster Wheeler in June 2016.


Ecology
The site is adjacent to, and partly within, a County Wildlife Site (Westmill Lane, ref 11/038). Details of the ecological value of the site are set out in the attached report by Ethos Environmental Planning. The report sets out the ways in which development can mitigate any ecological impact.


Highways
A Transport Statement has been undertaken by Conisbee, see Appendix F. This confirms that the development proposals can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network. A revision to the layout has been made to meet the Local Highway Authority's requirements in terms of an acceptable access from the A600. The site is well located in respect of local services and facilities and offers residents a range of travel options. The scheme will involve extending the existing footway on the western side of the A600 and providing a pedestrian refuge to enable crossing of the A600.


Parish Council views
Ickleford Parish Council has raised a number of concerns to all four sites within the parish (including the site adjacent to Lower Stondon, LS1). However, a number of the points of objections made by the Parish Council are only directed at some of the sites and many do not relate to site IC2 at Burford Grange. For example, the concerns about sewerage and flooding are not expressed in relation to site IC2 and neither are the procedural concerns about lack of consultation (since site IC2 was included at the previous consultation stage, unlike sites IC3 and LS1). While the comments raised by the Council are not an untypical response to a draft Local Plan, it would appear that if some development has to be accommodated in Ickleford (as it surely must, given the district-wide housing need) then the Burford Grange site would seem to be the least-worst option in terms of the Parish Council's views.


Appendices
Appendix A - Indicative site layout
Appendix B - Pre-application submission
Appendix C - Pre-application response from NHDC
Appendix D - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, ACD Environmental, July 2016
Appendix E - Ecology, Ethos, November 2016
Appendix F - Transport Statement, Conisbee, November 2016

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Linda Aird

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green belt, transport assessment, air quality, impact of Central Beds local plan on NHDC.

Full text:

Not sound for the following reasons:
Conflicts with National Policy Framework.
Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.
Traffic modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Beds. Conflicts with NHDC policy of transport.
Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.
NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Beds local plan.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1868

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Robert Lewis

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Coalescence with Hitchin

Full text:

I object to the inclusion in the draft local plan of housing site IC2 (Burford Grange, Ickleford) and part of housing site IC3 (Bedford Road, Ickleford). In both cases my objection is based on the argument that the site's inclusion is not based on proportionate evidence and is therefore not justified as described by paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site IC2

This site was first identified as a possible site for housing in 2013 when the council published its Housing Options paper. It was then called 'site 40' and it was categorised as a 'priority 3' site. In order to be included as a 'priority' site it was only necessary for sites to be physically capable of being developed by a willing owner and to be capable of making a profit (Housing Options para. 3.2). In other words, no planning judgement was involved. Planning judgement was only used to divide the 'priority' sites into categories: category 1 (those 'most likely to be acceptable'), category 2 (those that were 'moderately acceptable'), and category 3 (those 'least likely to be developed'). Priority 3 sites were therefore ones that were considered unsuitable in planning terms in varying degrees. Even sites that were totally unacceptable from a planning point of view were given a 'priority 3' ranking. I objected at the time, arguing that such a terminology was misleading because it implied that all sites with a 'priority' were regarded as being preferable to others - those over which they had a priority - when in fact all sites that had been put forward by owners were included provided that they were physically and financially capable of being developed.

The explanation for giving the site only a 'priority 3' classification was given in the SHLAA, the most recent of which had been published in December 2012. It was stated that developing this green belt site would 'erode the narrow gap between Ickleford and Hitchin'. (Maintaining the separation of settlements is, of course, a key green belt function.) That conclusion was not surprising. Ickleford is a separate village from its neighbouring town but that separation is fragile.

The distance between the nearest properties in Hitchin and those in Ickleford is only about 250m. The intervening land, of which Site IC2 forms a major part, accommodates just a very few houses in largish grounds. Having that break produces for both residents and all those travelling on Bedford Road - the main road between the two settlements - a sense of leaving one settlement before entering the other. That sense would be destroyed if this site were to be developed as a new housing estate. Ickleford would be perceived to be simply a part of Hitchin.

Only one other road links Ickleford to Hitchin - Old Hale Way (which becomes 'Arlesey Road' in Ickleford). On that road, too, there is a gap between the two settlements. The gap is similar to that on the Bedford Road, comprising a roughly 250m stretch of mainly undeveloped land. That gap is also important in maintaining the identity of the village as a separate settlement, and I note that there is no proposal to allocate housing there.

Of those two gaps which separate the village from Hitchin, the one in which the objection site lies is by far the more important. Bedford Road is an 'A' road (the A600) and is the main route between Hitchin (and Stevenage further south) and Bedford. It carries a huge amount of traffic, whereas Old Hale Way is just a residential street. For most people, therefore, the perception of Ickleford as comprising a distinct settlement and not being merely a part of Hitchin is critically dependent on maintaining Site IC2 as open land.

I assume that the reason why the council has changed its mind since the Housing Options paper was issued, and now proposes allocating Site IC2 for housing despite its earlier view that its development 'would erode the narrow gap between Ickleford and Hitchin' is that its allocation is necessitated by the demand for housing land. I am not arguing that the mere fact that Site IC2 lies in the green belt is sufficient to rule it out. It may be the case generally that the demand for housing in North Herts is such as to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the redrawing of green belt boundaries. However, when the Housing Options paper was published Ickleford was envisaged to provide a total of just 9 dwellings, all of which were to be located on what is now Site IC1 (land to the rear of Duncots Close). The 48 dwellings then estimated to be possible on Site IC2 were obviously not required - or at least not sufficiently required as to justify the harm that would be done by eroding the green belt gap between the village and Hitchin.

It may be the case that since 2013 the perceived demand for housing has increased. However, I find it hard to believe that that increase has been sufficient to justify the enormous increase in housing provision demanded of Ickleford. The Proposed Submission local plan envisages no fewer than 319 houses being added to the village. In addition, since the Housing Options paper was issued, planning permission has been granted for 8 houses right in the centre of the village on the site of the former Green Man pub, and a planning application (which I have written to support) has been submitted for a development of 19 houses, again right in the centre of the village on the Ickleford Manor site. These sites (the latter if approved) cannot be dismissed as 'windfall' sites, irrelevant to the local plan process. They go towards meeting housing need. They are both 'previously developed' sites. Their contribution allows less acceptable sites, such as Site IC2, being dropped from the plan.

The additional housing sites in Ickleford - IC3 and LS1 - were added to the draft plan only at the most recent stage, when the Proposed Submission version was issued. They have therefore not been the subject of public consultation until now. Together, they would provide a total of 270 homes. In my opinion (and I comment in more detail below on Site IC3) their development, although regrettable and harmful to the countryside, would not be as harmful to the green belt as would the development of Site IC2 because they are not located in the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin. When the council was alerted to these sites it should have reconsidered whether it was still right to maintain Site IC2 as an allocated site. Had it done so, I believe that it would have concluded that Site IC2 should now be dropped.


Site IC3

This site straddles a public footpath which runs from the Bedford Road eastwards to the village playing field. The footpath's eastern half forms the northern boundary of the village's built up area. In my opinion the development of that part of the site which lies on the unbuilt southern side of the footpath would be acceptable, but to allow the built up part of the village to cross over to the northern side of the footpath would not. Development of the part of the site that lies south of the footpath could almost be regarded as infilling.

Allowing housing development to the north of the footpath would have two damaging effects. First, it would ruin a very pleasant walk. Instead of a walk with fields on at least one side, with the path forming a natural and obvious boundary to the village on the other, the walk would be reduced to a route through a new housing estate. Second, it would see an unacceptable degree of encroachment onto open countryside. While there is some development north of the path on the Bedford Road, it is not visible from the path itself and the view northwards from the path is one of open countryside. That would be totally ruined the whole of Site IC3 were developed.


Traffic

Bedford Road is very busy already. In the morning peak, and especially during school term time, there is always a long a queue of cars into Hitchin. Often the queue stretches all the way from the mini roundabout at the top of Turnpike Lane right to the town centre. I know that route intimately as I live on it, and for many years until I retired I used it daily to get to Hitchin train station to commute into London. Now, if I have an appointment at 9 am in Hitchin I have to leave the house before 8.30, and even then I often choose to go via the village centre, which is itself busy at that time.

In my opinion Bedford Road is not capable of accommodating any significant increase in traffic, either from Site IC2 or Site IC3. Development on Site LS1 would exacerbate the problem.


Appearance at the Public Examination

I do wish to appear at the public examination. However, if there are others who will be appearing who make the same points, not least Ickleford Parish Council, I would be happy to allow this written objection to suffice.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1894

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Helen Rowe

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Building on Green Belt land
- Conflicts with the NPPF
- Conflicts with NHDC objectives on Green Belt
- Sewerage and Flooding
- Air quality
- Increased traffic
- Relocation of Ickleford School
- Highway infrastructure and congestion

Full text:

As a resident of Ickleford, I would like to express my concerns about sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

1) Building on Green Belt land
In relation to sites IC1, IC2 and IC3, I believe that the Local Plan to be "Not Sound" for the following reasons:
*It conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework
*It conflicts with NHDC objectives on Green Belt
2) Sewerage and Flooding
Regarding sites IC1 and IC3, I think the Local Plan is also "Not Sound", because:
*Evidence shows that the man sewer cannot even cope with current demand -- so IC1 and IC3 will only add to this burden
*It conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments
3) Air quality
For all four of these sites, I believe the Local Plan is "Not Sound" for the following reason:
*Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
4) Relocation of Ickleford School
With regard to site IC3, the Local Plan is "Not Sound" for this reason:
*The consequent impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages
*The existing school, Ickleford Primary School, was buildt in 1848, and the front part of the school is a Grade 2 listed building

I hope you will take these concerns into consideration.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1898

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Derek & Elaine Golder

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Insufficient sewerage and flooding provisions
- Grave concerns regarding increased traffic through the village impacting on school activity and Local Residents

Full text:

We wish to object to the above Local Plans for the following reasons:-

* Not Sound as building would be on Green Belt Land - IC1 IC2 & IC3
* Not Sound as insufficient sewerage and flooding provisions IC1 and IC3
* Not legally complaint as no prior consultation - IC3
* Grave concerns regarding increased traffic through the village impacting on school activity and Local Residents IC1 IC2 IC3 & LS1

We urgency request that the above plans are reviewed.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1903

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Carol Garrett

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC3:
- Scale of development
- Building on Green Belt
- Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework
- Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
- Village character
- Open Space
- Sewerage & Flooding
- Lack of Proper Consultation
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air Quality
- Relocation of the School
- Historic Character
- Heritage assets
- No Co-Ordination with Neighbouring Authorities (Central Bedfordshire Local Plan)

Full text:

I am a resident of Ickleford Village in Hertfordshire and would like to lodge my own personal objections to the planned additional housing in Ickleford:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes.

Which I feel strongly is an amount of housing that the infrastructure of Ickleford and the surrounding area of Hitchin where we have our G.P. surgeries and secondary schools will not be able to sustain.

1. Building on Green Belt
For sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
- Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework.
- Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Ickleford is a beautiful village surrounded by green fields on the borders of Lower Stondon/Arlesey - Befordshire. This is enjoyed by many families and groups as a countryside area for walking/running and exercise, also walking their pets. The removal of this Green Belt area and adding additional housing will be against our hopes to keep green belt countryside free.

2. Sewerage & Flooding
For sites IC1 and IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
- Evidence shows that the main sewer cannot cope with current demand; IC1 and IC3 will add to this burden.
- Conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.

With the current difficulties the whole country is experiencing with flooding issues, which then require already stretched services who have to rescue elderly and vulnerable people, requires the use of many government departments to clear the devastation that flooding causes to properties is already a massive burden in this country, and problem that appears to be becoming more and more of a difficult issue. I feel to add to this knowingly is totally unacceptable.

3. Lack of Proper Consultation
For sites IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Legally Compliant' for the following reason:
- NHDC did not allow prior consultation on these sites.

I feel the above comment is self-explanatory and disgraceful if it is 'Not Legally Compliant'. I do wonder why this happened as I am sure there would have been many objections, which I assume for planning purposes is easier to avoid.

4. Traffic
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - The Local Plan is 'not Sound' for the following reasons:
- NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

I have lived in the village for 21 years and brought up our three children here. It already has an excessive amount of traffic driving through the village each day. When taking our children through the village to the local school we often took our lives in our hands because of the narrow pavements and excessive speed of the cars going through the main road. The addition of traffic slowing measures has helped, but I cannot see that adding the amount of housing suggested will help this situation at all. Most people have at least one car per household if not two, and sometimes more. They will all add to the congestion around the school when they leave their premises each day and compromise further the safety of the children trying to access the school.

5. Air Quality
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
- Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

I feel although I am not an expert on Air Pollution, it is blatantly obvious more housing and added car use in the village must add to Air Pollution which is a worldwide issue, if this conflicts with the NHDC policy on air quality surely this is inappropriate.

6. Relocation of the School
For site IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
- The consequent impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

The village of Ickleford has an amazing historical background and I have always thought that the local school is part of this and situated next to our beautiful church. There are links between the school and the church, and other organizations like the local Scouting and Brownie and Guides Groups. If the school were to be relocated purely because of the building of a new 150 home housing estate this would be devastating to the community of Ickleford. It is also blatantly obvious that the current school would never be able to cope with such an increase in the population of Ickleford.

OUR MAJOR CONCERN: If the school is relocated could you tell me would the existing school field then be granted permission for another huge amount of housing as our back garden is adjoined to the current school field?

7. No Co-Ordination with Neighbouring Authorities
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - The Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:
- NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

I am not sure why this has not happened but surely it should have been considered.

I would like to say as a resident I am really concerned about the impact the planned housing will have on the village of Ickleford, its school, the traffic increase, we currently use G.P. surgeries in Hitchin and they struggle to cope with their patient numbers. I am worried how much the situation will deteriorate with 319 additional homes in the village. The local secondary schools in Hitchin are highly in demand and surely also will struggle to accommodate the planned new housing. I feel there is currently no increase in supporting community infrastructure, if anything just financial cut backs, closures of school etc. - how can this current suggested additional housing be appropriate?

I look forward to hearing from you with your comments on the above. If there is any way this concern can be forwarded to the relevant committees I would be more than grateful.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1918

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Mike H Wadsworth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modelling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

I strongly object to the proposed local plan in so far as it relates to Ickleford, by which I mean sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, for the following principal reasons:

1. It flies in the face of HMG's own Planning Practice Guidance and in particular paragraphs 79, 80, 83, 85 and 87. HMG attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the basic and fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns. The Guidance continues that established green belt should only be altered in very exceptional circumstances. The massive deleterious effect of the proposals upon the village of Ickleford should be clear to any impartial observer, and it is clear that the circumstances are not "very exceptional". In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

2. Ickleford is a low-lying village which is already the subject of potential flood problems. In July this year one brief rainstorm caused my garden to flood because there is inadequate sewerage and water drainage. Last year properties at the lower end of the village had sewage backing up their lavatories and at a subsequent meeting with representatives of NHDC and Anglian Water it was admitted that the pumping station at Lower Green and the capacity of the pipes were both inadequate. Improvement of the pumping capacity was considered pointless because the pipe capacity throughout the whole of the village would have to be increased [which was considered "impracticable"]. There is already planning permission for additional houses on the site of the Green Man public house and any further housing would be disastrous unless major pipe enlargement works were conducted throughout the whole area and improvements made to the pumping station. This work would have to be undertaken and concluded before any housing development took place. In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

3. Traffic through Ickleford is already causing difficulties, mainly by reason of new housing in South Bedfordshire [Fairfield, Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon] and it is well known that Hitchin and, indeed the centre of Ickleford , are frequently gridlocked at busy times. A further 319 homes would cause impossible difficulties without the construction of a bye pass or bye passes, which in turn would doubtless be constructed [if at all] on Green Belt land! In the circumstances the proposal is unpractical and unsound.

4. It has already been tacitly admitted that the proposed development would destroy the character of the village, the centre of which [both physically and emotionally] is the school, church and village hall. The suggestion that the school would have to be moved to a site outside the confines of the village speaks volumes and no further comment should be necessary. The effect on the village renders the proposal unsound.

The submission smacks of a "panic" approach to an admittedly difficult situation caused by HMG's requirement to produce a plan by a specific date but there is no indication of any considered or sensible attempt to address the issues. The appearance is of a hurried decision simply to pluck enough ground, anywhere, to enable to Council to satisfy "the numbers". If the submission were put into effect the result would be a flagrant disavowal of HMG's own criteria.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1955

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr John Willoughby

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: traffic, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan, cumulative impacts with Herts authorities

Full text:

TRAFFIC

Two of the three routes converging directly on Hitchin from the north pass through Ickleford.

Both already become congested at peak periods, so that without a major upgrading of the road system the proposed housing development at sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 would inevitably increase that congestion.
Contributing further to such an effect would be traffic coming from similar developments already proposed for Mid-Bedfordshire.

From the Local Plan Technical Review 2.4 we learn that there is currently no COMET run that illustrates the impact of the scale of growth from the local plan housing requirements for any of the 10 District Councils in Hertfordshire. 5.4 draws attention to the required evidence also being dependent on growth in adjacent authorities (e.g. Bedfordshire in this case) which appears to be as uncertain as that of NHDC and the other Hertfordshire Districts. 5.17 states that the county wide model will show the key corridors and linkages between the urban areas where public transport and sustainable modes should be promoted, but in no part of the subsequent summary is any estimate given as to the likely time it will take to pull all this work together to form a plan for Ickleford that is worthy of public consultation.

If a consultation is nevertheless imminent our response must be that the grounds for this are Not Sound as Ickleford cannot be expected to suffer the consequences of a decision that would ignore the mass of facts already evident locally or likely to form part of the planners'
broader vision.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1962

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Mike Williams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modelling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

Re: Plans for Ickleford IC1, IC2, IC3, LS!

I would like to state my support for the Ickleford Parish Council's objections to sites IC!, IC2, & IC3.
I believe the are not sound for following reasons :
The main sewer through the village is already at capacity & in extreme wet conditions gets full which causes "back up" to drainage pipes from roads leading into the main Arlesey Road. This is known to Anglia Water & tankers regularly attend to pump sewerage / drainage water from the pumping stations by Cadwell Bridge & Laurel Way, however this does not help in very wet conditions when flooding is experienced in several areas. Anglia Water in their comments in the plan state that their treatment Centre can cope---this might be true but the actual pipework through the village taking sewerage etc to the Treatment Centre certainly can't . Additional housing would only add to the problems.

I believe as do most people in the village that the school ( which is partly listed) is the centre of the village & to move this is not justified. If ever expansion was needed then a seperate annexe should be considered for certain ages

Other aspects such as Traffic & Building on Green Belt I agree with Ickleford Parish Council's response, but my main objections are as stated above. We do realise that some building is necessary but the infrastructure must be also in place.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1966

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Rowan Skinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2: Green Belt, traffic modelling does not consider increased traffic from C Beds, air quality, cumulative impacts with C Beds plan not considered

Full text:

I write to you as a resident of Ickleford in regard to the NHDC Local Plan for additional housing in and around Ickleford.

As a younger home owner and resident of Ickleford I recognise the urgent need for additional housing in the London Commuter belt, with this in mind I still feel that the proposal is ill thought through and unsound for the following reason.

1) Duncots Close (location of IC1) is small cut-d-sac with no pavements - pedestrians have to walk on the road to access the houses. The situation as is, is already a serious safety hazard. Any additional housing in this area as proposed under IC1 will increase traffic and poses a very serious safety hazard to the residents and other pedestrians. Due to the positioning of houses it appears impossible to provide suitable pavements.
Summary: Objection of the grounds of safety.

2) For site IC1, IC2 and IC3 the Local plan is not sound as it is in conflict with eh National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt land.

3) Duncots Close (location for IC1) has already suffered with sewerage draining issues as the main sewer cannot cope with the demand. The proposed IC1 and IC3 will increase this demand and will increase risk of flooding for the local residents.

4) For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:  NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport

5) For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:  Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
6. Relocation of the School - For site IC3 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason: The consequent impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages
7. No coordination with neighbouring authorities For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason:  NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

Please may the planning inspector review the proposal for Ickleford with the above comments in mind?

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1976

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Paul Mander

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Traffic and pollution
- Building on Green Belt which conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives

Full text:

All sites IC1 IC2 IC3 LS1 are not suitable for this area due to traffic and pollution concerns they are also to be built on Green Belt which conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2060

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Julie Meens

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Flood Risk
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Conservation site
- Wildlife and Biodiversity
- Education facilities
- Scale of development
- Village identity


Full text:

i am emailing you about the plans for houses in Ickleford

IC1, I do not think this is a good site to build on, it is meadow land to the back which dose flood depending on how much rain we have, the roads around there also flood so any more concrete in the area will make this problem worse. the traffic in the are is bad during rush hour.

IC2, i can not believe this has even got to planning, the A600, Bedford road dose not need any more traffic on it, the road is bumper to bumper every morning you only need one little problem and then the whole road system stops, this is the green belt and it is right on the local river and conservation site, the road floods here as it is at the bottom of a hill, the drains here are full all the time, i know this as i walk my dogs here, the road is continually having to be repaired as there are so many lorries go over the drain covers and smash up the road. i have seen this area in really server rain storms, i have seen the manhole covers on the path forced OPEN and water coming up like a fountain, very dangerous and people have to walk through this. putting 40 houses on an area that is very wet anyway and all the extra concert on this area will cause more flooding. there is a heron that lives at this point of the river and a king fisher that i see, this is also an area where the black squirrel live.

IC3 150 houses, if you say an average of 2 cars per home, that's 300 cars trying to get on to a very busy road A600 every morning, this is also on an area of green belt, the school is over subscribed every year as are all schools in the area so where are these children meant to go to school, we are losing so many services so a new school is way down the list, the infrastructure in the area can not take this amount of extra needs. its not a good idea.

LS1 this again is on green belt, again there will be more traffic on the roads.

i grew up in Ickleford, as did my mother and my 2 children, they will never be able to buy there own homes here as the prices are now so high but squeezing 319 in such a small space is crazy. we know why the building companies want to shoe horne these houses here as its in Hertfordshire, so they can charge more than 5 miles down the road in Bedfordshire. its obvious these people sit in an office looking at maps and when they see a green space they shout ' fill it ' with out any consideration on the impact of people already living there, the services and quality of life not only for residents already living there but for the new people that move in to these houses, you would be looking at potentially 1000 more people living in a small village, there will be more commuters and you cant get a seat as it is, the road area around the station from 3.30 on wards is crazy, it will get worse. i know we need more homes and its not the ' not in my yard' objection, its the fact there are TOO many, especially for a small village and the area they want to build on, if these are allowed Ickleford would soon be an area of Hitchin and would totally lose it's identity as a village.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2092

Received: 25/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs A and K Fletcher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Scale of development
- Alter nature of village
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Sewerage systems
- Education facilities
- Building on the Green Belt
- Village character
- Relocation of school
- Additional education capacity required
- Heritage assets

Full text:

OBJECTIONS TO THE LOCAL PLAN FOR ICKLEFORD

SITES IC1, IC2, 1C3, LS1

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The local plan proposes 319 new homes (on top of the 27 new homes already part of the Planning Process). These additional 346 homes would be out of all proportion to the current Ickleford village which comprises just 850 dwellings - the number of dwellings would represent an increase of 40% in the housing stock

Such a significant increase in the number of dwellings/residents would fundamentally and materially alter the nature of the village. It would also put further strain on local roads and sewerage systems as well as on local schooling.

Most of the proposed developments are on Green Belt land.

Ickleford is listed as an "Excluded village in policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan (no 2 with Alterations). This notes that the Council will normally permit development for housing "only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries". Our firm view is that the Local Plan clearly fails to meet either of these criteria.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
Because of the additional education capacity required by the major proposed increase in homes, the Plan proposes to move the local village primary school away from its key site in the centre of the village to a location at IC3. This, to us and we believe to most residents, is utterly inappropriate and totally unacceptable.

The current school, built in 1848, has a Listed frontage and is the main focal point within the village. It is situated on the village Green and has strong links with the nearby church.

With its position on the Green, it has for over a century and a half been an ideal gathering place for parents and pupils at the beginning and end of each school day. Pupils love playing and chasing eachother on the Green and, in the Autumn, collecting conkers. Maypole dancing on its front lawn is also a well-established tradition for its pupils, as is the walk across the Green to the nearby Church for Harvest Festival and for Xmas Carols. This is all an integral part of the heart and soul of the village.

The relocation of the village school would have a significant and material adverse effect on the historic soul and character of Ickleford and we firmly believe it should be resisted at all costs.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2275

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Anna Dodds

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Historic Village/Historic Character
- Relocation of the School
- Lack of prior consultation
- Ickleford will be consumed by North Hitchin
- Loss of Green Belt
- Flood plain
- Sewage capacity
- Local Wildlife
- Highway infrastructure and safety
- Pollution, noise and air quality
- The centre of Hitchin and Hertfordshire that could be built on and infilled rather than destroying our historic village

Full text:

I am emailing regarding the proposed housing sites in Ickleford. We live in Ickleford and are concerned about the proposals for the following reasons.

We are a small historic village where community life focuses in the heart of the village. We fear that relocation of the school (sites IC3) will loose community spirit from the village. The green today is enjoyed by families every day - removal of the school will be a real shame to all that live here and the town will become a busy 'drive through' and conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. It was a real shock to hear of this development plan at a recent meeting - a lack of consultation from NHDC and is not legally compliant.

Expanding the village by building on Burford Grange (site IC2) will mean Ickleford will become consumed by North Hitchin. The boundary of one field is a small but very important buffer of greenbelt land as well as a flood plain - building here will put a lot of demand on sewage, flooding and wildlife. The Bedford Road is already a fast and dangerous road with inadequate pavements and crossings. Building on Bedford Road (IC3) also will put huge demand on the the small round about on Turnpike Lane which already causes major congestion issues entering the village - increased traffic here would be a major problem. Pollution, noise and air quality will be affected and for these reasons are 'not sound' and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

There are many areas in the centre of Hitchin and Hertfordshire that could be built on and infilled rather than destroying our historic village. The industrial area on Bury Mead Road has masses of derelict industrial buildings - surely these would be of interest before building on unspoilt land?!

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2292

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Philip Law

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Building on green belt land
- Sewerage & Flooding
- Traffic
- Air quality
- No coordination with neighbouring authorities

Full text:

I'm writing to object about the elements of the proposed local plan relating to Ickleford, as follows:

Building on green belt land
This applies to sites IC1, IC2 & IC3 as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework AND with the NHDC's own Strategic Objectives re. the Green Belt.

Sewerage & Flooding
This applies to sites IC1 and IC3 as the evidence suggest that the current main sewer cannot cope with the existing demand & these sites will add to that problem. This is also counter to the NHDC's own policy not to develop on land prone to flooding.

Lack of proper consultation
This applies to sites IC3 and LS1, as the plan is not legally compliant, since the NHDC have not allowed prior consultation on these sites.

Traffic
This applies to sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 as the NHDC's modelling is flawed because it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and conflicts with the NHDC's policy on transport.

Air quality
This applies to sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 as the increased traffic pollution that will result conflicts with the NHDC's policy on air quality .

Relocation of the School
This applies to site IC3 - as an ex. Governor of the School my view is that the proposed relocation will impact Ickleford severely, which conflicts with NHDCs policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

No coordination with neighbouring authorities
This applies to sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 as the NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

I do hope that my views will be considered when the Plan is debated, as I believe the current proposals will be disasterous for Ickleford.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2311

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Brown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to IC2:
- Sewage at capacity
- Flood risk
- Highway infrastructure and congestion

Full text:

I am writing to state my objections to the proposed sites developments in Ickleford for the following reasons:

sites IC1 and IC3 on the grounds of being not sound as evidence has shown that the main sewer cannot already cope with current demand and also sites are prone to flooding which will be exacerbated by further housing developments.

I am also objecting to sites IC1, IC2,IC3 and LS1 as being not sound in terms of traffic as the modelling does not take into account the additional traffic from central Bedfordshire housing increases and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport