IC3 Land at Bedford Road

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 am writing to object to the planned housing and community development north of Ickleford. This will change the village irrevocably and destroy a small village school that has been at the heart of the community.

Please add my name to the list of petitioners rallying against this expansion.

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.

I am writing to you to advise of my grounds for objections to the following proposed building submissions on the below sites in Ickleford.
IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

Arlesey Road already has problems with the current drainage system, and have experienced times during heavy rainfall of sewage coming up through the toilets into the house. My grounds for objections on Sites IC1 and IC3 would add to burden the already struggling drainage whilst also conflicting with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.

My grounds for objection For sites IC1 and IC3 the local plan advises that these are to be built on Green Belt land therefore the Local Plan is 'Not Sound' as it Conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and Conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

My Children currently attend Ickleford School and my grounds for objection for sites IC1, IC3 and LS1 is the due to the vast number of proposed buildings, would mean that the village school would not be able to accommodate the additional number of children that these sites would bring, requiring a new village school. Therefore this local plan is not sound and conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages

My grounds for objection 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.

And finally my grounds for objection For sites IC1, 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.

With reference to the local plan submission. Whereas I agree that houses have to be built, to this extent in such a small village where other areas are better equipped to take some of the strain is will completely ruin the village. We moved to the village for the Green space, local school and community spirit which sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 would destroy, all of these sites are on greenbelt land! IC3 would completely eliminate the historical heart of the village do links to the church, there is no need to move the school, plenty of children attend from outside the village so it can't be
that over subscribed.

The traffic on Bedford Road is out of hand as it is with sites IC1,2 and 3 would make matters far worse if that's possible let alone the pollution and not knowing what the neighbouring authorities are proposing the increase in traffic would be a disaster.

IC1,2,3 and LS1 sites are not sound for reasons above and more such as the constant flooding and lack of proper consultation.

Please reconsider the scale of development in this area before we become like Walsworth swallowed into merging towns with no boundaries, character or reason to stay/move here.

It has come to my attention that there are plans to develop the following sites in Ickleford for new housing:

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

This development then represents a total increase of 319 new homes.

This email is to register my objections to the above plans on the following grounds:

. Ickleford is a small, ancient, rural and picturesque local village. Such a quantity of additional homes will overwhelm these valued and desirable characteristics.

. Proposing such a quantity of additional homes is unsound bearing in mind the impact this will have on local infrastructure such as the roads which already experience significant congestion and the consequent increase in pollution.

. Facilities in Ickleford and Hitchin such as the local railway station already struggle with current demand.

. For sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 the local plan is not sound because it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

. For sites IC1 and IC3 this plan is not sound as there is evidence that the drainage and sewerage systems cannot even cope with the current demand.

. For site IC3 the proposal to relocate the school is not sound because it will destroy the sense of community and integrity of the village.

. Site IC2 is very close to the Oughton Head Nature Reserve and such further development of the area will have a detrimental impact on the wildlife that it seeks to protect.

. Such a significant building over of land increases the risk of flooding.

. This is a rural area and such a loss of space and land and the consequent increase in people and traffic will significantly and adversely impact this characteristic irrevocably destroying natural beauty and environment for wildlife.

Please consider these objections when you are reviewing these proposals.

I write this in a personal capacity, solely as a resident as Ickleford.

I believe that the local plan impacting Ickleford village has not been subject to proper legal consultation. It also contradicts NHDC policy on preserving historic villages.

On sites IC1, IC2 & IC3 the local plan is " Not Sound" as it also conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on the Green Belt.

On site IC3 and LS1 the local plan is not legally compliant as there was no consultation on these sites.

Also on site IC3 relocating the school is "Not Sound" as it would destroy the centre of the village, contrary to the NHDC policy to protect historic villages.

I am writing to object the planning proposals for IC1,IC2,IC3 and LS1.
My objections are because the local plan is 'not sound' building on green belt, it conflicts with national planning policy framework.
For sites IC1 and IC3 - the local plan is not sound due to the main sewer not being able to cope with the current demand and conflicts With the local plan not to build in areas prone to flooding. The drain outside bowmans is often over flowing and cannot cope with heavy rain. I have seen it all bubbling out of the ground on many occasions.
Traffic for all these sites is again 'not sound', it does not account for increased traffic from central Bedfordshire. And on air quality and pollution is again not sound. I am concerned as I am an Ickleford resident and are bringing up three children, which is why I am most upset about the prospect of moving Ickleford village school. This is the heart of the village and is so picturesque. It is also vital for the children as they use the church and village hall which are all so close in proximity. Why not extend out to the back of the school!??? Compulsory purchase the horse field behind, there is plenty of scope to build onto the school that way, but to move it will be a shame to say the least.
I really hope you listen to the residents of Ickleford and you can come to a solution without moving the school.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the above plan and the impact on the local area in Ickleford for the proposed sites IC1, IC2, IC3, and LS1
* The sites for IC1, IC2 and IC3 are not sound because they conflict with National Planning Policy Framework and also the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.
* The sites for IC1 and IC3 are Not Sound because the main sewer already cannot cope with current demand and IC1 and IC3 will add to this problem. Also conflicts with NHDC policy not to develop in areas that are already prone to flooding and reduce the risk of flooding in new development.
* The Local plan is not legally compliant due to prior consultation on sites IC3 and LS1.
* Traffic is already a problem through the village due to vehicles accessing Hitchin and Letchworth from Bedfordshire so for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 the Local plan is Not Sound because there is not account for the extra traffic from Bedfordshire as well as from these extra developments.
* Additionally the extra traffic will also impact on air quality so the Local Plan is not sound for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.
* To relocate the village school to site IC3 is NOT SOUND as it will have a huge impact on the historical character of Ickleford which conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. The school is in the centre of the village, was built in 1848 and the frontage is Grade 2 listed; thus making it unique. It is rarely under subscribed in its present form. Surely an additional school in Hitchin, or extension of a current school say Oughton Head or Strathmore School would benefit those areas also.
* The Local Plan is not sound for sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 because NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Site Reference No IC2 - 40 homes - Burford Grange

As local residents we would like to object to the plans for Site Reference IC2 as being 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
* Building on green belt conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and with the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
* Traffic will be considerably increased on an already busy road which is often blocked with queuing traffic. The plan conflicts with NHDC policy on transport
* Air Quality - the increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality, particularly as traffic already queues in this area
* No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities - NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, despite the proximity

Site Reference No IC3 - 150 homes - Bedford Road

As local residents we would like to object to the plans for Site Reference IC3 as being 'Not Sound' for the following reasons:
* Building on green belt conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and with the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt
* Sewerage and flooding - evidence shows that the main sewer cannot cope with current demand and IC3 would add a significant additional burden and it 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 NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site
* Traffic will be considerably increased on an already busy road which is often blocked with queuing traffic. The plan conflicts with NHDC policy on transport
* Air Quality - the increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality, particularly as traffic already queues in this area
* Relocation of the school - the impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages
* No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities - NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, despite the proximity

We look forward to receiving your acknowledgement and response.

Site IC1 Objection: Unsound

Unadequate sewage and drainage. There has been flooding in Duncots Close, Lower Green and Laurel Way, and sewerage on their lawns.

Site IC2 Objection: Unsound

By having a new development, the existing problem of traffic in Ickleford will increase.

Site IC3 Objection: Unsound

The proposed 150 new houses will worsen the sewerage problem in Ickleford and also worsen the flow of traffic.

Potential loss of school due to not being able to extend it.

I believe that the local plan impacting Ickleford village need reviewing.

My concerns are made in a personal capacity and centre on the lack of consultation and conflict with existing policy.

On sites IC1, IC2 & IC3 the local plan is " Not Sound" as it conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on the Green Belt.

Also I believe Green Belt can only be used in "exceptional circumstances" and that has yet to be proven in this case.

On site IC3 and LS1 the local plan is not legally compliant as there was no consultation on these sites.

Also on site IC3 relocating the school is "Not Sound" as it would destroy the centre of the village, contrary to the NHDC policy to protect historic villages.

I formally object to the following proposed building locations:-

IC1 - Duncots Close
IC2 - Burford Grange
IC3 - Bedford Road
LS1 - North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon

IC1, IC2 and IC3 - Not Sound - as the building conflicts with both the National Policy Framework and the NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt

IC1 and IC3 - Not Sound - as the main sewer cannot cope with current demand (historically the drains have backed up) and the plan conflicts with NHDC policies not to develop in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments

IC3 and LS1 - Not Legally Compliant - since NHDC failed to allow prior consultation on these sites

IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - Not Sound - since the NHDC modelling is flawed, not taking into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire, and it also conflicts with the NHDC policy on transport

IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - Not Sound - since an increase in traffic pollution conflicts with the NHDC policy on air quality

IC3 - Not Sound - since the consequent impact on the village, regarding the proposed relocation of the school, conflicts with the NHDC policy "to protect and enhance the historic character of villages"

IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 - Not Sound - since NHDC have failed to take into account any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

I would like my objection to the above planning proposals be noted on the grounds that they are both Not Legally Compliant (IC3, LS1). Furthermore IC3 conflicts with NHDC strategic objectives on Green Belt, will put an increased burden on an already overworked sewerage system, is in an area prone to flooding, would cause an increase in local traffic density which in the Mornings and Evenings is already way beyond capacity causing long delays which will only increase. It can take a resident of Ickleford over half an hour to get from the village centre to the Wymondley by pass in the rush hours. I also object to the moving of the village school which will destroy the Heart of the village and in its self conflicts with the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.
Both IC3 and LS1 sites are Not Sound as NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan.
LS1 will again increase the Traffic flow which as already mentioned above is at capacity. What happens when a resident of Ickleford needs to be rushed to the Lister Hospital during Rush Hour traffic? and this is a Hospital already operating at near maximum which is again expected to absorb the looking after yet more people because of an increase of 270 dwellings, or over 800 residents (IC3, LS1)
In Conclusion I feel that the addition of 270 more dwellings at IC3, LS1 will put a strain on all aspects of village live many of which are already operating at maximum or beyond.

I am writing to protest about the proposed local plan for Noth Herts, specifically the 4 sites in Ickleford. The plan would completely change the whole character of the Village. The traffic is already bad in Bedford road and Arlesley road and such a development would make it worse. The scale of development in North Herts generally is inappropriate for the infrastructure.
Some of the development is on Green belt land which I thought you were not allowed to build on. A couple of the sites are near a river which might make flooding possible and would be difficult to insure.
The school in Ickleford is a much loved institution and there is no need to build a new one if the developments do not take place. The residents of Ickleford were not consulted about the proposed developments.

Having considered the draft NHDC Local Plan in respect to Ickleford I wish to express my objection to the proposals on the grounds set out below.

Building on the North Herts Green Belt
Three sites are proposed that require building on the Green Belt: IC1, IC2 and IC3. The NHDC Local Plan is Not Sound as such building would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework on building in the Green Belt and it conflicts with the stated NHDC Strategic Objectives for the Green Belt in the area.

For site IC2 the building on the Green Belt will have the impact of reducing the width of the separation of Ickleford to Hitchin to a mere token. The purpose of the Green Belt in this area is to prevent the absorption of the village into the town. Retaining the identity of the village is surely an objective that NHDC will have and which will be totally compromised by allowing this development. Therefore this site must be rejected.

In addition, for IC2, the closing of the Green Belt will impact on the wildlife corridor that runs between the village and the town alongside the Oughtonhead Local Nature Reserve - which at this point is only approx. 25m wide. The adjoining strip of Green Belt is therefore essential to support the objectives of the nature reserve and the wildlife that relies on it.

Flooding
Flooding is an issue within Ickleford as the infrastructure cannot meet the demands placed on it especially during heavy rain. This impacts on sites IC1 and IC3. In addition, the sloping site of IC2 currently causes surface water run off which saturates adjoining properties after rain storms or prolonged or heavy rainfall at any time of year. Development on this land will inevitably make this worse to the point where significant damage will be done.

Because of the additional flooding risks that will result from development the Local Plan is Not Sound as it conflicts with NHDC policies not to increase the risk of flooding from new developments.

Traffic
The A600 through the village is a very busy road with queuing traffic at peak times. Taking 30 minutes to get into Hitchin town centre at these times is common. The additional housing proposed at sites IC2, IC3 and LS1 would cause a significant rise in traffic volumes to the point where it would result in grid-lock around the village and the north of Hitchin. For IC2 the ability to join the A600 from the site at peak times will be extremely difficult due to the volume of traffic. Residents in the area report that it can already take some minutes to join the road. With so many additional houses the prospect of new residents queuing just to leave the site is very real.

The problem is compounded by large scale developments already sanctioned in Central Bedfordshire which will result in a large amount of additional traffic using the A600.

The Local Plan is Not Sound as it fails to account for increased traffic arising from IC2, IC3 and LS1 as well as that from Central Bedfordshire, and therefore this conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.

Air quality
The increase in traffic stated above will increase pollution and reduce air quality. Therefore the Local Plan is Not Sound as increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.


Recognising that some additional houses do need to be built, a possible alternative to the plan is for a more limited developments to take place. The aim should be to minimise the need to build on Green Belt, to not further overburden the water and sewerage infrastructure and to lessen the surface water flooding risk. A more limited development would also minimise the contribution to the current traffic issues.

Both IC2 and IC3 have a built on area within the sites. Overall the footprint of the house, garden and outbuildings for each is relatively small compared to the size of area proposed in the Local Plan. A number of houses could be built on the footprints without compromising the open Green Belt areas and would have a lesser impact on traffic and air pollution in the area. A limited development such as this might be able to be regarded as more sustainable from a flooding and surface water risk given the issues stated above. However, any of these sites being even partially developed will still have a negative impact on the whole village.

A similar small, incremental development, could be made on the site of Ickleford Manor. Though not part of the Local Plan, it is available for development.

LS1 needs to be considered in respect to the integration of the site into plans for Lower Stondon and the works already being planned for that town. Whilst technically in Ickleford, in practical terms, any new residents of the site will inevitably look to Lower Stondon and Central Bedfordshire for facilities and services. Given the employment opportunities in North Herts the traffic impact of the developments in the whole Lower Stondon area are of significant concern to Ickleford residents. However, on balance site LS1 has fewer disadvantages that IC1 and IC2.

I trust that these comments will assist you in making a decision on the Local Plan for Ickleford.

Yes I am prepared to attend and speak and I would like to attend any hearing. Also like to be informed of relevant dates and actions.
Herewith comments on the above plan

Site IC1 Objection. Unsound
In conflict with the following:-
1. Sewerage and Drainage: In conflict with NHDC Plan statement Ref. Page 37 Para.1.163. Anglian Water considers there is capacity in the relevant Sewerage Treatment works to support the growth required.
This statement is totally misleading as it does not consider the actual sewerage pipes capacity running through the Village.
Sewerage flooding at properties in Duncots Close, Laurel Way and Lower Green have all suffered sewerage on their lawns and a backup flow in their toilets. A recent meeting with Residents and Anglian Water identified that the pipe capacity is not sufficient to carry sewerage to the local Pumping Station.
2. NHDC Policy Ref. ENV4 states not to develop in areas prone to flooding and the reduce the risk of flooding from new developments.
Site IC2 Objection. Unsound.
In conflict with the following:-

1. No accurate traffic modelling, as unable to reflect growth in Central Beds, as their district Plan is not available yet.
At peak times traffic approaching Hitchin on the A600 already queues back 2miles from this site, the proposed 40 new houses will worsen this situation.
2. NHDC policies ENV 1,2 & 3. As this proposal will link Hitchin with Ickleford. eg. urban sprawl northwards from Hitchin to Ickleford.
3. Greenbelt............policies NPPF 80,87& 89.
Site IC3 Objection Unsound
In conflict with the following:-
1. Not Legal...... District Plan Page 8 ref.1.19 and NHDC statement of Community involvement updated xxx2015.
No consultation opportunity for Ickleford Parish Council and Residents. This site being a late entry.
2.Greenbelt ....NPPF 80,87&89.
3. Sewerage and Drainage. (As per IC1)
In discussion with Anglian Water, sewerage from this site would flow Eastwards to the centre of the Village and be another junction joining the already inadequate main pipes on Arlesey Rd.
4. Transport... No accurate traffic modelling, as unable to reflect growth in Central Beds, as their District plan is not available yet. At peak times traffic approaching Hitchin already queues back nearly 2 miles from this site,the proposed 150 new houses will worsen this situation.
Potential loss of school: The school is the heartbeat of the Village, for generations parents have gathered on the Village Green both in the mornings and afternoons leaving and collecting their children to and from school.
NHDC Ref. 1.160................The statement reads " that the existing school cannot be extended". Without any backup evidence. Local Knowledge and common sense says different.

I would like to submit a response to the proposed Local Plan for North Herts 2011-31. I am a resident of Ickleford and so my response concerns the proposed sites for development in and around Ickleford.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of the larger proposed developments IC3 and LS1, as I believe they are disproportionate and will radically change the nature of the village, and stretch to breaking point the already overstretched utilities and infrastructure.

Site IC3

First grounds for objection: Not sound
Reasons:
1. Building on green belt land conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.
2. Evidence shows that the main sewer for Ickleford cannot cope with current demand, adding another 150 houses will significantly add to this problem.
3. Traffic modelling by NHDC is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from the developments in Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.
4. Public transport is already overstretched particularly for secondary school children where the buses are already full.
5. Increased traffic will lead to increased pollution which conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.
6. Relocation of primary school to meet increased demand from 150 new houses would have a significant detrimental impact on village centre and historic character, and so conflicts with NHDC policy on protecting this.
7. Lack of coordination with neighbouring authorities, NHDC have not accounted for the impact of Central Bedfordshire plan on Ickleford.


Second grounds for objection: Not legally compliant
Reasons:
1. Lack of proper consultation, NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site.

Site LS1

First grounds for objection: Not sound
Reasons:
1. Traffic modelling by NHDC is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from the developments in Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.
2. Public transport is already overstretched particularly for secondary school children where the buses are already full. These buses are also used by Lower Stondon and other villages so this effect will be cumulative.
3. Increased traffic will lead to increased pollution which conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.
4. Lack of coordination with neighbouring authorities, NHDC have not accounted for the impact of Central Bedfordshire plan.

Second grounds for objection: Not legally compliant
Reasons:
1. Lack of proper consultation, NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site.

I object to ICI, IC2,IC3 as not sound and conflict with NHDC strategic policies on Greenbelt and National Planning Policy Framework

I object to IC3 and LSI for no prior consultation - Not Legally Compliant -as NHDC did not allow prior consultation.

I object to sites ICI, IC2, IC3 and LSI as Not sound regarding no traffic surveys to allow from central beds traffic along Bedford road to further congest Hitchin traffic which is already problematic at peak hours.

Site IC3 is Not sound nor acceptable in terms of relocating a listed village school which is the heart and soul of a village which NHDC policy claims to protect and enhance the character of.

I finally object to sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LSI as Not Sound as no impact or connection with central beds local plan has been made apparent.

The badger group, together with colleagues from Beds Badger Group have visited all areas with proposed planning applications and found badger implications on many of them. On behalf of the committee of Herts and Middlesex Badger Group, I wish to inform you of our major concerns regarding areas within the current North Herts development plans.

As I am sure you are aware, badgers and their setts are protected by law in the UK by the Badger Act of 1992 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981.
It is illegal for any person to:
Kill or injure a badger
Dig or take a badger
Possess a dead badger or part thereof
Interfere with, or disturb, a sett.

The most worrying proposed plan is in the proposed GA2 especially Nine Acre Wood and surrounding areas, where there is a very active badger wood with 2 large setts, outlying holes nearby and signs of extensive badger activity. There is a wildlife corridor down the hedgerow to Longdell Wood where there are also active badger setts. If you are planning to close these setts you would need a licence from Natural England and be prepared to give somewhere for the badgers to relocate taking account of existing badger density. As you are proposing to build on all the fields in which they forage too, there is nowhere in your current plan to accommodate them. We are very concerned that the extensive development of this area could not be completed without severe damage to the large badger population. I am going to forward the details of this to the Badger Trust Crime team to keep them informed of this too.

Other areas with badger implications are as follows

a) The northern part of IC3 Ickleford has badger setts and badger activity
b) EL1 and EL2 Cockernhoe/Mangrove Green have signs of badger activity and therefore the development has badger implications, particularly Stubbocks Wood and Messina Plantation public footpath
Stubbocks Wood
1. Sett with four entrances : active TL13932398
2. Sett with two entrances : recent use TL13872400
3. Sett with two entrances: active TL13762401
4. Sett with seven entrances: active TL13762396
5. Sett with two entrance: not active TL13252369
Messina Plantation public footpath
6. Sett with single entrance: used recently with badger print on spoil. TL12742425 hedgerow
7. Sett with four entrances: active with latrine nearby TL12762427 hedgerow
c) North of Stevenager NS1: Very active sett with several fresh latrines, run to huge hole in field and bucket latrine. Also border with SB2 has snuffle holes and latrines showing badger implications.
d) RD1 Active badger sett (5+ holes) in scrub ~10m N of proposed site

We have sett records and grid references for all the setts we have found and will continue to add to this information as brambles and ground cover dies down over the next month. We would be very pleased to meet with yourselves and/or your ecological surveyors regarding these sites and any other areas where you have concerns, to discuss these issues.

The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC)Proposed Submission Local Plan lists four sites in Ickleford for additional housing:

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

We wish to make you aware of the following objections that we have with regard these proposed developments:

1. The proximity of the proposed large development in 2019 of approximately 750 houses at the current site of RAF Henlow , Lower Stondon. This large scale development has not been taken into account in the proposed submission and the effect it will have on local infrastructure, see point 2.

Not Sound -

a) NHDC have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

2. The increase in traffic flow on Bedford Rd, A600 associated with both the construction of housing within Ickleford and the large development at RAF Henlow will have a detrimental effect on a transport system that is currently already at full capacity during rush hour. On working days the traffic on the A600 regularly queues from the Turnpike lane/A600 roundabout to Holme Farm. Traffic flow through Hitchin during rush hour also struggles - this is exacerbated by vehicles being forced to transit through Ickleford and Hitchin when travelling to Luton, the M1 or A1. Serious consideration should be given to a Hitchin Bypass to cope with the increased traffic from the proposed construction of housing at RAF Henlow alone.

Not Sound -

a) Conflicts with NHDC policy on transport.
b) Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

3. The proposed relocation of the school would have a serious impact on the historic connection the school has enjoyed with the neighbouring church, St Katherines. The close tie to the church connects the school to members of the local community who otherwise would not have any involvement with the school. This fosters a local community spirit and gives Ickleford a distinct identity which its residents are rightly proud of.

Not Sound -

a) The consequent impact on the village conflicts with NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of village.

4. Ickleford Primary School, a Grade 2 listed building, is within a conservation area as designated by NHDC. Closure of the school in its current location would have a negative impact on this area.

Ickleford Conservation area
Not Sound -

a) Conflicts with NHDC designated conservation area.

We would be grateful if the council would take our objections into consideration when reviewing this submission.

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 the grounds listed below:
a) As far as I can see there has been no consultation regarding sites IC3 and LS1 - surely this is illegal, the local plan is not legally compliant .
b) The main sewer in Ickleford struggles to cope as it is. Development at sites IC1 and IC3 will severely exacerbate this problem. For this reason the local plan is not sound.
c) Sites IC1, IC2 and IC3 are on green belt land - it is there for a reason and planning to build on green belt is in conflict with National Planning Policy Framework - another reason why the plan is not sound.

Building on Green Belt.
Sites IC1, IC2, IC3. The local plan is not sound. We are losing too much green belt land for housing.
Sewerage & Flooding
Sites IC1 and IC3. The local plan is not sound. The main sewer cannot cope with current demands as it is; Walnut Way often has problems when the main sewer in Turnpike Lane gets blocked and the need is to call out Anglian Water for the drains to be cleared. The extra demand will increase the burden on the sewers.
Traffic
Sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, The local plan is not sound. The traffic along the Bedford Road is horrendous at the moment, once the new sites are in place the noise and pollution will increase, the queues of traffic will also increase. Consideration should also be for the extra traffic from Pirton's new houses and the crematorium. There are also discussions on the extra housing at Lower Stondon and Henlow on the RAF Camp.
Turnpike Lane traffic will increase dramatically; Ickleford is already a cut through to Letchworth and other Bedfordshire villages.
Would not a by-pass around Ickleford be a consideration to help ease the increase in traffic flow?
We also support the Ickleford Parish Council's objections to the proposed submission local plans.

See attached

We strongly object to the proposed local plan as it relates to Ickleford under the sites IC1, IC2, IC3 & LS1 for the following reasons.

Site IC1 Duncots Close

This particular site is totally UNSOUND for reasons relating to the Green Belt. NPPF Section 87 states inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this area, quite the contrary given the area is prone to severe flooding given its location in the Village, apart from sewerage and drainage problems not identified by Anglian water in the NHDC report. This authority have confirmed that the pumping station in the Village to be inadequate as is also the pipe capacity to handle the volumes that accumulate at this junction and serious remedial work is required to not only combat the existing problems, and would be seriously increased with added development. Ickleford is also listed as an Excluded Village in Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Plan, and within this Policy 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 development in this site fails this test and therefore UNSOUND. This site also leads onto one of the major roads through the Village, where the pavements are very narrow, it is a main pedestrian route for school children to the Village School, and where the 7.5 tonne lorry ban is not effective, thereby making it a very dangerous area for all users particularly pedestrians.


IC2 Burford Grange.

This site is also considered UNSOUND. With particular emphasis on the Green Belt implications. 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 safe guarding the countryside from encroachment. NPPF Section 89 also states exceptions to building on the 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 consider the suggested proposals for building on this site of Green Belt are either limited or in filling, and also NHDC has not provided any evidence that these are exceptional circumstances.. The last Conservative & Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, supported by the Government of 2016 indicated there were many brownfield sites totally capable of being used for development and so prevent the intrusion into the Green Belt
North Herts Green Belt Review in July 2016 misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns. Ickleford Green Belt is a very important boundary in terms of preventing the merger with Hitchin, and also Henlow and Lower Stondon and it is imperative this remains as a protection of the historic character of a North Herts Village as defined in Environmental objectives 1.2 & 3.
This area is situated just off the main A600 road leading into Hitchin and metres from a busy junction, and any additional traffic would require a complete overhaul of the current road layout for safety reasons. High proportion of the traffic feeding into Hitchin comes from across the Bedfordshire borders, and whilst the Central Beds Plans are not available it is known that over 750 properties are to be built in Henlow, and further developments are likely in many of the other Villages in Bedfordshire making this road a total bottleneck then exists at present. The area also backs onto woodland and any new build would considerably disturb wildlife. The main water pipes from this side of the Village also feed into the centre where the IC1 problems exists and therefore constantly add to the existing sewerage and waste problems already documented and belatedly acknowledged by Anglian Water. Being part of the older end of the Village aged pipework exacerbates all of these problems..

IC3 Bedford Road.

The largest of the three sites identified, and as this one appears to be a late decision without any consultation with the Village is again UNSOUND. NPPF Section 80 relating to the Green Belt again stresses that 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. This is particularly prevalent in this site given the countryside around and with much of the land being currently worked for farming. A letter seen from the Minister of State for housing dated 7th June 2016 states the Government has put in place the strongest protection for Green Belt and that boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan, and to my knowledge there are no exceptional circumstances here.
Environmental objectives figure prominently in this site as there is an indication that the Village School would need to be moved to within this site IC3. This would be travesty as the School forms part of the triangle "hub" the Church, Village Hall &existing Village School, and one of the main Environmental objectives, ENV2, is to protect and enhance the historic character of North Herts Villages, which this site would destroy. Also to consider moving the school would take this out of the Village hub, and with presumably increased size provide further problems for future intakes into the Secondary stream of Hitchin Schools.
As with Sites IC1 & IC2 Sewerage and Drainage remain a problem for the area and given the outrageous comments from Anglian Water, in the NHDC report, a full review would be required to determine the effect of any proposed new development given the anticipated size. The main sewer, pipes and Pumping station are inadequate now and would require considerable changes at substantial costs to ensure improvement of the services.
Finally the traffic issues that such a potential increase of housing could produce would be enormous. The overall projected increase of housing in IC1, IC2 & IC3 plus LS1 is an increase of 40% on current levels with the majority of likely traffic emanating from this site, IC3, onto an already main busy road entering Hitchin. At present long delays consistently occur at peak times and with a potential increase of 150 homes on this site, each having a minimum of 2 cars per house, which I gather is higher than the Department of Transports Study indicates, which I think questionable, would make this road impossible. Bearing in mind also the likely increase of vehicles from Bedfordshire, when their plans are published, with Henlow having a development of 750 houses, and further likely developments at Fairfield, Clifton and Shefford, this road at peak times would grind to a halt.
Hitchin already suffers considerable traffic stress as detailed in a recently published paper, Hertfordshire Transport Vision 2020, and further volumes such as this site could produce could only make this situation even worse. Traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document indicates figures from this development which cannot be acceptable, as they mention only a possible 63 trips in the morning and 33 in the afternoon which given the proposed number of houses and likely vehicles is not feasible

Site LS1 Lower Stondon.

This site was again a late addition and no opportunity given for consultation, and whilst there is no problem here with Green Belt, the main objection relates to the traffic problems associated with such a large development od 120 houses.
As with IC3 this development will lead onto the Bedford Road A600 just out of Bedfordshire, and again not knowing the implication of any traffic numbers from new estates in that County, the likelihood is that there will be substantial vehicle movements throughout the peak times and th impact on Ickleford will be a constant threat.

This takes us onto the other important objection overall to these four sites, the Air and noise pollution generated by all of the traffic movements in the areas involved. The number of houses proposed is 40% increase in the population of Ickleford and will obviously lead to a proportionate in car journeys, and this coupled with the likely increase from Bedfordshire, and taking into consideration much of this traffic will come via the A600 or Arlesey Road, many of the residents will be subject to environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on total air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and would seem to be based on flawed traffic transport modelling.

As residents of Ickleford for over 40 years we have seen considerable changes, but the Village has maintained its community and Village Character, and we and our family consider these proposed changes will decimate the Village, and we strongly object to IC1,IC2 & IC3 for the reasons stated. LS1 will not have the same direct effect and if development is required then this would be the only acceptable site.

The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan lists four sites in Ickleford for additional housing:

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

My 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

The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan lists four sites in Ickleford for additional housing:

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

My 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 modelling 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

Please accept this our response to the NHDC Proposed Submission Local Plan.

We would like to raise the following objections:

Impact on Green Belt
Site Reference Number: IC1, IC2 and IC3
Grounds: Not Sound
Reasons:
* The National Planning Policy Framework states that "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt". Whilst an exception to this is limited infilling under policies set out in the Local Plan, an increase of 40% to the housing stock cannot reasonably been deemed as 'limited'
* The proposal to build on Green Belt land also conflicts with the NHDC's own Strategic Objectives

Impact on traffic levels
Site Reference Number: IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1
Grounds: Not Sound
Reasons:
* The traffic flow from Ickleford down the Bedford Road and through Hitchin (Paynes Park) in the morning rush hour is already excessive. I work in Luton and it typically takes 30 mins. to drive the 9.1 miles to work, 20 mins. of which is spent just reaching the A505/A602 junction on the South side of Hitchin
* The proposed plan will put further strain on an already overloaded road network
* Furthermore, the NHDC traffic modelling doesn't account for the increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire
* Further increases to the traffic load are likely to have a detrimental impact on the ability of local employers to recruit and retain staff from the local area and reduce their attractiveness as employers of choice

Impact on air quality
Site Reference Number: IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1
Grounds: Not Sound
Reasons:
* Related to the above, the NHDC has a statutory duty to review air quality in its area
* The National Planning Policy Framework identified air pollution as a material planning consideration and states that "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution..."

Impact on the local School
Site Reference Number: IC3
Grounds: Not Sound
Reasons:
* Ickleford was designated a Conservation Area by the NHDC in October 1979. This states that it is an area of special architectural or historic interest and should be protected as such
* A school has been present on the site of the current school in Ickleford since 1839 and the proposal to relocate the School from its current prominent position in a Grade 2 listed building is in direct conflict with this designation

Impact on access to healthcare
Site Reference Number: IC1, IC2 and IC3
Grounds: Not Sound
Reasons:
* Primary healthcare provision with the Hitchin area is already overwhelmed with demand. It can typically take upwards of three weeks to secure a routine GP appointment with one of the practices in central Hitchin
* Emergency admissions at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage are similarly strained
* The National Planning Policy framework "emphasises that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that local strategies to improve health and wellbeing, and provision of health infrastructure requirements are considered in Local and Neighbourhood Plans and in planning decision-making"