LS1 Land at Bedford Road

To whom it may concern Re: Local Plans proposed Development LS1 - Not Sound.

I attached my response as a Word document and also as full narrative within the body of this email. Starts...

Title:Proposed LS1 development - Not sound
Site reference: LS1
Date: 2911/2016
Grounds for objection: Wholly inadequate traffic infrastructure along A600 corridor

The proposed LS1 North Ickleford (near Lower Stondon) 120 home development falls foul on a number of key factors. They are detailed below.

LS1 in the context of other proposed developments
It is not possible to decouple the proposed LS1 development (North Hertfordshire) with those under consideration in neighbouring Lower Stondon (Central Bedfordshire). The proposed LS1 site is within c.500m of the proposed 100 home development on Welbeck land in Lower Stondon AND within c.300m of the proposed 800+ home development on ex-Ministry of Defence land at RAF Henlow. A total of c.1,020+ homes in addition to existing developments being undertaken adjacent to Station Road in Lower Stondon, and more along the A507 corridor into Central Bedfordshire - numbers unknown.

With particular reference to issues relating to the A600 carriageway between Lower Stondon and Hitchin (including Ickleford) it is not possible to decouple the proposed LS1 development from the proposed IC2 (Burford Grange) and IC3 (Bedford Road) developments within Ickleford.

Conclusion. In my view there has been inadequate local consultation in relation to the proposed LS1 development, and/or the cumulative effects of the IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 developments, and proposed developments in Central Bedfordshire along the A600 Bedford Road corridor. It is therefore 'not legally compliant'.

A600 Bedford to Hitchin road
The heavily used A600 is the ONLY direct carriageway heading south from the proposed LS1 development into the small market town of Hitchin - itself a known bottleneck during key periods of the day and the connect town to A1 access - as well as Luton. On ANY given day, in particular but not exclusively at rush-hour pinch points, the southbound A600 often features tailbacks from the Hitchin one-way system at Bedford Road/Paynes Park up to and beyond Old Ramerick Manor Farm and further into Lower Stondon - a distance of c.2.5 to 3 miles plus.

For example: Any incident on the A602 south of Hitchin and/or southbound A1 carriageway close to Hitchin will under normal circumstances result in the above scenario - likewise any incident in Hitchin and/or Ickleford. Any incidence of precipitation (fog included) particularly during the 7am - 9.00am window will more often than not extend traffic beyond the stated 3 miles. Any temporary and/or protracted roadworks will also have a detrimental effect.

The A600 stretch between Lower Stondon (and further north) to Ickleford in the south (c.2.5 miles) has a chequered safety record - one which has been woefully underappreciated by 'system says no' analysis based on street 'average accounting' monitors, non-existent site visits and/or consultation, and equally misleading analysis based on road safety algorithms - both at NHDC and Central Bedfordshire.

There have been two recent fatalities (one particularly tragic relating to a pedestrian and widely reported) and a series of incidents particular to the junctions of the A600/Holwell Turn, the A600 and the private roads for Old Ramerick Manor Farm and Holwellbury, and the speed limit transition northbound into the margins of Lower Stondon - all close or directly adjacent to the proposed LS1 development. Mere tinkering with speed limits has historically failed to adequately correct what is a locally known (local authority blind) as clear and present danger.

The A600 between Lower Stondon and Ickleford also has additional dangers and stress points.
- It is the preferred choice for users of pantechnicons between and servicing Hitchin and Bedford, 24 hours a day.
- The A600 services 4 arable farms (plus additional working farms requiring access to the A600 from Holwell and Pirton). In particular Old Ramerick Manor Farm and its associated ingress and egress point from the Bedford Road, the proposed LS1 development. At key times of the farming calendar heavy farm machinery either on the carriageway (much of which is 60mph rated) and/or seeking ingress (and worse still egress onto the A600) is a clear at present danger.
- The A600 services a number of homes, a majority of which are within the 60mph zone - all suffering from dangers and considerable difficulties of egress onto the A600 at peak times.
- The A600 also services a number of businesses including a local construction business adjacent to the proposed LS1 site, a number of public serving nurseries, a fencing business and a Biffa waste disposal centre - all have shown evidence of requiring the ingress and egress from the A600 - including some on-road loading.
- The A600 is also a popular pedestrian route from Lower Stondon to the Public Footpaths close to Old Ramerick Manor Cottages (this has and will increase markedly), as well as being a nominated route for Duke of Edinburgh participants. The footpaths the entire length of the A600 between Lower Stondon and Ickleford are unsubstantial and inadequate - in the extreme!

Conclusion. As a resident I have NOT ONCE been directly consulted about a strategy for road traffic volume management and/or safety measures on the A600 despite being on record (NHCD, Central Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire Police) for raising issues relating to road safety post the pedestrian fatality. Fixed monitoring devices and analysis based on algorithms have been, and continue to be misleading and/or unsatisfactory.

I am NOT aware of any bi-partisan consultation and/or analysis between Central Bedfordshire and NHDC on the effects the increase in traffic from Central Bedfordshire has on NHDC policy to transport. Referring to the NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2011-2031 (September 2016) - Point 5.107 it is stated that key areas of Hitchin are ALREADY at 100% traffic capacity at peak times.

The A600 (and I'd suggest the traffic management within Ickleford and Hitchin per se) is to most eyes incapable of sustaining this level of development without a clearly-defined, evidence-based process of consultation, reviews, proposals and iterations - with resultant needs-sensitive measures.

You will notice for balance that I have not detailed any 'softer' considerations relating to property values and/or macro or micro environmental impacts. Ends.

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.

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 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.

DUTY TO CO-OPERATE
I understand that North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) did not comply with its duty to co-operate with Stondon Parish Council (SPC), as set out under s20(5)(c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (PCPA), regarding the allocation of LS1 in the NHLP 2011-2031.
At their October Parish Council meeting, SPC discussed that they could find no evidence of being approached in any way by NHDC with regard to this proposal and only discovered the proposal for LS1: Land at Bedford Road, through their own research. My comments relate specifically to site LS1: Land at Bedford Road, as detailed on Page 190 - 191 of the draft Local Plan. As NHDC have failed to discharge their duties under the duty to co-operate with SPC and the PCPA establishes that failure to comply with the duty to co-operate cannot be remedied after the Plan has been submitted, in my opinion this makes the draft Local Plan unsound.
Extrapolating this, in my opinion, if a similar approach has been taken regarding not cooperating with other local authorities this would, this would question the entire draft Local Plan's soundness.
LS1: Land at Bedford Road
The draft Local Plan states site LS1 has been allocated for 120 dwellings adjacent to Lower Stondon, a large village in the rural area of Central Bedfordshire. The draft Local Plan does not reference that the entire Northern Boundary of the site is actually joining with the Parish of Henlow.
Best and Most VersatileLand
The sites is shown as Grade 1 quality in the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification. Grades 1 to 3a are defined as the best and most versatile (BMV) land by policy guidance (as per Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)).
Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states 'local authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality' and paragraph 143 states that 'in preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should...safeguard the long term potential of best and most versatile agricultural land'. I understand that there are sites of a lower agricultural grade available within the District and those sites should be developed, if required to meet the OAN, in preference to such valuable agricultural land.
Historic Setting
* Development of the site, LS1, will result in substantial harm to the Grade II* Listed building 'Old Ramerick Manor'.
* NHDC have not undertaken a heritage assessment of the Grade II* building and its setting and the impact that a 120 dwelling housing development would have upon its character and particular importance.


Defendable Boundary and Flooding
* Development of this site will breach the current defendable Eastern boundary of the Parish of Stondon and will breach the current defendable southern boundary of the development of Henlow Camp.
* Running west to east along the Northern Boundary of LS1 together with its associated trees, hedging and green space is a tributary of the River Ivel/Hiz/Purwell. This provides a defensible southern boundary to the existing built environment and screens views of the urban area from open countryside when approaching from the south.
* Due to the ordinary watercourse, there is significant flooding across the northern area of the site, including Flood Zone 3b - Functional Floodplain (Appendix G - Land at Ramerick, NHDC SFRA update 2016). Residential development should not be located in an area of FZ3b and as such there will be a significant area disconnecting the allocated site from the rest of Henlow Camp, making the site more isolated and unsustainable from the existing settlement.
* In addition, there is significant surface water flooding associated with the same northern extent of the site (Appendix G (surface water) - Lower Stondon, NHDC SFRA update 2016). To ensure it does not cause a flood risk to anyone further downstream, the site will have to achieve greenfield runoff rates, it is not clear if this would be possible on this site. Regardless, significant surface water flooding on site increases the isolation of the whole site from Lower Stondon and Henlow Camp and results in the unsustainability of the site as a residential development.
Infrastructure
* The site does not support sustainable development. There is very little employment locally, so development at this site will result in an increase in more unsustainable transportation in the form of car-commuting, even if it is only to get to the nearest railway station; buses are limited in frequency. While the plan does mention a traffic impact towards the South (Hitchin) it ignores impact to the North (Arlesey Rail Station is closer than Hitchin, quicker to access and has cheaper parking), which would result in more traffic through Lower Stondon/Henlow Camp Village. I understand the roundabout between the B659 and A507 which is used to access the station is reported by recent developer led traffic studies to be already "at capacity in peak periods".
* The local of the site will result for increased use of facilities and resources in the Stondon (and Henlow) Parish areas. Many of these are already at capacity, for example the local doctors surgery where a non-emergency appointment can require wait of more than a week.
* There is no amenity provision on site, for example a local shop. It is worth noting that the Household survey results reported by the NLP in the North Hertfordshire Retail Study Update 2016, remarks the nearest shopping centre is in Hitchin, implying that residents will travel some 4 miles to purchase convenience goods.
* There is not comment of the impact of the development on doctors surgeries and school places that would be required. NHDC would receive any CIL or S106 monies, it would not be Central Bedfordshire Council, Stondon Parish Council & Henlow Parish Council which would be required to support the development. Paragraph 13.245 of the draft Local Plan itself acknowledges that 'development of this site will tie in to the urban area of Lower Stondon and parents may express a preference for their children to go to school within the village'; i understand these schools are already full.
* The site proposes no defensible southern boundary which leads me to conclude that development of LS1 will encourage further development southwards into open countryside, which NHDC will continue to rely upon CBC, SPC & HPC to support through amenity provision.
* It appears the site appears has been selected as it does impact on North Hertfordshire. This would not create a sense of community for the site which will be a satellite 'state' of NHDC on a far away border. The site will also be remote from Stondon and Henlow Camp as they can only be accessed via the busy A600, increasing travel by car.

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.

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: LS1
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.NHDC Modelling is flawed as it does not account for increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC transport policy
b.Increased traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality
c.NHDC has not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan
2.It is not 'Legally Compliant' as:
a.NHDC did not allow prior consultation on this site

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

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 wish to object to the inclusion of Site LS1 : Land at Bedford Road in the Parish of Ickleford. I live in the Parish of Stondon, Bedfordshire, and the principle reasons for my objection are as follows:-

1. Duty to Cooperate

North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) has failed to comply with its duty to co-operate with Stondon Parish Council (SPC), as set out under s20(5)(c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (PCPA), with regard to the allocation of LS1 in the NHLP 2011-2031. The PCPA establishes that non-compliance with the duty to cooperate cannot be rectified after the submission of the plan therefore calling into question the soundness of the plan.

2. Land at Bedford Road

The site is adjacent to Lower Stondon, in a rural area in the most north eastern part of North Hertfordshire District. The local plan does not reference that the entire northern boarder of the site backs on to the Parish of Henlow, only that of Lower Stondon, which is factually incorrect.

3. Classification of the Land

The Natural England Agricultural Classification shows the site as Grade 1 quality. Para 112 of the NPPF states that "local authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality". Surely other sites of lower quality are available in the North Herts District?

4. Flooding

The land is prone to show areas of standing water during periods of heavy rain. The development will breach the current defendable Eastern boundary of the developed environment of Lower Stondon, and the southern boundary of Henlow Camp.

5. Infrastructure.

The site does not support sustainable local development. There is little local employment, but given recent residential building developments in the area (without a commensurate increase transport links) the infrastructure is congested. Local shops only provide limited facilities, which will encourage private vehicle use to larger centres such as Hitchin and Letchworth. In the submission there is no assessment of the impact the development would have on local Doctors Surgeries. The nearest Surgeries to the site are either Stondon or Shefford, which are already at virtual capacity with no room to expand. The same situation exists with schools, particularly Stondon and Derwent lower schools are at virtual capacity. In any event, S106 monies raised through this site would go to North Herts and would not go to the Bedfordshire facilities which the site comments in the local plan suggest new residents would want to use.

This site should be withdrawn for the Local Plan.

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.

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.

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.

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.