ED175

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

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.

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.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

I write to OJBECT to this wholly inappropriate unsustainable development of our small rural village.

By including site BK3 into the NHDC local plan I don't believe that the inspector has taken into account any of the following:

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.
• The villagers have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of Site BK3 and support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan. mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">
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.

See attached.

To be clear, my objections are not based on the fact that I don't believe in changes or development, I understand that it is important to provide housing for an ever increasing population. My objection is in the fact that the sheer size of this development will completely change the character of Barkway and is a completely unsustainable proposal given the lack of infrastructure and amenities the village has.

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 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 fully support NHDC's previous request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan. It is therefore extremely disappointing 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 outlining the reasons why the Inspectors did not 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 it been requested by Hertfordshire County Council. Therefore the inclusion of the School Site within the Examination Document ED175 in unjustified and should be removed. There are sufficient lower and primary schools within the area but little consideration appears to have been given to the increasing pressure this proposal will place on secondary/upper schools and the increased traffic in/out of Royston and Buntingford (to reach these schools), which are already heavily congested routes.

I would strongly dispute any traffic survey that has been carried out as part of the proposal, which does not recognise two key factors when reviewing the volume of traffic - 1) impact of Covid (heavily reduced traffic as many work from home and schools are closed or on staggered start/finish times) and 2) the impact of the other proposed housing development south side of Royston (for 300 new homes). Looking ahead 24-36 months, both proposals for additional housing will seriously and negatively impact in particular the two key routes in and out of Royston, the Barkway Road and A10. An additional lower/primary school in Barkway will not address this issue nor the need for children to receive a secondary education, which is currently via the nearest catchment school in Royston or alternatively, Buntingford. I drive along these roads daily, minimum 4 times to travel to work and to take children to school and even with the current reduced traffic (and without the additional housing) these routes can quickly become very congested due to the one way system in Royston.

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. For the reasons highlighted above, the proposed contribution to the school transport between Barkway and Barley will have absolutely no impact on the real issues created by 140 extra houses being placed in a small villages i.e. the two main roads in and out of the nearest town Royston, which can not support the additional traffic.

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.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed development for new homes on the BK3 site. We have recently made the decision to move to Barkway to improve our quality of life. Our primary focus was to improve our health and wellbeing and provide a safe environment for our children to grow up in with lower volumes of traffic and pollution. A development such as the proposed BK3 would, without doubt negatively impact this and have a destructive impact on the environment. 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 and one I can not comprehend. 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.

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 thefigures 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 proposed development 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 in any case.

By including site BK3 into the NHDC local plan I don't believe that the inspector has taken into account any of the following:

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.
• The villagers have not had a fair or proportionate opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of Site BK3 and support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from their Local Plan. mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">
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.

To be clear, my objections are not based on the fact that I don't believe in changes or development, I understand that it is important to provide housing for an ever increasing population. My objection is in the fact that the sheer size of this development will completely change the character of Barkway and is a completely unsustainable proposal given the lack of infrastructure and amenities the village has.

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.

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.

See Attached

See Attached

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.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached