ED175

As a long time Barkway resident I am appalled that BK3 has not been removed from the Schedule of Further Main Modifications despite a Planning Officer at NHDC advising the Inspector that it should be. We live in this village because it is small and peaceful 'community'. There has already been new developments on discreet plots in and around the village and that should be sufficient. We do not want to double in size.
Can I ask WHY the Inspector decided not to exclude BK3? There doesn't seem to be a published explanation. Can I also ask how the increased traffic through the village will benefit the foundations of listed buildings? And presumably the new development will have street lights, something the village has refused to adopt as it spoils the night sky. This is a country village, we do not want to become another Royston.

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.

I continue to object to this development as I have previously done. The proposed BK3 development is too large for our village and would damage its unique historic character and the surrounding countryside to the North. Also, there are few amenities (church, first school, garage and pub) in Barkway that would mean that new residents would be driving to local towns daily to shop, take children to school, go to work etc which places additional traffic on the surrounding minor roads. This adversely impacts impacts road safety and carbon dioxide emissions.

I have been advised that I should specifically comment on Further Modifications. I am concerned about the transparency of the process. Specifically:

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 reason 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. I support NHDC’s request to remove BK3 from their local plan.

There would appear to be a worrying but sadly not unexpected lack of transparency over the re-emergence of the BK3 site in the local plan.

If indeed there has been any correspondence between the inspector and NHDC it is not in the public domain and we have only NHDC's statement that the inspector has agreed to the Schedule for Further Modifications. IF we knew the basis upon which this agreement has been reached we MIGHT be in a position to modify our views but in absence of this we must still oppose BK3. Also still under wraps is the rationale behind the Inspectors decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude the site from the Local Plan. I think this lack of transparency alone deprives us of a basis upon which to put our case against the inclusion of BK3 and for this reason we continue to support NHDC's request to remove BK3 from their Local Plan as it stands WITHOUT taking into account the proposes inclusion of HCC's "School Site".

I suspect you will receive many emails on this issue.

The process has not been transparent from the beginning. How can it be right for the inspector to include BK3 when NHDC now says that it should be taken out of the proposed plan?

The inspector seems deaf to common sense and reasoning.

I attach the list of reasons why BK3 should not be included in the plan. The site is more or less outside Barkway and should never have been selected in the first place.

Please can you ensure that BK3 is taken out of the plan?

See Attached

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

We are new residents of Barkway and in January when we agreed to purchase our house, we were aware of the BK3 proposals but understood that in late 2020, a planning Officer at NHDC had written to the Housing Inspector to request that BK3 be taken out of the plan and that Barkway should no longer be considered as a ‘village for growth’. As Barkway is a small village with very few amenities and with it being a fair distance, via very narrow country roads, to the nearest towns, this decision by the NHDC planning Officer made perfect sense to me. I was therefore dismayed to learn that BK3 may still be left in the plan particularly as local residents have had no explanation as to why the Inspector subsequently disregarded the planning Officer’s letter and made the decision not to remove BK3 in the plan. Surely Barkway residents and the Parrish Council are entitled to be made aware of his reasons for this decision. The new development will have such a major impact on the village that clarity in the decision making process is imperative so that residents can understand why this has happened. The scale of the proposal will have a huge impact on local residents particularly during the building stages. We are, all after all, NHDC taxpayers and therefore entitled to proper representation and open dialogue from our District Council.

From a personal point of view, my husband and I are recently retired and therefore the location of Barkway is not a concern for us. We do not need to travel anywhere outside of the village on a daily basis and when we do, we are seldom in a rush and always drive slowly and cautiously down the country roads. I am concerned that these country roads into Royston and onto the A10 may not be as safe to drive on when being used by more people who maybe in a rush to get to work. I have often thought that it would be easy to have a head on collision if someone was driving at speed towards you down one of the single track roads that take you into Royston and on the A10. I am also concerned that the many permissive footpaths that currently exist across private land may be reduced by landowners if the population of Barkway expands considerably. If this happens then it will reduce the amenities for those people such as ourselves who have chosen to live here so that we can take advantage of the many walks around us. A large new development will certainly completely change village that we have chosen for our new life in retirement.

I also understand that the development will be built on Green Belt land. Surely this should not be permitted? This will just create an unwanted precedent for future encroachments onto land historically considered sacrosanct. Is there not sufficient brownfields sites in and around Hertfordshire that could be used for large housing developments?. Such sites are also likely to be in locations where the necessary infrastructure such as shops, good roads and schools already exist. In Barkway, it would appear that this whole process was initiated by the desire of a landowner to sell his land, rather than by the more sensible approach of initially identifying a housing need in a specific area and then finding a suitable site for development. I have noticed that houses are very slow to sell on Barkway, the house that we purchased was vacant for at least a year before we moved in, so it follows that maybe there isn’t such a demand for housing on Barkway as in other Herefordshire locations such are Buntingford or Royston which have more amenities and greater demand. I would therefore question the logic of this process as it currently stands.

See Attached

See Attached

I would like to make comments on the above proposed developments.
After all the reasons put forward not to have such a large development in a rural village like as Barkway, why has their been no publication of the reasons for the inspector not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the local plan! We surely need transparency in such large developments to ensure all guidelines are being followed.
I would just like to outline my thoughts on why this development is not something which should be allowed.
I have lived in Barkway for most of my 68 years and have seen good small development happen which is acceptable and the village as been able to cope with this.
Barkway doesn't have the infrastructure or the services to cope with such a large growth.
The roads are not capable of handling another 200 plus cars a day, the bye roads would be the main routes to travel on these are already busy and impassable when meeting large vehicles. The high street is crowded of vehicles parked and can be dangerous at peak time of the day, the school is located in the high street, so again dangerous when children are being dropped off and picked up.
We have no services in the village other than 1 public house and a flower shop, the bus service is so infrequent that you could not use it for work travel.
Surely developments of this size need to be located on the outskirts of towns for work, schools, doctors and shopping.

My objection is that due and transparent process has not been followed.

My understanding is that NHDC submitted a request to the Inspector late in 2020 that Barkway should no longer be designated a 'village for growth' and that accordingly BK3 should be omitted from the planned development.

Evidently, the Inspector has not heeded this request - but no reasons have been disclosed for the decision.

In my opinion, this is a fatal flaw in the process, which would - if taken to Judicial Review - require the matter to be revisited by the Inspector.

You will be aware that there are powerful reasons for the removal of Barkway's designation as a 'village for growth', such that if they are to be overruled a proper and transparent procedure must be followed.

The reasoning of the Inspector, once disclosed, would of course itself be subject to review.

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds.
This will produce a non-sustainable site where the adverse effects of the development will outweigh the benefit of creating new homes. The homes should be built where there are services and amenities to support the new homeowners.
Barkway has very limited amenities and it is necessary to drive to access shops, doctors, schools etc. There is a bus service but it provides a very poor connection to the nearest towns, and very few people can use it to get to work, so everyone is dependent on private car use.
It is not possible to even use the bus to get to Royston Station to catch a train in time to get to work in London or Cambridge, and if you can, then the last bus back to Barkway is at 5pm, too early for most commuters.
A very large number of houses are proposed, but without creating any jobs to balance the very large increase of properties The development will therefore not meet the Governments requirements for sustainability. Adding so many new properties, without creating more jobs in the village means people will have to travel, using private cars to get to work. This is against many planning guidelines, bad for the environment and sustainability.
Additionally, as has been pointed out in recent planning refusals for 25 homes, at Land next to Royston Road, the roads are insufficient to sustain the increase in traffic for 25 homes, let alone 140.
These houses should therefore be built in other locations, or towns in the area, where there is public transport, jobs, and amenities, not stuck on a small rural village.
I therefore wish to object to this planning application.

See Attached

See Attached

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds.
A very large number of houses are proposed, but without creating any jobs to balance the very large increase of properties and residents in our small village.
Barkway has very limited amenities and it is necessary to drive to access shops, doctors, schools etc. There is a bus service but it is not very convenient, and provides a very poor connection to the nearest towns, therefore you do have to rely on private transport to live here.
This site will therefore not meet the Governments requirements for sustainability. Adding so many new properties, without creating more jobs in the village means people will have to travel, using private cars to get to work. This is against many planning rules.
Whilst electric cars could be used, these are not very affordable at this time, and unlikely to be afforded by someone seeking to buy an affordable home.
These houses should therefore be built in other locations, or towns in the area, where there is public transport, jobs, and amenities, not stuck on a small rural village.
You can already see the volume of traffic and parked cars in the village as a result of people with families with more than one car plus the new homes which have already been built. Often block and obstruct the pavements making it extremely hard for wheelchair and pushchair access. The country lanes and high streets are not designed to take this volume.
Whilst we do need some homes, these should be built where there are the resources to support them.

I would like to strongly object the proposed housing development ‘Further Modifications’ BK3 in Barkway.

The main issue I would like to highlight is the transparency of the process.

There has been no public correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the schedule of ‘Further Modifications’. There are no reasons explained or provided to the public on why the inspector has not accepted NHDC’s request to remove BK3 from the local plan.

The other issue I would like to raise is about the figures for housing allocations. There appears to be no justification for the total allocated, completed and permitted and inconsistent totals. They appear to have been all allocated to Barkway and not split between surrounding villages.

Lastly, on a personal note I feel that 140+ new homes will destroy Barkway Village. I experience the current traffic situation first hand everyday and the village infrastructure would not cope with any further increase of journeys. There are near misses most mornings from the amount of traffic and high speed. The new housing would directly effect our everyday enjoyment of living in the countryside. There would be an increase in noise pollution and the village community feel will be lost.

Further to the recent notification concerning proposed building in Batkway, I must voice my considerable concern at the plans outlined.

My main worry is the increased amount of traffic which would result from such an amount of housing. The road through Barkway is already a nightmare to use, not only due to local cars but also huge lorries/vans delivering goods to village homes. Such a large number of homes will, obviously, bring not only one extra car per home to add to current volumes, but most new build houses have at least two each!

The resulting jams/accidents will be enormous and I would urge the Council to take traffic conditions into serious account.

As a resident in Barkway for many years, I’m writing in response to the disproportionate proposed building development in Barkway (BK3). I raise serious concerns about the negative impact this will have on the village and question the reasons for why this site specifically continues to be chosen, especially with the tangible dissatisfaction from the local community and as evidenced from previous comments made to the NH planning department about the applications to develop BK3.

I object to BK3 being part of the local plan for many reasons but raise a few additional points now. I also raise questions which I would be grateful if more information could be provided.

• First and foremost it is disappointing that there have not been updates directly to residents for the proposed large and impactful development. It appears that much of the process is occurring behind closed doors with lack of opportunity for comment, which of course is not in the spirit of working with the community and lacks a completely transparent process. Ideally, residents should receive updates from NHDC and/or the Inspector on this important issue but this has not been forthcoming. Please can you inform me if this should be the case and how this can be achieved?
• I am also unclear as to how much of the land belongs to the council and what the NHDC’s view is on additional houses to be built over and above the BK3 allocation and whether a school will be built or not? There is also confusion on the exact total number of new houses allocated to be built in Barkway, and especially on how the 208 figure was arrived at in the local plan. Barkway is not suitable for a mass influx of housing for obvious reasons already well documented, with objections raised by the parish council and residents. Please can you provide accurate figures on total allocated new housing in Barkway and how BK3 impacts on these numbers and the justification for it? The Parish council has said that ‘how the figures have been arrived is not available’.

I urge persons involved in this project to weigh up the factors objectively. However, the bottom line is that with only a modest population present in Barkway it makes absolutely no sense to unbalance the village with a huge development.

Reasons for objection to the NHDC Local Plan:
1. Lack of transparency in the process
2. Unapproved enlargement of site BK3 to include Herts County Council owned land
3. Lack of detail or explanation on numbers of housing requirements
4.Proposal of S106 contributions from developments being shared unfairly with Barley
5. Utter despair that my village will be irrevocably swollen, all my love and joy as a Barkway resident will be lost!

See Attached

We support the recent decision by NHDC to request the Inspector to remove BK3 from the local plan. We cannot understand why this request was not followed, as is now shown in the Schedule of Further Main Modifications nor why reasons were not given by the inspector,- or not published. Neither is there any published correspondence between the Inspector and NHDC concerning this latest publication. The figure suggested for the number of houses has no backup information, giving evidence as to why this number is suitable; nor is there any suggestion as to the type and variation built. We are supporting the above mentioned decision by the NHDC to remove the BK3 site from the plan. Its inclusion would not be evidence based enough to be practical or viable.

Objection to the inclusion of site BK3 in the Local Plan
I would like to comment on the Further Modifications to the NHDC Local Plan and register my objection to the re-introduction of the site BK3 into the North Hertfordshire Local Plan for the following reasons:
Transparency of the process
• I understand that in 2020 an NHDC planning officer requested that BK3 was removed from the draft plan and that Barkway was no longer identified as a ‘village for growth’. However, following this when the schedule of further main modifications was published BK3 remained in the plan. It is unclear as to why BK3 remained in draft document.
• 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.
• There has not been a fair or proportionate opportunity for the local community/Parish Council to put their case against the inclusion of Site BK3.
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.
• I understand that HCC have not requested this amendment and the land is not required by HCC for a school, therefore the HCC school site should not be included as part of BK3.
Figures for Housing Allocations, Completions, and Permissions
• MM010/FM039 states that the number of homes expected to be delivered in Barkway village in the Local Plan period is 208. I understand that there is no evidence given for this figure? The figure identified needs justification.
• MM217/FM113 sets out the number of new homes identified for the parish. There appears to be some errors in this table and the detail of how the figures were arrived as it not available. Justification of these figures should be provided.
For the above reasons I would like to register my objection to the retention of BK3 in the Local Plan. It is not justified for a number of reasons and renders the Plan unsound as it has not been positively prepared and therefore means that it is in conflict with Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

I wish to the raise the following points regarding the Further Modifications to the Local Plan produced in May 2021.
MM012
The modification states that Barkway WILL now support higher levels of new housing allocations.
Barkway is a village of very limited facilities and poor connectivity to other settlements in the area. The infrastructure is restricted and only just supports the current housing stock. The village's ability to absorb further growth is severely constrained. The proposed modification is not sustainable, robust or sound.
MM213
Barkway was designated as a Category A village in the original plan. This designation has now been changed to a village which ' a greater amount of development has been allocated'. The plan acknowledges that facilities in the village are limited and residents would travel to surrounding towns for work, shopping and leisure. This would result in a significant increase in vehicular traffic, all moving on Class B and unclassified roads, leading to an unacceptable level of congestion and having a detrimental impact on the environment.
MM214
North Hertfordshire District Council withdrew BK3 from the Local Plan in November 2020.
The Further Modification, however, has now included BK3 in the plan with a housing total of 140 dwellings. With the total housing requirement for the North Hertfordshire being reduced from 13800 to 11500 there has been no explanation or justification given as to why the BK3 site has been retained. The major concerns raised regarding this development appeared to have been acknowledged and accepted by the District Council. The inclusion of the site now renders the Plan unsound .
MM216
The school site, adjacent to the proposed BK3 development, should be reserved exclusively for any future educational needs and not included in any land available for housing.
In all the above points, there appears to be a lack of transparency as to the basis for these proposed modifications to the plan. The Parish Council state that they have not been offered a fair and proportionate opportunity to put their case against the inclusion of the BK3 site within the proposed Local Plan. That appears to be completely unacceptable.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached