IC2 Burford Grange, Bedford Road

I would like to make the following comments regarding the North Herts Local Plan.

my objections concern sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1

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 develpoments.

3, Lack of proper consultation
For sites IC3 and LS1 - the local plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
- 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 reasons:
- NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and conflict with NHDC policy on transport.

5 Air quality
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - the local plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
-increased air pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

6 Relocation of the village School
For sites IC3 - the local plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
- 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 reasons:
- NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the CentraL Bedfordshire local plan.

I'm writing to object to the NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan for additional housing in Ickleford.

I attended the public meeting at Ickleford Village hall that was attended by our district councillor Harry Spencer-Smith on the 6th of October 2016.

My objections are as follows;

* I was shocked to learn that our district councillor had voted in favour of the plan, despite the fact that there had been the addition of sites, including the one listed on the plan as IC3, without the proper prior consultation. In my view that makes the plan not legally compliant.

* My second objection is based on that fact that the planned sites IC1, IC2 and IC2 are not sound as they conflict with the NHDC strategic objectives on greenbelt, and would fundamentally change the fabric of the village, by blending it into Hitchin.

* I have lived in the village for 11 years and have two young children at the School, although the school itself is in need of investment, I have concerns that the plans for proposed sites IC1,IC2,IC3, and LS1 are not sound and the NHDC modelling is flawed. This is on the basis that the model does not take into account the additional traffic from Central Bedfordshire and the impact that would have on the village by dramatically increasing traffic volumes, the pavements are already very narrow and often congested, I believe there is very real pedestrian safety issue, not to mention one of congestion.

I would strongly urge the inspector to review the NHDC plan in a way that would allow the council to increase housing capacity within the parish(which is very much needed) in a legally compliant way, that would not involve the erosion of important green belt, and in a way that would need bring to bear terrible congestion and a threat to the safety of pedestrians.

I am respond to your consultation on the local plan for North Hertfordshire, with particular reference to sites IC2 and IC3 in Ickleford.

The amount of housing allocated to sites within Ickleford - being sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 is out of all proportion with the size of the existing village of Ickleford. That amount of development in a small village is totally disproportionate and places a larger burden on the existing village than that imposed on any other community in North Hertfordshire.

The allocation of housing to Ickleford fails to take into account existing applications for developments (or sites with potential for development within the timescale of the local plan) within the existing village of Ickleford such as at The Green Man (Arlesey Road), Ickleford Manor (Turnpike Lane), Arnold Farm (Chambers Lane) and indeed the Bowmans Mill site. All of these sites (which are already developed and not greenfield sites) and far more suited to housing development that the destruction of the green belt that would result from the development of sites, IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

My particular objections to sites IC2 and IC3 are as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt
Sites IC2 and IC3 involve building on the existing green belt. In this regard, the local plan is not sound as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Site IC2 is fundamental to prevent the outward urban sprawl of Hitchin into Ickleford and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open". Your local plan fails to take account of this with regard to site IC2. The development of this site would remove the remaining fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin and directly cause the coalescence of Ickleford and Hitchin in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework. This existing gap (whilst small) makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt due to its importance in preventing the uncontrolled northerly expansion of Hitchin.

2. Lack of proper consultation
In relation to site IC3, your local plan is not legally complaint as NHDC did not allow for any prior consultation in relation to this site.

In relation to site IC2, your local plan is not legally compliant as the prior consultation failed to take into account the objections received particularly with regard to the importance of site IC2 in the prevention of urban sprawl as set out above. The summary of the representations in relation to site IC2 presented to members contained no reference to the objections made on the grounds of urban sprawl and coalescence. This was extremely misleading to members and is a fundamental failure of due process causing your local plan with regard to this site to be not legally compliant.

3. Traffic
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3, NHDC's traffic modelling fails to take into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport. The A600 (Bedford Road) is already gridlocked between Hitchin and Ickleford each morning and the existing road does not have capacity to deal with either development. Any occupier of housing at site IC2 will use their car as their sole method of transport with almost of all traffic being towards Hitchin. There are no public services in Ickleford village itself - other than its primary school which is already at full capacity in providing for the existing village - therefore occupiers of housing at site IC2 will be using private cars to access both employment and education from this site, entirely in the direction of Hitchin. Access to the A600 from site IC2 will only add to the existing traffic problems on this road which blight the whole area. On this basis your local is not sound.

4. Air quality
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3 your local plan is not sound as the resulting increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

5. Relocation of School
The proposal to move the existing Ickleford primary school (required by site IC3) would have a material adverse effect on the village of Ickleford - particularly as regards its historic centre and the continuation of daily life in the centre of the village between the school, church and its village shop. The destruction of the physical proximity of the school and the church would have a catastrophic impact on the village. This is in breach of NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

6. No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities
You have failed to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring authorities and in particular have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan when presenting information and in determining factors such as traffic and indeed the overall housing need. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

I have no further comment to make in relation to IC1.

I have no further comment to make in relation to site LS1 - save to note that this site, despite being regarded by NHDC as being part of Lower Stondon, if in fact part of Ickleford and so the housing allocated for this site should be considered as part of the Ickleford's contribution towards the perceived housing requirement for North Hertfordshire.

Your local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would keep me informed as to the progress of the local plan in relation to these sites and I would like to be involved in the Examination by the Inspector.

I am writing to register my concerns over the planned development in and around the village of Ickleford, with specific reference to the proposed IC3 and IC2.
The plans seem ill thought out, for reasons please look at the many other emails on this. I understand the need for more houses but these plans do not take into account the land, people or way of life of the area.
To go a head with them as it is would cause mistrust, pain and many more social problems than we can afford in these divided times.
I feel that no proper research has been done as to the highly negative impact these developments would have on Ickleford and, by extension, Hitchin.

I am writing to register my concerns regarding the planned development in and around the village of Ickleford, with specific reference to the sites IC3 and IC2.
Such a large development would significantly impact the village, affecting the amenities, transport, schooling and the overall character of the village. This would be in conflict with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages in the area. Furthermore, there would be a notable environmental impact; the proposed IC2 site would border Oughtonhead Nature Reservation, and feed traffic onto an already busy road in and out of Hitchin. This is against NHDC policy on transport.
The scale of IC3 development would have even more damaging effects. The existing infrastructure would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic feeding onto the Bedford Road. The concomitant increase in pollution would damage wildlife, and detract from an ancient stopping point along the Icknield Way. The school is a central focal point of the village, and plans to move the site away are not viable, as access would be a nightmare and moving it from the centre of the village would encourage vehicle use to reach it, once again resulting in heavy traffic and environmental problems, against NHDC policy on air quality. The overall character of the village would change in a manner that could not be reversed, as further development would be needed to support the significantly increased population.
Both the IC2 and IC3 sites are situated near rivers and water meadows, at high risk of flooding, and experts advise against building in areas prone to flooding.
I feel that no proper research has been done as to the highly negative impact these developments would have on Ickleford and, by extension, Hitchin. Focus should be on brownfield sites and under used urban sites, rather than encroaching on greenbelt sites.

I wish to register my objections to site IC3 and IC2 and LS1, as follows:

1) Lack of proper consultation

The Preferred Options Plan on which the public were consulted included only sites IC1 and IC2. The proposed Local Plan now includes the new site IC3, three times as large as the other two put together. Development of this site would dramatically increase the population of the village and fundamentally change its character. For this reason I consider the proposed Local Plan for site IC3 'not legally compliant' as no opportunity for prior public consultation on this site has been given.

2) Relocation of Ickleford Primary School

Ickleford Primary School is a key element in the historic centre of the village, contributing greatly to the village atmosphere and sense of community. The impact on these of relocating the School to a new site distant from the historic centre would be significantly detrimental, and conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. For this reason I consider the Local Plan for site IC3 is "Not Sound".

3) Traffic

The development of sites IC3, IC2 and LS1 would create very substantial extra traffic, along the A600 and also through the village towards Letchworth. The bland statement in section 1.158 of the Plan does not appear to reflect this adequately, particularly as no account appears to be taken of other possible developments in Central Bedfordshire such as that on the RAF Henlow site. The Plan is required to take account of the plans of nearby authorities. For these reasons I consider it is 'Not Sound'.

I am writing to register my concerns over the planned development in and around the village of Ickleford, with specific reference to the proposed IC3 and IC2 sites.

Such a large development would have a significant impact on the village, affecting the amenities, transport, schooling and the overall character of the village, conflicting with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Furthermore, it would have a profoundly negative impact environmentally; the IC2 site would border Oughtonhead Nature Reservation, and feed traffic onto an already busy road into/out of Hitchin. This is against NHDC policy on transport.

The IC3 development is even worse; again, there would be a significant increase in traffic feeding onto the Bedford Road, which the infrastructure cannot cope with. There would be increased pollution, huge damage to wildlife and established flora and fauna, and would destroy the ancient Icknield Way. Furthermore, the school is a central focal point of the village, and plans to move the site away are not viable, as access would be a nightmare and moving it from the centre of the village would encourage vehicle use to reach it, once again resulting in heavy traffic and environmental problems, against NHDC policy on air quality. It would also completely change the feel of Ickleford as the school is at the heart of the our village situated on the green and would be a terrible loss to our community if it were it in that position.

Both the IC2 and IC3 sites are situated near rivers and water meadows, at high risk of flooding, and experts advise against building in areas prone to flooding.

I feel that no proper research has been done as to the highly negative impact these developments would have on Ickleford and, by extension, Hitchin.

We wish to register our objection to these 2 developments at Burford Grange and Bedford Road in Ickleford.

Grounds for objection; Traffic, Sewerage and Flooding. The number of houses being suggested are too many and will cause numerous problems:

1.The village of Ickleford is already critical as far as sewerage is concerned and unless major upgrading of current facilities happens, drainage will not cope.

2.There is already a great deal of congestion at peak times with junction at Turnpike Lane/Bedford Road. The IC2 and IC3 developments alone will increase the number of dwellings by nearly 20%.

3.Will there be any provision to create more parking both in Hitchin town centre and at the Railway Station as an increase in local residents will necessitate this. Car parks are already full at times.

We could quote many other points but trust that other fellow residents will furbish you with many comments.

Finally, residents do not object to all building of new houses; when is the site currently occupied by the former Green Man pub in Turnpike Lane going to be redeveloped? I understand that planning permission has been agreed but the builder still hasn't started doing anything. This site is an eyesore and contractors should be made to start work on this as soon as possible or have their planning application revoked.

We trust that comments of all Ickleford/Hitchin residents will be taken into account and concerns taken on board.

I strongly object to the Local Plan for North Hertfordshire in relation specifically to Ickleford where I am resident. The points below relate to all the sites:
*Whilst I acknowledge some housing development is necessary, the proposed development for Ickleford is disproportionate to the size of the village and existing population, particularly when compared against other North Hertfordshire settlements.
* Developments that have already been approved in Ickleford do not appear in the plan (Green Man, Ickleford Manor)
* Lack of a coordinated approach - the plans across neighbouring councils appear to have been prepared in isolation, with no coordinated approach between authorities. This would lead potentially to significant over development in this area. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
* Development on this scale would significantly alter the social and historic fabric of the village, not to mention have a negative impact on the quality of life of residents.
Please find below my specific comments with regards to the individual sites.

Site IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 Homes
1.Traffic - the local plan and associated modelling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2.Sewerage and Flooding - the village is already unable to cope with the demands on the sewerage network with surface flooding having occurred previously. Many residents have been affected by these problems and Anglian Water are well aware of the issues. Additional housing would only place additional strain on an already stretched network. Building on this site also seems to contradict NHDC's policy of not developing in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3.Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
1.Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2.Traffic - the local plan and associated modeling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 Homes
1.Traffic - the local plan and associated modeling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Sewerage and Flooding - the village is already unable to cope with the demands on the sewerage network with surface flooding having occurred previously. Many residents have been affected by these problems and Anglian Water are well aware of the issues. Additional housing would only place additional strain on an already stretched network. Building on this site also seems to contradict NHDC's policy of not developing in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3. Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
4. Moving the school - Ickleford School is an integral part of the village and through its close association with St Katharine's Church plays a key role in the social, educational and historic part of the village. Moving the school would go against the NHDC policy of protecting and enhancing the historic character of villages. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
5. Lack of Proper Consultation - there has been no opportunity to consult on this site as it was not included in the previous version of the Local Plan. No formal consultation has therefore taken place. The Local Plan is therefore "Not Legally Compliant".
Site LS1 (North Ickleford) - 120 homes
1. Traffic - the local plan and associated modelling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Lack of Proper Consultation - there has been no opportunity to consult on this site as it was not included in the previous version of the Local Plan. No formal consultation has therefore taken place. The Local Plan is therefore "Not Legally Compliant".
Having closely examined the plan and in line with my arguments above, I strongly believe that the plan with regards to Ickleford needs to be re-examined and ask that the arguments I have submitted be used in the examination that will be undertaken by the inspector.

See attached

I am writing to the planning inspector to express concerns about the Proposed Local Plan 2011-2031 and its impact on Ickleford and Hitchin.
For sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 increased traffic from the proposed housing in Lower Stondon and Ickleford is a concern. Traffic currently queues along Bedford Road in Hitchin at peak times, and drivers use Turnpike Lane and Arlesey Road in Ickleford as a detour. Traffic also queues in peak time along Arlesey Road in the village towards Hitchin. No current provisions have been made for an increase in traffic on the Bedford Road in Hitchin or in Ickleford village. My eldest child now attends secondary school in Hitchin as do many other children in Ickleford and there is nothing in the proposals which indicate that this journey will be improved. Cycling towards Hitchin is currently busy and often dangerous there are is no provision in the plans which would improve safety for cyclists.
For site IC3 the closure of Ickleford school will result in loss of an important heritage site in the village which is situated next to the conservation area of Upper Green. Our children have flourished and benefited both academically and socially at Ickleford school due to its size, facilities, quality of teaching and traditions and its closure and would result in the loss of a successful, well respected and expertly lead village school.

I am writing to register my concerns regarding the planned development in and around the village of Ickleford, with specific reference to the sites IC3 and IC2.
Such a large development would significantly impact the village, affecting the amenities, transport, schooling and the overall character of the village. This would be in conflict with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages in the area. Furthermore, there would be a notable environmental impact; the proposed IC2 site would border Oughtonhead Nature Reservation, and feed traffic onto an already busy road in and out of Hitchin. This is against NHDC policy on transport.
The scale of IC3 development would have even more damaging effects. The existing infrastructure would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic feeding onto the Bedford Road. The concomitant increase in pollution would damage wildlife, and detract from an ancient stopping point along the Icknield Way. The school is a central focal point of the village, and plans to move the site away are not viable, as access would be a nightmare and moving it from the centre of the village would encourage vehicle use to reach it, once again resulting in heavy traffic and environmental problems, against NHDC policy on air quality. The overall character of the village would change in a manner that could not be reversed, as further development would be needed to support the significantly increased population.
Both the IC2 and IC3 sites are situated near rivers and water meadows, at high risk of flooding, and experts advise against building in areas prone to flooding.
I feel that no proper research has been done as to the highly negative impact these developments would have on Ickleford and, by extension, Hitchin. Focus should be on brownfield sites and under used urban sites, rather than encroaching on greenbelt sites.

I am writing to raise my concerned regarding the local plan in respect of Ickleford.

My parents have lived in the village since I was 15 and I was lucky enough to purchase a property here 10 years ago and have lived here permanently ever since. During my time here the level of traffic coming down the Bedford Road has drastically increased to the extent that it is now quicker for me to walk to my daughters swimming lesson at the local pool than to drive.

One of the main pull of moving back to Ickleford was its village feel and in particular the local Church of England school. I attend the local church weekly and it was very important to me that my daughter be able to attend not only a small village school but also a faith school.

My specific concerns are as follows

1. The proposed housing will have a significant impact on the feel of the village which is in danger of being swallowed up into Hertfordshire. This relates to all 4 proposed sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1. This plan is not sound as it conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.
2. For site IC3 the proposed relocation of the school will have a dramatic impact on this village of which the school is at the heart. Again this plan is not sound as it conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.
3. In addition in respect of sites IC1, IC2, and IC3 the proposal plans include building on green belt land. This plan is not sound as it conflicts with national planning policy framework and NHDC strategic objectives on green belt.
4. In respect of all 4 sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, the road both through the village but particularly the Bedford Road is already at breaking point in terms of coping with the level of traffic into and through Hitchin. The traffic is frequently at a standstill by the time you reach the Priory School and becoming more frequently backed up from the village itself. This plan is not sound as it does not account for how the already struggling roads will cope with the increased traffic.
5. There is the added impact this will have on pollution so the plan is not sound as it conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Whilst I agree with all the points raised in this regard by Ickleford Parish council, I would like to make specific representation in regard to the suggestion of closing the current school and building a new 2 entrant school on the proposed site.

I recognise that there is a requirement to build new homes and that North Hertfordshire will be required to take a share of these.

However, I believe that homes should be integrated with, and benefit from, the village that they may be added to.

For some villages, they have a central point which may be a church, a pub, a village hall that represents the 'heart of the village'. In the case of Ickleford the church doesn't even have a toilet, the village hall is always booked and we have three pubs. The centrepoint, the place where our main community events happen and where you will find congregations of people interacting with each other, building relationships, enabling a village community rather than a shared area to live, is our school.

From the social events such as Christmas and summer fayres, school events such as plays, sports days etc. to classes, the school is a focal point for much that is good about Ickleford.

If you do not consider the objections on practical and environmental grounds enough to change the plans, I would urge you to reconsider closing the school.

Build a new one entrant school at the north of the village, expand a local primary on Old Hale Way, build on the area north of The Priory school but please do not close the current school as that land will just be built on at some point and we may retain the title of a village, but the essence of what makes Ickleford a village will be lost. We will become just a collection of houses on the north edge of Hitchin - a suburb of a town.

Please consider our points carefully as we should be building vibrant sustainable communities, not destroying the work that has been done in this regard over many years.

That whether the additional houses are deemed viable and appropriate, that the school position and existence should be retained in any event.

The additional homes do not justify a brand new school and if a two entrant school was to be built, and the old school, lost, the damage to the village community would be very great.

In effect, we would lose the centrepoint of the village and Ickleford would become a collection of houses that is, in effect, a suburb of Hitchin.

The very reason Ickleford is deemed a great place to live would be irreversibly damaged.
 
Remove the requirement to close the school and review to find another way to create school places across north Hitchin including:

- another single entrant school
- adding an entrant to another north Hitchin school with greater ability to expand.

We would like to notify you about our strong objections to the Local Plan in respect to our village, Ickleford.

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
Our concerns include:

Building on green belt land
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" because it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.


Sewerage and Flooding
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as evidence shows the main sewer cannot cope with current demand and IC1 will exacerbate the problem. It also conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.

Traffic
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not take into consideration increased traffic from Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Air Quality
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the introduction of increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

Lack of Coordination with neighbouring authorities
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC have not taken into account the impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
Our concerns include:

Building on green belt land
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" because it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.


Traffic
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not take into consideration increased traffic from Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Air Quality
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the introduction of increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

Lack of Coordination with neighbouring authorities
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC have not taken into account the impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.



IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes

Our concerns include:

Building on green belt land
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" because it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.


Sewerage and Flooding
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as evidence shows the main sewer cannot cope with current demand and IC3 will exacerbate the problem. It also conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.

Lack of Proper Consultation
The Local Plan is "Not Legally Compliant" as the NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site.

Traffic
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not take into consideration increased traffic from Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Air Quality
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the introduction of increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

Lack of Coordination with neighbouring authorities
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC have not taken into account the impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.


Relocation of the School
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the impact of relocating the school would conflict with the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of the village.


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

Our concerns include:

Traffic
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC modelling is flawed as it does not take into consideration increased traffic from Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Lack of Proper Consultation
The Local Plan is "Not Legally Compliant" as the NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site.

Air Quality
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the introduction of increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.
Lack of Coordination with neighbouring authorities
The Local Plan is "Not Sound" as the NHDC have not taken into account the impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

I object to the proposed sites IC1, IC2 & IC3 in Ickleford for the following reasons:-

*You are proposing to build on Green Belt. The Green Belt was created for a reason, namely to avoid overpopulation and to create breathing space between built-up areas. Your plans increase the likelihood of the village of Ickleford being subsumed into the town of Hitchin, and are therefore 'Not sound' in this respect.

* I believe the existing population of Ickleford is between 1800-1900 people. You propose to build 319 new homes within the boundary of the village, thereby increasing the population by between 640 to 960 (or possible more). This represents an increase to the population of the village of around 35% - 52% (or possibly more). This would fundamentally alter the nature of our rural village.

* The sewerage system in Ickleford is already unable to cope with the current demand. You are proposing to increase the usage by between 35% and 52% and therefore the proposal is definitely 'Not sound'. The year before last I had to complain to the water authority that the drain in Chambers Lane outside Ickleford Sports Club was blocked and was flowing down the street. This happened every day for two weeks. Freezing weather made the road hazardous to all road users. There is an underground stream flowing from somewhere near the Bedford Road, down behind/under the properties on Chambers Lane and Lower Green and filtering into the Hiz. You are proposing to build another 120 homes on land above/next to this. Apart from the fact that the existing sewerage infrastructure will be unable to cope, what geological studies have you undertaken to ensure that the building of these new homes (and I believe a new school adjacent to them) would not cause an increase in the flood risk to the properties in Chambers Lane and Lower Green?

* The increase in traffic as a result of not only the proposed IC1, 2 & 3 sites but also the plans to build another 700 homes on the RAF camp in Henlow, will make the Bedford Road, Turnpike Lane and Old Hale Way (and all roads between Ickleford and Hitchin) unusable in the morning and evening rush hours. For this reason the proposals are 'Not sound'. Indeed, there appears to be no coordination, cooperation or joined-up thinking between neighbouring authorities: how can it possibly be sensible to build 300 homes in a village a handful of miles away from another village where it is proposed to build 700 homes?

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed local plan for North Hertfordshire and in particular sites IC2 and IC3.

Ickleford is a historical village with a strong sense of community and pride in our independence from our neighbouring town, Hitchin.
The volume of housing proposed within the boundaries of Ickleford is completely disproportionate to the size of the existing village and would place a larger burden on the village of Ickleford than any other village in North Hertfordshire.

In particular the proposed development of IC2 and IC3 is not sound as it is in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which specifically states that the existence of designated green-belt land is to prevent "urban sprawl". Simply looking at a map and filling in the gaps with housing will lead to the dissolution of our village as it becomes only a surburb of Hitchin. The fragile boundary of one field (IC2) is what prevents the sprawl of Hitchin to the north. This site also provides a buffer zone for the wildlife living in the adjoining nature reserve, Oughtonhead Common. Heavy residential development of this site will no doubt lead to pollution of the river, air quality and general beauty of this well loved and popular countryside reserve.

The proposed plan in relation to IC2 & IC3 is also unsound as it does not take into consideration the increase in traffic on the A600 Bedford Rd. This is already an extremely congested road and does not have the capacity to withstand any more local traffic commuting into Hitchin and well as traffic from Bedfordshire. This will cause commuters to use Turnpike Lane and Old Hale Way as a cut through to access the roads to Stevenage and Luton. These residential streets are used daily by families who are taking children to and from the 4 schools in the local area. These roads are already dangerous due to the volume of parked cars and traffic giving way; any increase in volume of cars on these roads will only exacerbate this danger to young people.

I also have grave concerns about the proposed plan to relocate the village school to site IC3. The village school is the quintessential heart of the village, forming a triangle of landmarks with the church and village hall around the village green. This is where village families meet and converse. Without this connection, the strong sense of community upon which our village thrives will inevitably erode and the village green will purely become a walk through on a commute to a larger school site on the north boundary of the village. This is in direct contradiction to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historical character of its villages and is therefore not sound.

No prior consultation was allowed for site IC3 as residents were not made aware of its existence on the local plan before the original consultation deadline. This means that it is not legally compliant. Also, no reference was made to the objections submitted in good faith regarding site IC2 with concerns raised about urban sprawl and increased traffic and pollution. This is not in keeping with your planning policies and does not instil confidence in the objectivity of the whole process.

There are currently several large existing planning applications for residential homes at various stages of development that don't appear to have been taken into account in the local plan. The development of these sites, which are currently derelict or used for commercial purposes, will not alter the character of the village or add undue burden.

In summary, I consider this proposed plan to put a disproportionate burden on the village of Ickleford. It would mean the absorption of Ickleford into the town of Hitchin and could lead to further sprawl towards to the Bedfordshire border. It does not take into consideration the existing planning applications for multiple residential developments in the village. It would destroy the sense of community and the historical character of the village. It would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic through the village and would have a detrimental effect on the air quality for the residents of the village.

For all these reasons, I state that this proposed plan is not sound and not legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would take my points into consideration and keep me informed about any future decisions and developments in relation to these sites.

We recognise the pressure to provide more housing in our local area and appreciate how difficult this is for all councils. However, we have considered the proposed local plan lists for IC1/2/3 and LS1 all of which directly impact our beautiful, historic village and we object as we believe that they are not sound for the following reasons:-

We moved to Ickleford nearly six years ago because it offered a great village feel (being separate from Hitchin) and a wonderful environment to start our family. Ickleford village has proved to be everything that we had hoped for, with a fantastic school and our son is in Year 1 and our daughter will be joining next year.

IC3
The school is at the heart of the community, providing the highest standard for our children. It really is the hub of the village and it would be a devastating loss to the village and to our family for it to be relocated. We understand that this proposal conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On a personal level, it would be blow to potentially lose the heart of our community.

IC1 and IC3
We are also very much concerned about the impact all these homes would have on the already over burdened sewerage system in the village. In our short time here, there have been problems with flooding which we believe culminated in contaminating the water supply for a period of time. Without drastic re-engineering we do not see how the main sewer system would cope with a higher demand. We are also lead to believe this conflicts with the NHDC policy not to develop areas prone to flooding and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.

The local plan does not appear to be sound.

IC1, IC2 and IC3
We fail to see how building on the Green Belt will have any positive effect on the environment, air quality (higher traffic volumes) which will ultimately have a detrimental effect on all of our children, our future. Where does this stop? We know there is a National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC has its own strategic objectives around Green Belt preservation, both of which seem to be ignored in these plans.

We appreciate you taking the time to review this document.

Site: IC2
As a resident of Ickleford, I wish to object to the plans for this site on the following grounds:
1.It is 'Not Sound' as it
a.Conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework
b.Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
c.NHDC Modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC transport policy
d.Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
e.NHDC has not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

I would like to register my objection to the North Hertfordshire District Council Proposed Submission Local Plan for the sites in Ickleford.

IC1 and IC2 should not be used, they are sites that have long been "Green belt" and IC2 has already had a number of planning applications refused over the years. It is the boundary between Hitchin and Ickleford, and as such should not be compromised.

The very real danger that can be foreseen is the danger posed by the potential increased traffic flow through the village, this is of deep concern to me. The crossroads were changed to a roundabout at the junction of Turnpike Lane, West Mill Lane and the Bedford Road some years ago due to the risks posed by the traffic here. The junction of the new proposed development IC2 with the Bedford Road would present a similar danger but with considerably more traffic coming along the Bedford Road, especially with all the additional housing. IC3 and LS1 propose 270 new houses and, along with the 750 properties at Henlow Camp, and further new housing proposed in the villages beyond Henlow and Stondon the potential traffic using the Bedford Road through the village of Ickleford could be truely enormous.

IC1, IC2, IC3, and LS1 combined propose 319 new homes, this represents a 40% increase in the housing in the village alone, using four different locations. This will have a catastrophic effect on the whole character of the village, and building on IC2 will essentially destroy Ickleford as a village as it will just be swallowed up by Hitchin.

The number of sites should be fewer, even say one or two sites only to minimise disruption within the village and decrease the cost of all the additional services required. The total number of houses proposed for the village across these four sites is too high.

So, to summarise,:
The village cannot sustain the number of houses proposed
The traffic level will be dangerously high
The village could cease to be a village

I am writing to register my concerns over the planned development in and around the village of Ickleford, with specific reference to the proposed IC3 and IC2 sites.

Such a large development would have a significant impact on the village, affecting the amenities, transport, schooling and the overall character of the village, conflicting with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Furthermore, it would have a profoundly negative impact environmentally; the IC2 site would border Oughtonhead Nature Reservation, and feed traffic onto an already busy road into/out of Hitchin. This is against NHDC policy on transport.

The IC3 development is even worse; again, there would be a significant increase in traffic feeding onto the Bedford Road, which the infrastructure cannot cope with. There would be increased pollution, huge damage to wildlife and established flora and fauna, and would destroy the ancient Icknield Way. Furthermore, the school is a central focal point of the village, and plans to move the site away are not viable, as access would be a nightmare and moving it from the centre of the village would encourage vehicle use to reach it, once again resulting in heavy traffic and environmental problems, against NHDC policy on air quality.

Both the IC2 and IC3 sites are situated near rivers and water meadows, at high risk of flooding, and experts advise against building in areas prone to flooding.

I feel that no proper research has been done as to the highly negative impact these developments would have on Ickleford and, by extension, Hitchin.

I'm writing to object to the NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan for additional housing in Ickleford.

My objections are as follows;

* I was very shocked to learn that our district councillor had voted in favour of the plan, despite the fact that there had been the addition of sites, including the one listed on the plan as IC3, without the proper prior consultation. In my view that makes the plan not legally compliant.

* My second objection is based on that fact that the planned sites IC1, IC2 and IC2 are not sound as they conflict with the NHDC strategic objectives on greenbelt, and would fundamentally change the fabric of the village, by blending it into Hitchin.

* I was very shocked to hear of the plan for a relocation of the school. I have lived in the village for 11 years and have two young children who attend Ickleford School. We chose to live in Ickleford due to the character of the village and the increase in the school size and location would without doubt change the village. This conflicts with the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. The village is also unable to take an increase in traffic as the roads are already very congested and walking along some of the pavements with small children already feels unsafe at times and this pedestrian safety issue/danger would only increase.

I hope that the inspector will review the plan. I am very worried about the effect of these proposals on the fabric of the village as a pleasant place to live and am very concerned about safety with a massive increase in traffic in the area.

Following the recent publication of the above document, please find beneath representations to the proposals as they specifically affect the sites in the Parish of Ickleford. For clarity, the site itself is listed, together with the reason(s) why the objection is made:

Site IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 Homes
1. Building on Green Belt - the site is located on Green Belt and any development would conflict with both National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Sewerage and Flooding - previous instances of surface flooding of both stormwater and effluent have shown that the main sewerage network cannot cope with the current demand in the village. Therefore adding additional housing in this location will inevitably exacerbate the likelihood and frequency of this issue. Anglian Water is already aware of this issue and have attended many recent Parish Council meetings to answer questions from residents who have been affected. In addition, development would specifically conflict with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3. Traffic - as a largely autonomous document, the NHDC modelling associated with the Local Plan does not take into account the increased traffic from neighbouring local authorities, in particular from Central Bedfordshire associated with the proposed developments including those at RAF Henlow, Lower Stondon and Fairfield Park (among others). In addition, the increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
1. Building on Green Belt - the site is located on Green Belt and any development would conflict with both National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Traffic - as a largely autonomous document, the NHDC modelling associated with the Local Plan does not take into account the increased traffic from neighbouring local authorities, in particular from Central Bedfordshire associated with the proposed developments including those at RAF Henlow, Lower Stondon and Fairfield Park (among others). In addition, the increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 Homes
1. Building on Green Belt - the site is located on Green Belt and any development would conflict with both National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Sewerage and Flooding - previous instances of surface flooding of both stormwater and effluent have shown that the main sewerage network cannot cope with the current demand in the village. Therefore adding additional housing in this location will inevitably exacerbate the likelihood and frequency of this issue. Anglian Water is already aware of this issue and have attended many recent Parish Council meetings to answer questions from residents who have been affected. In addition, development would specifically conflict with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3. Traffic - as a largely autonomous document, the NHDC modelling associated with the Local Plan does not take into account the increased traffic from neighbouring local authorities, in particular from Central Bedfordshire associated with the proposed developments including those at RAF Henlow, Lower Stondon and Fairfield Park (among others). In addition, the increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
4. Lack of Proper Consultation - this site was not included in the previous iteration of the Local Plan and therefore hasn't been consulted on formally, either on its own or in the wider context of the other sites. For this reason, it is considered that the Local Plan is "Not Legally Compliant".
5. Relocation of the School - the triumvirate of village school, church and village hall contributes significantly to the character and social fabric of the community of Ickleford. The consequent impact on the village of relocating one of these conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site LS1 (North Ickleford) - 120 homes (this site is within Ickleford Parish boundary)
1. Traffic - as a largely autonomous document, the NHDC modelling associated with the Local Plan does not take into account the increased traffic from neighbouring local authorities, in particular from Central Bedfordshire associated with the proposed developments including those at RAF Henlow, Lower Stondon and Fairfield Park (among others). In addition, the increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Lack of Proper Consultation - this site was not included in the previous iteration of the Local Plan and therefore hasn't been consulted on formally, either on its own or in the wider context of the other sites. For this reason, it is considered that the Local Plan is "Not Legally Compliant".

Other Objections that apply to all sites:
* No coordination with, or recognition of plans from neighbouring authorities - NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. Due to this lack of joined-up approach for what is essentially a National strategic policy may result in unnecessary overdevelopment throughout the region as a whole. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
* No account of other "approved" developments - the Local Plan does not take into account any recently approved developments, such as the 8 houses on the former Green Man site and an additional 19 proposed at Ickleford Manor.

Whilst not materially related to specific planning issues, I would like to make the additional salient point:
1. Need for additional housing - I recognise that there is a need for additional housing within the local area and am not against development per se. However, this should be in proportion to the size of the community. I believe the proposal for Ickleford is grossly disproportionate and will negatively affect both the quality of life for residents and the intangible character and historic fabric of the village as outlined above.

In summary, I believe that both the specific sites and the overall housing allocation for Ickleford should be reassessed and request that the above information be included in the independent inspector's examination.


I am emailing to submit objections to the proposals concerning IC1, IC2 & IC3 based on conflicts between the Local Plan and NHDC/national policies.


My concerns are:


- That all the sites listed above, the local plan in 'not sound' as it conflicts with National Planning Policy framework and conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
- 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. This is one of the aspects I feel most strongly against- my son has just started at the Primary School and I feel that the upheaval of all the school children for the relocation of the school would be detrimental to their wellbeing and education. It would also destroy ties with the local St Katharine's Church, and stop the children being able to walk over for activities such as services. I feel this is an important part of teaching the school's core values, and would be a great shame for the children to lose character building activities they get so much enjoyment out of. It would also make it extremely difficult to have one child at the school and one at pre-school, and increase traffic through the village for school drop offs and pick ups.
- I feel that the build of site IC3 would negatively affect our home life and ability to enjoy the countryside around us. We are in the middle of a build at the end of Wyatt Close, and the contractors regularly start noisy work (illegally) before 8am despite our complaining directly to them. Given that this is a small build compared to the scope of proposed build, we can only imagine the noise disruption we will experience in the early morning, as the contractors obviously do not respect the regulations in place to protect local residents.
- 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, I have heard incidents of sewage spilling into residents' properties just on the current demand; IC1 and IC3 will add to this burden. It also conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments
- There has been a 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 look forward to hearing your responses.

I wish to object to The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan in regard to the following sites proposed for Ickleford and Lower Stondon:

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

This is for the reasons outlined below:

The plan is not legally compliant in regards to IC3 and LS1 as these sites were added without consultation. They would make up the large majority of the new housing and would therefore have the greatest impact on the local community. However the local people have not had a say on this proposal.

The plan proposes building on green belt land. This is 'not sound'. It conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. I am particularly concerned about site IC2. This would make the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin extremely narrow and increase the risk of the village merging into Hitchin. This risk would be exacerbated if the school were moved and the centre of the village weakened (see below).

The proposals for site IC3 are 'not sound'. The plan rightly highlights that the additional housing would increase the number of primary school places required. The plan suggests relocating the existing school to a larger site in mitigation. This is against the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Why would this change the character of the village? I will briefly outline its current character and how this would change under this proposal.

The village school has been educating local children since 1848. It is at the heart of a beautiful and strong village centre where key village amenities are within minutes or each other. The school is situated on the village green opposite the local church, a church with which the school has strong links. The village shop, Village Hall (with pre-school), bus stop, two pubs and a beauty salon form the compact hub of the village.

I walk through this centre every day. It is a place where paths cross, parents and others in the community meet, where children play around the village sign and old water pump. There are carols on the green, pre-school Easter egg hunts and village life is lived.

To move the school would starve this heart massively of footfall and purpose. It would split and dilute the focus of the village. It would damage what makes the village so special, its strong sense of community and identity - its people talking to each other and engaging in community life. The National Planning Policy [Section 8 Promoting health communities] highlights the importance of promoting 'opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other' and the need for 'strong neighbourhood centres'. The proposal conflicts with this.

I appreciate that more housing is needed and that Ickleford must accept a proportion of this. Aside from the impact on the centre, I think the level of housing suggested is too much for the size of the village and is 'not sound' in relation to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

Any significant housing development will put pressure on the village school. I do think it is in the interest of the village to have a single central school so I think all options for expanding the school on the current site should be investigated. The proposal states that the site is 'constrained' and has 'no capacity to expand'.

However, the proposal for site IC3 came in so late that I cannot see how there has been time to fully investigate this issue. The school is single story, has generous playing fields, and has farmland on two sides. As identified in the proposed plan, the school sits partially within a conservation area. However this designation is to 'protect and enhance' an area's local character. Moving the school would undermine it.

An increase in the village population could bring many benefits. There is potential for more services, better amenities and more community activity. However, this change needs to be carefully planned. It requires local involvement and vision. I do not feel that this is currently the case. The largest housing increases have not had consultation. Moving the school is proposed with no discussion on the likely impact on the health and character of the village. The current lack of capacity of the sewers is not addressed and NHDC traffic modelling has failed to account for increased traffic from Bedfordshire and large housing developments there. This lack of planning is against The National Planning Policy. The proposals fail the village and are not sound.

As a local resident, I feel I must object strongly to proposed plans for additional housing in the Ickleford area.

As a local resident I would like to insist on a review by the Planning Inspector of the Local Plan proposals which impact Ickleford.

Site IC2: I find the Local Plan to be 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:

* Increased traffic in Ickleford and approaching roads. This area is already very, very busy in the mornings with traffic using Ickleford as a cut through from Hitchin to Letchworth, and also traffic linked with local school.
* I understand that the plan for site IC2 also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework for building on green belt land
* The plan also conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.
* The plan also conflicts with NHDC policy on transport and does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire
* The local plan is 'not sound' as the increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality. This will directly affect local residents, in what is at the moment a relatively peaceful and leafy village

Site IC3:

I find the Local Plan to be 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:

* Relocation of the Village School. As an employee at the school and a local resident, I feel very strongly about this. To close the current school site will totally destroy the unique charm and character of this listed building, the village green and the village in general. The impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.
The historic school building is a focal point in the heart of the village, a lot of the character and history of the village will be destroyed by closing the school, which is currently the hub of the community along with the historic village hall building. The village will not be the same and will lose key features which give it the charm and uniqueness, which make it a nice place to live at present.
* Sewerage and Flooding: The Local Plan is not sound for the following reasons: evidence shows that the main sewer cannot cope with current demand. Sites IC1 and IC3 will add to this burden.
* Conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.
* Lack of proper consultation: NHDC did not allow prior consultation on these sites.
* 150 new homes is a huge amount to building in and around a relatively small village. It will completely change Ickleford from a peaceful, quite, green and pleasant place to live, to a very busy small town choked with traffic. The roads in and around Ickleford already struggle to cope in the morning rush hour.
* Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt land.
* Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework.
* Conflicts with NHDC policy on transport and does not account for increased traffic caused by 150 new homes and traffic from Central Bedfordshire.

Site IC1:

* Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework on building on green belt land
* Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
* Sewerage & Flooding: Evidence shows that the main sewer cannot cope with current demand. IC1 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.
Site LS1:

* The local plan is 'not legally compliant' as NHDC did not allow prior consultation on these sites.
* The local plan is 'Not Sound' for the following reason: increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
* The local plan is 'Not Sound' as the roads into and surrounding Ickleford will not cope with the increased traffic caused by 120 new homes in this area.

I would urge you to review this situation.

I request the Local Planning Inspector to review the folllowing sites for additional housing...
IC1 IC2 IC3 LS1
IC1 IC2 IC3 - The local plan is not sound to build on this Green Belt Land - conflicts with NHDC Strategic objectives.
IC1 and IC3 - As a resident on the Arlesey road I confirm the local plan is not sound to put this much load onto the main sewerage system in Ickleford which can't cope with the current level of housing let alone increasing it.
IC1 IC2 IC3 LS1 - The local plan is not sound to increase traffic further without building a bypass around ickleford and Hitchin. There will be increased traffic from Bedfordshire into Hitchin with the proposed developments. This conflicts with NHDC Policy on Transport.
IC3 - Relocation of the school from its current Grade II listed building to a new site will impact on the essence and historic character of the village changing it significantly. Ickleford is not a suburb of Hitchin it is a separate village in its own right. Its character as a small village should be maintained. Movement of the school will have a detrimental effect on the character of the village. Siting a new school on the Bedford road, a main rush hour commuter route into Hitchin is not sensible from a safety perspective. What will become of the current school ?
The local plan is not sound due to the negative impact on the village character.

I write as a concerned resident of Ickleford in response to the above proposals.

As a general response I would like it documented that I lodge objections based on the following, which although may not be sound objections on planning grounds are my opinions as a local resident after the public meeting held in the village hall on 6th October and information imparted by our District Councillor:

Threat to school = disruption and destruction of the heart and sheer nature of the village - impacting on key 'triangle' feature of such local importance and centre of the community! And ....

1. Threat to erosion of boundaries from neighbouring Towns 2. Threat to local infrastructure = already crippled local routes between Central Beds, Hitchin and beyond. But we don't need to worry apparently, because Central Beds are far behind in the process apparently and of course the 700 new homes proposed for Henlow, plus the proposals for Lower Stondon and Arlesey won't have impact will they; NOT!!!
3. Misuse of current Green Belt designations 4. Proposed expansion in areas already noted as prone to flooding/flood risk = unsuitable.
5. The one single main sewer already over capacity = two noted areas adjacent to proposed site already experience regular drainage/surface flooding issues yet Anglian Water failing to respond and address accordingly.
6. Proposed development equates to a 40% increase on current dwellings/village size = unfair and disproportionate expansion when compared to that being proposed for some other local villages/areas.
7. Lack of consultation following failure to adhere to due process = loss of public engagement and responses; loss of opportunity and rightful voice that questions and undermines process; although may not represent grounds for legal challenge can a public enquiry into conduct of officers and elected members be requested?

More specifically I am in full support of the response submitted by Ickleford Parish Council on the four sites proposed.

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

Based on conflict between the local plan and NHDC/National policy, my objections and concerns are:

1. Building on Green Belt. The Local Plan is Not Sound for sites IC1, IC2, and IC3 due to conflicts with; National Planning Policy Framework and, NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt

2. Sewerage and Flooding. The Local Plan is Not Sound for site IC1 and IC3 due to; the inability of main sewer to cope with current demand and these sites will add to this burden, and; conflict of NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce flooding from new developments.

3. Lack of proper consultation.
The Local Plan is Not Legally Compliant due to NHDCs failure to allow prior consultation on sites IC3 and LS1.

4. Infrastructure.
The Local Plan is Not Sound for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 due to flawed modelling that fails to account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and conflicts with NHDC transport policy.

5. Air Quality.
The Local Plan is Not Sound due to increased traffic pollution conflicting with NHDC air quality policy in respect of sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

6. Relocation of school.
The consequential impact on the village renders the Local Plan Not Sound for site IC3 and conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance historical characteristics of villages.

I am emailing to submit objections to the proposals concerning IC1, IC2 & IC3 based on conflicts between the Local Plan and NHDC/national policies.

My concerns are:
* That all the sites listed above, the local plan in 'not sound' as it conflicts with National Planning Policy framework and conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
* 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. This is one of the aspects I feel most strongly against- my son has just started at the Primary School and I feel that the upheaval of all the school children for the relocation of the school would be detrimental to their wellbeing and education. It would also destroy ties with the local St Katharine's Church, and stop the children being able to walk over for activities such as services. I feel this is an important part of teaching the school's core values, and would be a great shame for the children to lose character building activities they get so much enjoyment out of. It would also make it extremely difficult to have one child at the school and one at pre-school, and increase traffic through the village for school drop offs and pick ups.
* I feel that the build of site IC3 would negatively affect our home life and ability to enjoy the countryside around us. We are in the middle of a build at the end of Wyatt Close, and the contractors regularly start noisy work (illegally) before 8am despite our complaining directly to them. Given that this is a small build compared to the scope of proposed build, we can only imagine the noise disruption we will experience in the early morning, as the contractors obviously do not respect the regulations in place to protect local residents.
* 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, I have heard incidents of sewage spilling into residents' properties just on the current demand; IC1 and IC3 will add to this burden. It also conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments
* There has been a 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
* 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
* 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
* 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 look forward to hearing your responses.

We are objecting to the amount of building proposed for Ickleford.

The number of dwellings proposed are far too many for our village. I understand a 40% increase is proposed, this is far too many for a village of this size to absorb without extreme detrement to the lives of the villagers.

Most of the proposed development is to go on Green Belt. A character of Green Belt is openness and permanence, preventing the merger of close towns. How, I ask, is this possible when it will be filled with dwellings?

We have an over burdened Victorian sewerage system which already backs up sewage into Laurel way and Duncots close, so the building of sites IC1 and IC3 will surely only make matters worse.

The building of sites IC1,2,3 and LS1 would only add traffic to the already gridlocked roads. All roads to Hitchin from Ickleford are at a standstill at peak times on week days. There will also be much increased air pollution

The building of IC2, IC3 and LS1 would lead to the loss of farming or grazing land, thus permanently altering the character of the village.

Moving the school to development area IC3 will fracture the heart of the village, the triangle, formed of the church, the school, and village hall will be lost, another detremental change. A larger school will obviously lead to more children progressing to senior schools. I have not heard of any proposed enlargement of existing senior schools, where will they all go?

A lot of the land, especially IC3, is natural uncultivated habitat which is the home to much wildlife, this would all be lost. Another part of rural village life ruined for ever.

This development is wrong on so many levels, we strongly object to it.