FM 010

See Attached

As a resident of Barkway, please see below my objections to the proposal and process.
1. Transparency of the Process - 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.
2. Enlarging BK3 to Include Hertfordshire Country Council’s (HCC) School Site
Examination Document ED175. This document says that including the school site in the housing allocation site BK3 is pragmatic. HCC have not requested this amendment. This decision may be practical for NHDC but if BK3 includes HCCs land, then there is a risk that more homes than the 140 allocated will be built on this site. The land is not required by HCC for a school. The HCC school site 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 period 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 that 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 type 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:
• Total allocated sites 173 homes. 160 homes is the corrected figure.
• Completions and permissions 31 homes. 57 homes is stated in the modification.
• Total allocated, completed and permitted 204 homes. 230 homes is stated in the modification, and 217 homes is the corrected figure.
4. S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport
The contribution from construction of new homes in Barkway is mentioned three 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”. We suggest this is deleted.
MM216/FM112 (in relation to Policy BK3): “Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools.” We suggest this is deleted.
MM219/FM114 (in relation to Paragraph 13.39): “Contributions to support sustainable travel between the two sites should be secured from new developments.” There are no developments proposed in Barley, only in Barkway and We suggest this is deleted.
The proposal is inappropriate and unsustainable for the village. In addition to environmental damage, bigger traffic problems, lack of local amenities and services, there is the question of demand for housing in the village.

As a resident of Barkway, please see below my objections to the proposal and process.
1. Transparency of the Process - 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.
2. Enlarging BK3 to Include Hertfordshire Country Council’s (HCC) School Site
Examination Document ED175. This document says that including the school site in the housing allocation site BK3 is pragmatic. HCC have not requested this amendment. This decision may be practical for NHDC but if BK3 includes HCCs land, then there is a risk that more homes than the 140 allocated will be built on this site. The land is not required by HCC for a school. The HCC school site 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 period 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 that 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 type 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:
• Total allocated sites 173 homes. 160 homes is the corrected figure.
• Completions and permissions 31 homes. 57homes is stated in the modification.
• Total allocated, completed and permitted 204 homes. 230 homes is stated in the modification, and 217 homes is the corrected figure.
4. S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport
The contribution from construction of new homes in Barkway is mentioned three 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”. We suggest this is deleted.
MM216/FM112 (in relation to Policy BK3): “Contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools.” We suggest this is deleted.
MM219/FM114 (in relation to Paragraph 13.39): “Contributions to support sustainable travel between the two sites should be secured from new developments.” There are no developments proposed in Barley, only in Barkway and We suggest this is deleted.
The proposal is inappropriate and unsustainable for the village. In addition to environmental damage, bigger traffic problems, lack of local amenities and services, there is the question of demand for housing in the village.

I am writing to object to certain Further Main Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (the "Modifications") (the "Plan").

I would urge all parties copied to this email to consider in very simple terms a situation where a local council has made two substantial recommendations in respect of its emerging local plan, which have been totally ignored by the relevant Inspector, without any reason provided publicly to justify that position.

Inclusion of BK3 in the Plan

I would like to express concern and disappointment that the Modifications have not removed site BK3 (a proposed development in Barkway) as recommended by North Hertfordshire District Council ("NHDC") in its Statement to the Further Hearings on Matter 30 - Barkway BK3 (the "NHDC Statement").

If the local council do not consider that this development should be included in the Plan then on what basis does it remain in the Plan?

There has been no public explanation provided as to the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request. This has of course meant that there has been no fair or proportionate opportunity for any interested parties to comment on the continued inclusion of site BK3 against the explicit wishes of NHDC. This flies in the face of an open and transparent process, and tarnishes all the work stakeholders (including NHDC and the Inspector) have put in over a number of months to make consideration of the Plan a fair process available for scrutiny and challenge.

Objections to the Modifications proposed
MM010/FM039, p.32, Policy SP2, Settlement Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution
• Policy SP2 has been amended to state that there should be 208 houses delivered with the adjusted settlement boundary of the village of Barkway.
• This figure has not been justified, with no public explanation provided as to the calculation of this number. The "reason / source" provided in the Modifications does not elicit any further, useful information.
•This number cannot be included in the Plan without further justification.

MM012/FM041, p.33, New paragraph after paragraph 4.12
• This proposes a new paragraph providing that "Five villages have been identified that will support higher levels of new housing allocations than the Category A villages...[including] Barkway as a focus for development in the rural east of the District."
• The "reason" provided in the Modifications table is "for effectiveness".
• Barkway cannot support such higher levels of new housing allocations and has been wrongly identified.
•NHDC agrees with this position, as evidenced in the NHDC Statement, where it clearly explained that Barkway should be considered in a "separate tier of the hierarchy" to Knebworth, Codicote, Ickleford and Little Wymondley [the other four villages referenced in this new paragraph]" (see para 22).
• NHDC provided a number of compelling arguments in favour of Barkway not being classified with those other four villages. The Statement notes (at para 26) "Given its lesser sustainability credentials - by virtue of its smaller size, narrower range of facilities and operating under a three-tier...education system - the case for significant development in Barkway has always been far more marginal than in those Green Belt locations where equivalent levels of development are proposed."
• Furthermore, the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Table 2 shows MM010/FM039 to include "Barkway is re-categorised as a Category A village". This has not been reflected in MM012/FM041 in the Modifications.
• There has been no evidence provided as to why NHDC's conclusions have been rejected (and why the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Table has not been reflected) and therefore why Barkway remains in this category. This evidences the same issues of process and transparency as the continued inclusion of site BK3 above. On what basis is the Inspector making these decisions, directly in opposition to the position of NHDC?
• Barkway should be removed from the new paragraph proposed.
It is wholly improper that site BK3 be included in the Plan (as anticipated in the Modifications) and that MM012/FM041 includes Barkway as one of five villages to support higher levels of group given: (1) that is directly against the instruction of NHDC as evidenced in the NHDC Statement; and (2) without any public justification as to why NHDC's requests have been rejected.

To do so shames an entire process in which hard-working people (including those on the planning committees at NHDC and the Inspector) are otherwise doing their best to finalise a Plan which is appropriate for the constituents of this area.

I agree that the transparency of the process is a very important issue and I feel the residents and interested parties have not been properly informed as they should be on matters such as "the reasons for the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan".
The inclusion of "the school site" is not in keeping with the correct process of development and including it raises questions of validity of the process.
Anywhere a council uses any proposal figures they should be accurate and transparent. For figures to be transparent they need to be fully explained and the table MM217/FM113 needs scrutinising to see if it does meet requirements.
The last area of concern is S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport. Any suggestion that Barkway should take the brunt of growth and other nearby places do not have such radical change is indeed unfair and deletions should be applied.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached Postcard

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached Petition

My reasons for objection to the NHDC Local Plan are:
Lack of transparency in the process
Unapproved enlargement of site BK3 to include Herts County Council owned land
Lack of detail or explanation on numbers of housing requirements
Proposal of S106 contributions from developments being shared unfairly with Barley

I object to the Further Main Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (the Plan), May 2021.

My objection comes from the lack of transparency to several Further Modifications, including housing numbers for Barkway and contributions from development in Barkway towards sustainable travel to school. I also object to the justification for the integration of the Reserve School Site into BK3; and the lack of transparency in the process that has denied the Parish Council the opportunity to support the removal of BK3 from the Plan as requested by North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC), or to object to a Further Modification not to remove BK3 from the Plan

I object to parts or the whole of the content of the following Further Modifications, including aspects of the justification put forward to support them.
MM010/FM039, p.32, Policy SP2, Settlement Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution
MM012/FM041, p.33, New paragraph after paragraph 4.12
MM217/FM113, p.144, Table after Policy BK3
MM215/FM111, p.144, Policy BK2
MM216/FM112, p.144, Policy BK3
MM219/FM114, p.144, Paragraph 13.39

I also object to the following Examination Documents which have been submitted to the Examination between November 2019 and March 2021:
ED170 Council's further response to Inspector’s Letter of 9 August (EX168)
ED 175 Council’s response to Inspector 9 July 2019

Finally, I object to the lack of transparency over this most recent part of the Examination process that has not provided the opportunity for the Parish Council to fairly state its case in relation to BK3, and the omission of a Further Modification refusing NHDC’s request to exclude BK3 from their Local Plan.

'have your say'
I have waded through your official documents for which you encourage citizens to 'have your say'. You refer to the policy plan maps which presumably show proposed development areas for towns and villages. Yet I cannot find it online?
Please provide me with the correct link.

I would also add that action needs to be taken and included in your policy (not just considered) for water treatment processing for the new properties as well as GP surgeries in Royston which seems to be a greater number of properties proposed than for Baldock?

Also the original proposed 'town hall site' development should surely now be omitted and the recently closed 'Morrisons supermarket area' be repurposed for dwellings with potentially ground floor shops included instead.

I wish to raise the following objections to Further Modifications in relation to site BK3.

NHDC made it very clear in their Hearing Statement of February 2021 (Matter 30) that Site BK3 should be deleted, and that there is no reasonable likelihood of the reserve school site being required during the plan period.

NHDC have also made their concerns very clear regarding integration of BK3 in urban design terms. Without the school site, the new housing will be divorced from the built form of the village. In response to Question 30.1(c), NHDC clearly stated that the allocation should be deleted as it is no longer justified or consistent with national policy.
The revised wording for policy BK3 includes a “contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools” in attempt to justify the sustainability of 140 new homes. However, this relies on young children using a bus to access First School provision and brings into question the settlement hierarchy of the whole Plan. If it is considered sustainable to rely on a bus service for a 140 dwelling development, then this opens up a number of other opportunities for similar scale developments in villages that lack full First School provision. This is not justified within the settlement hierarchy and makes the Plan unsound.
Quite correctly, in response to Question 30.3, NHDC made it clear that Barkway should be a Category A village. Para 13.35 of the Submission Local Plan inc. Further Modifications accepts that ‘facilities are limited’ in the village. This paragraph also attempts to justify the scale of new development as a response to Barkway’s ‘development needs’. However, the specific ‘development need’ that the construction of 140 new dwellings would meet is not provided. Development of this magnitude and layout is wholly disproportionate to the scale and character of the village, which has evolved as a linear settlement.

The table submitted by NHDC in response to Question 30.4(c) clearly highlights the disproportionate allocation of new housing for Barkway compared to 2011 population figures and current school provision for other settlements. This is not sustainable.

It is unclear why the Inspector would retain Site BK3 within the Plan on the basis of the evidence submitted, and NHDC’s own request for deletion. No correspondence has been made public to justify this position. Numerous pieces of correspondence have been published relating to the deletion of site BK3 including an apparently unchallenged statement from NHDC establishing the correctitude of the process of its deletion. The resulting absence of transparency casts great doubt on the veracity of the examination. Viewed against the magnitude of the proposed development that would increase the size of the village by in excess of 40% based upon 2011 census figures, the continued absence of correspondence on this matter leads only to the conclusion of Judicial Review should the plan be found sound with BK3 is included.
Ultimately, removal of site BK3 from the Plan will not undermine the Local Plan’s spatial strategy, will not compromise the Council’s 5 year supply position, nor will it have any wider implications. There is therefore no reason for this site to remain in the Plan.
Site BK3 should be deleted and Barkway reinstated as a Category A Village. Retention of site BK3 within the Plan renders it unsound as it has not been positively prepared, and is not justified. The Local Plan is therefore in conflict with Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached