FM 010

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

I am growing increasingly concerned of what I am hearing about the Schedule for Further Main modifications issued in February relating to BK3 land in Barkway.

There has been no attempt to justify how the total allocations for new housing in the village (MM010/FM039) has been justified. it seems to be an arbitrary figure, and considering the detrimental effect this housing development will have on the village, this seems to be of great concern.

Furthermore, the question then arises why has correspondence about the Draft Schedule of Further Modification between the Inspector and NHDC not been circulated to the residents of the village, as this decision affects us the most? Why did the Inspector not accept your request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan and why has our Parish Council not been given a fair and proportionate opportunity to argue the strong case against including BK3?

I strongly object to the Schedule of Further Main Modifications to the Local Plan for Barkway, insofar as it pertains to the development of BK3.

In late 2020 the Planning Officer at NHDC requested BK3 to be taken out of the Local Plan and Barkway was not to be shown as a “village for growth”.
There were strong and good reasons for this and the local community had been consulted (as requested by the Prime Minister).

When the Schedule of Main Modifications to the Local Plan were published, it was clear that the recommendations of the Planning Officer had been ignored.
No reasons have been given for this decision.

This is a fatal flaw in the process and my objection is that a due and transparent process has not been followed.

You must be aware that there are powerful reasons for removing Barkway's designation as a “village for growth”, so that, if they are to be overruled, a proper and transparent procedure must be followed.

This email is a written objection statement to the Further Modification to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (the Plan), May 2021.

As a resident of Barkway village, I am extremely concerned by the clear lack of transparency of the process relating to the schedule of Further Modifications. This lack of transparency has meant that we (residents) have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of site BK3 to the plan.

I very much support NHDC's previous request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan. It is shocking therefore to see the draft schedule for Further Modifications. There has been no public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the draft schedule for Further Modifications, only NHDC's assertion that the Inspector has agreed the schedule for Further Modifications!

To add to this, there has also been no public correspondence explaining the reasons as to why the Inspectors decision not to accept NHDCs request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan.

I also object to the proposed enlarged of BK3 to include Hertfordshire County Council's School Site. BK3 land is not required nor has been requested by Hertfordshire County Council. Therefore the inclusion of the School Site within the Examination Document ED175 in unjustified and should be removed.

It is stated numerous times in the Schedule of Further Modifications that the development of new homes in Barkway will provide contribution to school transport. School transport already exists. If this modification to introduce a bus service between Barley and Barkway was to remain, Barley would clearly be benefiting from the (over)development in Barkway.

Due to this I recommend that the following statements are deleted from the following documents, along with any reference to sharing contributions from development in Barkway with Barley:

MM215/FM111 "Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools”

MM216/FM112 "Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools”

MM219/FM114 "Contributions to support sustainable travel between the two sites should be secured from new developments.”

Finally the figures stated for Housing Allocations, Completions and Permissions are unjustified. MM217/FM113 states figures which have been given in the modification along with subsequent correction for these figures. However, no justification is provided for how the figures have been derived.
Please also note that MM010/FM039 states the homes expected to be delivered in Barkway village through the local plan period is 208. No evidence is given for this figure, nor has any justification been provided as to why Barkway has been identified as suitable to support housing levels higher than other Category A villages.

On a personal note, I am extremely concerned about the proposed development of new homes on the BK3 site. As a family we recently moved to Barkway from Royston for a quieter and more intimate village life within a beautiful and historic setting. We identified Barkway as a village where we felt it safe for our young children to grow up, knowing the quiet and safe nature of the local environment. A development such as the proposed BK3 would, without doubt, majorly impact this. The noise, traffic and pollution that a development like BK3 would be truly devastating for a village like Barkway, and an impact on a historic village which would be completely irreversible.

A development of 140 new homes in a small village which does not even possess a local shop seems completely irrational. The amount of increased traffic generated as new residents move in and out of the area would choke the village and key routes both in and out of Royston and Buntingford. Towns already under intense development themselves.

I sincerely hope that the technical challenges to the Local Plan listed above are appropriately responded to. I also hope that the personal plea to protect and preserve Barkway and the local area is positively considered.

See Attached

After much time and expense I thought that BK3 had been fully discussed and resolved: the Planning Officer at NHDC wrote to the Inspector requesting BK3 to be taken out of the Plan. Now I hear that it most certainly has not. BK3 is back on the agenda. Why?

1. Transparency of the Process
• There has been no public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications, only NHDC's assertion that the Inspector has agreed the Schedule of Further Modifications
• The reasons for the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan has not been published.
• We have not had a FAIR or PROPORTIONATE opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of Site BK3. We support NHDC's request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan.
2. ENLARGING BK3 to include Herts CC School site
• Examination Document ED17.This document says that including the school site in the housing allocation site BK3 is pragmatic. HCC has NOT requested this amendment. This decision may be practical for NHDC but if BK3 includes HCC's land, then there is a risk that more homes that the 140 allocated will be built on this site. The land is not required by HCC for a school and so it should NOT be part of housing site BK3.
3. Figures for Housing Allocations, Completions, and Permissions
• MM010/FM039 says the number of homes expected to be delivered in Barkway village in the Local Plan time span is 208. There is NO evidence given for this figure. The figure is critical because Barkway is identified as suitable to support higher levels of housing than Category A villages on the basis that the number of homes expected to be delivered is 'more than 200'. THE FIGURES NEED TO BE JUSTIFIED.
• MM217/FM113 is a table showing new homes for the parish . THE TABLE IS WRONG. Red shows the figures given in the modification. Blue shows a simple correction. HOWEVER the detail of HOW the figures were arrived at is not available so the figures need to be JUSTIFIED:
o Total allocated sites: 173 corrected to 160 homes
o completions and permissions: 31 changed to 57 homes
o Total allocated/completed/permitted: 204 changed to 230 changed to 217 homes
4. S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport
• The contribution from construction to new homes in Barkway is mentioned 3 times in the Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications. School transport is already provided and BPC have been consulted on how S106 money should be spent for the benefit of the parish. If this modification was to remain in the Local Plan for a bus service between Barkway and Barley schools, Barley would be benefiting from development in Barkway.
• MM215/FM111 (in relation to Policy BK2): "Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools". Suggest this is deleted.
• MM216/FM112 (in relation to Policy BK3: "Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools". Suggest this is deleted.
• MM219/FM114 (in relation to Paragraph 13.39): "Contribution to support sustainable travel between the two sites should be secured from new developments." There are NO developments proposed in Barley, only in Barkway. Suggest this is deleted.
It is very worrying that lack of TRANSPARENCY and lack of JUSTIFICATION are very much at the heart of BK3. It does not engender trust in North Herts and Hertfordshire County Councils' planning procedures.
I hope you will investigate this thoroughly and TRANSPARENTLY and ensure that we are dealt with fairly.
In addition to the above there are very real problems relating to an inadequate infrastructure (sewage etc) and inadequate country roads which would not be able to cope safely with the number of houses proposed.
Thank you for giving this your full attention.

I am writing this email to object to the BK3 plan. I have not seen any public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications, it’s only NHDC’s assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the Schedule of Further Modifications.
The reasons for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request to exclude BK3 from the local plan has not been published.
The residents of Barkway have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of site BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove BK3 from their Local Plan.
The ED175, the land is not required by HCC for a school and so should not be part of BK3 plan.
Figures for Housing Allocations tables do not tally and seem to be incorrect.

We wish to object to the “Further Modifications” to the Planning Application Ref BK3 in Barkway for the following reasons.

Transparency of the Process.

•There has been no public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications, only NHDC’s assertion that the Inspector has agreed the Schedule of Further Modifications.

•The reasons for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan has not been published

• We have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of Site BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan.

The saga of Barkway Site BK3 within NHDC Local Plan 2011 - 2031 continues.

The inappropriate nature of this large development in a tiny village has been clear from the outset.

In late 2020, a Planning Officer at NHDC wrote to the Inspector to request that BK3 was taken out of the plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a ‘village for growth’.

However, in February of this year, when the Schedule of Further Main Modifications was published, BK3 was still in the plan.

I strongly object to the ongoing inclusion of BK3 within this plan, and I support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan.

In particular, I have issues with the transparency of the process, especially:

• There has been no public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications, only NHDC’s assertion that the Inspector has agreed the Schedule of Further Modifications.
• The reasons for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan has not been published.
• The public has not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put the case against the inclusion of Site BK3.

I trust that fairness and common sense will prevail and that the development of BK3 will not be approved.

I do not agree with the proposed Local Plan Further Main Modifications.

I support NHDC’s request to remove Site BK3 from the local plan because the village has not had the opportunity to put its case. We have not heard of any correspondence between the Inspector & NHDC on the draft schedule of further modifications, and have only the District Council’s word that the Inspector has agreed to such modifications.

Not all the facts we do have are accurate and require justification: the total sites allocated should be 160, not 173; completions and permissions are 57, not 31; so the total allocated completed & permitted is 217. 13 less than stated. Please refer to MM217/FM113.

Barkway has not had a fair or proper opportunity to put its case against the inclusion of BK3.

Barkway is a village with a large conservation area and many listed houses, adding such a large proportion of its whole to the village will destroy a valuable community.

Therefore the conclusion must be that the Local Plan is unsound and should not be adopted.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

Transparency of the Process is the most important issue.
.There has been no public correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC on the Draft schedule of Further Modifications,
only NHDC's assertion that the Inspector has agreed the schedule of Further Modifications.
.The reasons for the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan has not been published.
.We have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of Site BK3. We support NHDC's request to remove site BK3 from their local plan.

Thank you for your consultation inviting comments on the Further Proposed Main Modifications and Additional Work produced by the Council.

Highways England is responsible for the operation, maintenance and improvement of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England on behalf of the Secretary of the State. In the area within and surrounding North Hertfordshire, we have responsibility for the M1, the M11 and the A1 (M).

Highways England is a key delivery partner for sustainable development promoted through the plan-led system, and as a statutory consultee we have a duty to cooperate with local authorities to support the preparation and implementation of development plan documents.

I have read the additional documents with interest and generally find it appropriate. I would however, like to take this opportunity to remind the Council and the Inspector of the general comments provided during previous consultations and our involvement with the Local Plan examination process throughout.

See Attached