Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We strongly object to the proposed local plan as it relates to Ickleford under the sites IC1, IC2, IC3 & LS1 for the following reasons.

Site IC1 Duncots Close

This particular site is totally UNSOUND for reasons relating to the Green Belt. NPPF Section 87 states inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this area, quite the contrary given the area is prone to severe flooding given its location in the Village, apart from sewerage and drainage problems not identified by Anglian water in the NHDC report. This authority have confirmed that the pumping station in the Village to be inadequate as is also the pipe capacity to handle the volumes that accumulate at this junction and serious remedial work is required to not only combat the existing problems, and would be seriously increased with added development. Ickleford is also listed as an Excluded Village in Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Plan, and within this Policy the Council will normally permit development for housing only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries. The proposed development in this site fails this test and therefore UNSOUND. This site also leads onto one of the major roads through the Village, where the pavements are very narrow, it is a main pedestrian route for school children to the Village School, and where the 7.5 tonne lorry ban is not effective, thereby making it a very dangerous area for all users particularly pedestrians.


IC2 Burford Grange.

This site is also considered UNSOUND. With particular emphasis on the Green Belt implications. NPPF Section 80 states the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment. NPPF Section 89 also states exceptions to building on the Green Belt might exist, such as limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan. We do not consider the suggested proposals for building on this site of Green Belt are either limited or in filling, and also NHDC has not provided any evidence that these are exceptional circumstances.. The last Conservative & Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, supported by the Government of 2016 indicated there were many brownfield sites totally capable of being used for development and so prevent the intrusion into the Green Belt
North Herts Green Belt Review in July 2016 misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns. Ickleford Green Belt is a very important boundary in terms of preventing the merger with Hitchin, and also Henlow and Lower Stondon and it is imperative this remains as a protection of the historic character of a North Herts Village as defined in Environmental objectives 1.2 & 3.
This area is situated just off the main A600 road leading into Hitchin and metres from a busy junction, and any additional traffic would require a complete overhaul of the current road layout for safety reasons. High proportion of the traffic feeding into Hitchin comes from across the Bedfordshire borders, and whilst the Central Beds Plans are not available it is known that over 750 properties are to be built in Henlow, and further developments are likely in many of the other Villages in Bedfordshire making this road a total bottleneck then exists at present. The area also backs onto woodland and any new build would considerably disturb wildlife. The main water pipes from this side of the Village also feed into the centre where the IC1 problems exists and therefore constantly add to the existing sewerage and waste problems already documented and belatedly acknowledged by Anglian Water. Being part of the older end of the Village aged pipework exacerbates all of these problems..

IC3 Bedford Road.

The largest of the three sites identified, and as this one appears to be a late decision without any consultation with the Village is again UNSOUND. NPPF Section 80 relating to the Green Belt again stresses that the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. This is particularly prevalent in this site given the countryside around and with much of the land being currently worked for farming. A letter seen from the Minister of State for housing dated 7th June 2016 states the Government has put in place the strongest protection for Green Belt and that boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan, and to my knowledge there are no exceptional circumstances here.
Environmental objectives figure prominently in this site as there is an indication that the Village School would need to be moved to within this site IC3. This would be travesty as the School forms part of the triangle "hub" the Church, Village Hall &existing Village School, and one of the main Environmental objectives, ENV2, is to protect and enhance the historic character of North Herts Villages, which this site would destroy. Also to consider moving the school would take this out of the Village hub, and with presumably increased size provide further problems for future intakes into the Secondary stream of Hitchin Schools.
As with Sites IC1 & IC2 Sewerage and Drainage remain a problem for the area and given the outrageous comments from Anglian Water, in the NHDC report, a full review would be required to determine the effect of any proposed new development given the anticipated size. The main sewer, pipes and Pumping station are inadequate now and would require considerable changes at substantial costs to ensure improvement of the services.
Finally the traffic issues that such a potential increase of housing could produce would be enormous. The overall projected increase of housing in IC1, IC2 & IC3 plus LS1 is an increase of 40% on current levels with the majority of likely traffic emanating from this site, IC3, onto an already main busy road entering Hitchin. At present long delays consistently occur at peak times and with a potential increase of 150 homes on this site, each having a minimum of 2 cars per house, which I gather is higher than the Department of Transports Study indicates, which I think questionable, would make this road impossible. Bearing in mind also the likely increase of vehicles from Bedfordshire, when their plans are published, with Henlow having a development of 750 houses, and further likely developments at Fairfield, Clifton and Shefford, this road at peak times would grind to a halt.
Hitchin already suffers considerable traffic stress as detailed in a recently published paper, Hertfordshire Transport Vision 2020, and further volumes such as this site could produce could only make this situation even worse. Traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document indicates figures from this development which cannot be acceptable, as they mention only a possible 63 trips in the morning and 33 in the afternoon which given the proposed number of houses and likely vehicles is not feasible

Site LS1 Lower Stondon.

This site was again a late addition and no opportunity given for consultation, and whilst there is no problem here with Green Belt, the main objection relates to the traffic problems associated with such a large development od 120 houses.
As with IC3 this development will lead onto the Bedford Road A600 just out of Bedfordshire, and again not knowing the implication of any traffic numbers from new estates in that County, the likelihood is that there will be substantial vehicle movements throughout the peak times and th impact on Ickleford will be a constant threat.

This takes us onto the other important objection overall to these four sites, the Air and noise pollution generated by all of the traffic movements in the areas involved. The number of houses proposed is 40% increase in the population of Ickleford and will obviously lead to a proportionate in car journeys, and this coupled with the likely increase from Bedfordshire, and taking into consideration much of this traffic will come via the A600 or Arlesey Road, many of the residents will be subject to environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on total air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and would seem to be based on flawed traffic transport modelling.

As residents of Ickleford for over 40 years we have seen considerable changes, but the Village has maintained its community and Village Character, and we and our family consider these proposed changes will decimate the Village, and we strongly object to IC1,IC2 & IC3 for the reasons stated. LS1 will not have the same direct effect and if development is required then this would be the only acceptable site.

We strongly object to the proposed local plan as it relates to Ickleford under the sites IC1, IC2, IC3 & LS1 for the following reasons.

Site IC1 Duncots Close

This particular site is totally UNSOUND for reasons relating to the Green Belt. NPPF Section 87 states inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this area, quite the contrary given the area is prone to severe flooding given its location in the Village, apart from sewerage and drainage problems not identified by Anglian water in the NHDC report. This authority have confirmed that the pumping station in the Village to be inadequate as is also the pipe capacity to handle the volumes that accumulate at this junction and serious remedial work is required to not only combat the existing problems, and would be seriously increased with added development. Ickleford is also listed as an Excluded Village in Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Plan, and within this Policy the Council will normally permit development for housing only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries. The proposed development in this site fails this test and therefore UNSOUND. This site also leads onto one of the major roads through the Village, where the pavements are very narrow, it is a main pedestrian route for school children to the Village School, and where the 7.5 tonne lorry ban is not effective, thereby making it a very dangerous area for all users particularly pedestrians.


IC2 Burford Grange.

This site is also considered UNSOUND. With particular emphasis on the Green Belt implications. NPPF Section 80 states the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment. NPPF Section 89 also states exceptions to building on the Green Belt might exist, such as limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan. We do not consider the suggested proposals for building on this site of Green Belt are either limited or in filling, and also NHDC has not provided any evidence that these are exceptional circumstances.. The last Conservative & Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, supported by the Government of 2016 indicated there were many brownfield sites totally capable of being used for development and so prevent the intrusion into the Green Belt
North Herts Green Belt Review in July 2016 misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns. Ickleford Green Belt is a very important boundary in terms of preventing the merger with Hitchin, and also Henlow and Lower Stondon and it is imperative this remains as a protection of the historic character of a North Herts Village as defined in Environmental objectives 1.2 & 3.
This area is situated just off the main A600 road leading into Hitchin and metres from a busy junction, and any additional traffic would require a complete overhaul of the current road layout for safety reasons. High proportion of the traffic feeding into Hitchin comes from across the Bedfordshire borders, and whilst the Central Beds Plans are not available it is known that over 750 properties are to be built in Henlow, and further developments are likely in many of the other Villages in Bedfordshire making this road a total bottleneck then exists at present. The area also backs onto woodland and any new build would considerably disturb wildlife. The main water pipes from this side of the Village also feed into the centre where the IC1 problems exists and therefore constantly add to the existing sewerage and waste problems already documented and belatedly acknowledged by Anglian Water. Being part of the older end of the Village aged pipework exacerbates all of these problems..

IC3 Bedford Road.

The largest of the three sites identified, and as this one appears to be a late decision without any consultation with the Village is again UNSOUND. NPPF Section 80 relating to the Green Belt again stresses that the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. This is particularly prevalent in this site given the countryside around and with much of the land being currently worked for farming. A letter seen from the Minister of State for housing dated 7th June 2016 states the Government has put in place the strongest protection for Green Belt and that boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan, and to my knowledge there are no exceptional circumstances here.
Environmental objectives figure prominently in this site as there is an indication that the Village School would need to be moved to within this site IC3. This would be travesty as the School forms part of the triangle "hub" the Church, Village Hall &existing Village School, and one of the main Environmental objectives, ENV2, is to protect and enhance the historic character of North Herts Villages, which this site would destroy. Also to consider moving the school would take this out of the Village hub, and with presumably increased size provide further problems for future intakes into the Secondary stream of Hitchin Schools.
As with Sites IC1 & IC2 Sewerage and Drainage remain a problem for the area and given the outrageous comments from Anglian Water, in the NHDC report, a full review would be required to determine the effect of any proposed new development given the anticipated size. The main sewer, pipes and Pumping station are inadequate now and would require considerable changes at substantial costs to ensure improvement of the services.
Finally the traffic issues that such a potential increase of housing could produce would be enormous. The overall projected increase of housing in IC1, IC2 & IC3 plus LS1 is an increase of 40% on current levels with the majority of likely traffic emanating from this site, IC3, onto an already main busy road entering Hitchin. At present long delays consistently occur at peak times and with a potential increase of 150 homes on this site, each having a minimum of 2 cars per house, which I gather is higher than the Department of Transports Study indicates, which I think questionable, would make this road impossible. Bearing in mind also the likely increase of vehicles from Bedfordshire, when their plans are published, with Henlow having a development of 750 houses, and further likely developments at Fairfield, Clifton and Shefford, this road at peak times would grind to a halt.
Hitchin already suffers considerable traffic stress as detailed in a recently published paper, Hertfordshire Transport Vision 2020, and further volumes such as this site could produce could only make this situation even worse. Traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document indicates figures from this development which cannot be acceptable, as they mention only a possible 63 trips in the morning and 33 in the afternoon which given the proposed number of houses and likely vehicles is not feasible

Site LS1 Lower Stondon.

This site was again a late addition and no opportunity given for consultation, and whilst there is no problem here with Green Belt, the main objection relates to the traffic problems associated with such a large development od 120 houses.
As with IC3 this development will lead onto the Bedford Road A600 just out of Bedfordshire, and again not knowing the implication of any traffic numbers from new estates in that County, the likelihood is that there will be substantial vehicle movements throughout the peak times and th impact on Ickleford will be a constant threat.

This takes us onto the other important objection overall to these four sites, the Air and noise pollution generated by all of the traffic movements in the areas involved. The number of houses proposed is 40% increase in the population of Ickleford and will obviously lead to a proportionate in car journeys, and this coupled with the likely increase from Bedfordshire, and taking into consideration much of this traffic will come via the A600 or Arlesey Road, many of the residents will be subject to environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on total air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and would seem to be based on flawed traffic transport modelling.

As residents of Ickleford for over 40 years we have seen considerable changes, but the Village has maintained its community and Village Character, and we and our family consider these proposed changes will decimate the Village, and we strongly object to IC1,IC2 & IC3 for the reasons stated. LS1 will not have the same direct effect and if development is required then this would be the only acceptable site.

We strongly object to the proposed local plan as it relates to Ickleford under the sites IC1, IC2, IC3 & LS1 for the following reasons.

Site IC1 Duncots Close

This particular site is totally UNSOUND for reasons relating to the Green Belt. NPPF Section 87 states inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this area, quite the contrary given the area is prone to severe flooding given its location in the Village, apart from sewerage and drainage problems not identified by Anglian water in the NHDC report. This authority have confirmed that the pumping station in the Village to be inadequate as is also the pipe capacity to handle the volumes that accumulate at this junction and serious remedial work is required to not only combat the existing problems, and would be seriously increased with added development. Ickleford is also listed as an Excluded Village in Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Plan, and within this Policy the Council will normally permit development for housing only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries. The proposed development in this site fails this test and therefore UNSOUND. This site also leads onto one of the major roads through the Village, where the pavements are very narrow, it is a main pedestrian route for school children to the Village School, and where the 7.5 tonne lorry ban is not effective, thereby making it a very dangerous area for all users particularly pedestrians.


IC2 Burford Grange.

This site is also considered UNSOUND. With particular emphasis on the Green Belt implications. NPPF Section 80 states the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment. NPPF Section 89 also states exceptions to building on the Green Belt might exist, such as limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan. We do not consider the suggested proposals for building on this site of Green Belt are either limited or in filling, and also NHDC has not provided any evidence that these are exceptional circumstances.. The last Conservative & Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, supported by the Government of 2016 indicated there were many brownfield sites totally capable of being used for development and so prevent the intrusion into the Green Belt
North Herts Green Belt Review in July 2016 misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns. Ickleford Green Belt is a very important boundary in terms of preventing the merger with Hitchin, and also Henlow and Lower Stondon and it is imperative this remains as a protection of the historic character of a North Herts Village as defined in Environmental objectives 1.2 & 3.
This area is situated just off the main A600 road leading into Hitchin and metres from a busy junction, and any additional traffic would require a complete overhaul of the current road layout for safety reasons. High proportion of the traffic feeding into Hitchin comes from across the Bedfordshire borders, and whilst the Central Beds Plans are not available it is known that over 750 properties are to be built in Henlow, and further developments are likely in many of the other Villages in Bedfordshire making this road a total bottleneck then exists at present. The area also backs onto woodland and any new build would considerably disturb wildlife. The main water pipes from this side of the Village also feed into the centre where the IC1 problems exists and therefore constantly add to the existing sewerage and waste problems already documented and belatedly acknowledged by Anglian Water. Being part of the older end of the Village aged pipework exacerbates all of these problems..

IC3 Bedford Road.

The largest of the three sites identified, and as this one appears to be a late decision without any consultation with the Village is again UNSOUND. NPPF Section 80 relating to the Green Belt again stresses that the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. This is particularly prevalent in this site given the countryside around and with much of the land being currently worked for farming. A letter seen from the Minister of State for housing dated 7th June 2016 states the Government has put in place the strongest protection for Green Belt and that boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan, and to my knowledge there are no exceptional circumstances here.
Environmental objectives figure prominently in this site as there is an indication that the Village School would need to be moved to within this site IC3. This would be travesty as the School forms part of the triangle "hub" the Church, Village Hall &existing Village School, and one of the main Environmental objectives, ENV2, is to protect and enhance the historic character of North Herts Villages, which this site would destroy. Also to consider moving the school would take this out of the Village hub, and with presumably increased size provide further problems for future intakes into the Secondary stream of Hitchin Schools.
As with Sites IC1 & IC2 Sewerage and Drainage remain a problem for the area and given the outrageous comments from Anglian Water, in the NHDC report, a full review would be required to determine the effect of any proposed new development given the anticipated size. The main sewer, pipes and Pumping station are inadequate now and would require considerable changes at substantial costs to ensure improvement of the services.
Finally the traffic issues that such a potential increase of housing could produce would be enormous. The overall projected increase of housing in IC1, IC2 & IC3 plus LS1 is an increase of 40% on current levels with the majority of likely traffic emanating from this site, IC3, onto an already main busy road entering Hitchin. At present long delays consistently occur at peak times and with a potential increase of 150 homes on this site, each having a minimum of 2 cars per house, which I gather is higher than the Department of Transports Study indicates, which I think questionable, would make this road impossible. Bearing in mind also the likely increase of vehicles from Bedfordshire, when their plans are published, with Henlow having a development of 750 houses, and further likely developments at Fairfield, Clifton and Shefford, this road at peak times would grind to a halt.
Hitchin already suffers considerable traffic stress as detailed in a recently published paper, Hertfordshire Transport Vision 2020, and further volumes such as this site could produce could only make this situation even worse. Traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document indicates figures from this development which cannot be acceptable, as they mention only a possible 63 trips in the morning and 33 in the afternoon which given the proposed number of houses and likely vehicles is not feasible

Site LS1 Lower Stondon.

This site was again a late addition and no opportunity given for consultation, and whilst there is no problem here with Green Belt, the main objection relates to the traffic problems associated with such a large development od 120 houses.
As with IC3 this development will lead onto the Bedford Road A600 just out of Bedfordshire, and again not knowing the implication of any traffic numbers from new estates in that County, the likelihood is that there will be substantial vehicle movements throughout the peak times and th impact on Ickleford will be a constant threat.

This takes us onto the other important objection overall to these four sites, the Air and noise pollution generated by all of the traffic movements in the areas involved. The number of houses proposed is 40% increase in the population of Ickleford and will obviously lead to a proportionate in car journeys, and this coupled with the likely increase from Bedfordshire, and taking into consideration much of this traffic will come via the A600 or Arlesey Road, many of the residents will be subject to environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on total air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and would seem to be based on flawed traffic transport modelling.

As residents of Ickleford for over 40 years we have seen considerable changes, but the Village has maintained its community and Village Character, and we and our family consider these proposed changes will decimate the Village, and we strongly object to IC1,IC2 & IC3 for the reasons stated. LS1 will not have the same direct effect and if development is required then this would be the only acceptable site.

We strongly object to the proposed local plan as it relates to Ickleford under the sites IC1, IC2, IC3 & LS1 for the following reasons.

Site IC1 Duncots Close

This particular site is totally UNSOUND for reasons relating to the Green Belt. NPPF Section 87 states inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this area, quite the contrary given the area is prone to severe flooding given its location in the Village, apart from sewerage and drainage problems not identified by Anglian water in the NHDC report. This authority have confirmed that the pumping station in the Village to be inadequate as is also the pipe capacity to handle the volumes that accumulate at this junction and serious remedial work is required to not only combat the existing problems, and would be seriously increased with added development. Ickleford is also listed as an Excluded Village in Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Plan, and within this Policy the Council will normally permit development for housing only if the development is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of village character, and the maintenance of Green Belt boundaries. The proposed development in this site fails this test and therefore UNSOUND. This site also leads onto one of the major roads through the Village, where the pavements are very narrow, it is a main pedestrian route for school children to the Village School, and where the 7.5 tonne lorry ban is not effective, thereby making it a very dangerous area for all users particularly pedestrians.


IC2 Burford Grange.

This site is also considered UNSOUND. With particular emphasis on the Green Belt implications. NPPF Section 80 states the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment. NPPF Section 89 also states exceptions to building on the Green Belt might exist, such as limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan. We do not consider the suggested proposals for building on this site of Green Belt are either limited or in filling, and also NHDC has not provided any evidence that these are exceptional circumstances.. The last Conservative & Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, supported by the Government of 2016 indicated there were many brownfield sites totally capable of being used for development and so prevent the intrusion into the Green Belt
North Herts Green Belt Review in July 2016 misrepresents the value of the Ickleford Green Belt in preventing the merger of neighbouring towns. Ickleford Green Belt is a very important boundary in terms of preventing the merger with Hitchin, and also Henlow and Lower Stondon and it is imperative this remains as a protection of the historic character of a North Herts Village as defined in Environmental objectives 1.2 & 3.
This area is situated just off the main A600 road leading into Hitchin and metres from a busy junction, and any additional traffic would require a complete overhaul of the current road layout for safety reasons. High proportion of the traffic feeding into Hitchin comes from across the Bedfordshire borders, and whilst the Central Beds Plans are not available it is known that over 750 properties are to be built in Henlow, and further developments are likely in many of the other Villages in Bedfordshire making this road a total bottleneck then exists at present. The area also backs onto woodland and any new build would considerably disturb wildlife. The main water pipes from this side of the Village also feed into the centre where the IC1 problems exists and therefore constantly add to the existing sewerage and waste problems already documented and belatedly acknowledged by Anglian Water. Being part of the older end of the Village aged pipework exacerbates all of these problems..

IC3 Bedford Road.

The largest of the three sites identified, and as this one appears to be a late decision without any consultation with the Village is again UNSOUND. NPPF Section 80 relating to the Green Belt again stresses that the Green Belt aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. This is particularly prevalent in this site given the countryside around and with much of the land being currently worked for farming. A letter seen from the Minister of State for housing dated 7th June 2016 states the Government has put in place the strongest protection for Green Belt and that boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan, and to my knowledge there are no exceptional circumstances here.
Environmental objectives figure prominently in this site as there is an indication that the Village School would need to be moved to within this site IC3. This would be travesty as the School forms part of the triangle "hub" the Church, Village Hall &existing Village School, and one of the main Environmental objectives, ENV2, is to protect and enhance the historic character of North Herts Villages, which this site would destroy. Also to consider moving the school would take this out of the Village hub, and with presumably increased size provide further problems for future intakes into the Secondary stream of Hitchin Schools.
As with Sites IC1 & IC2 Sewerage and Drainage remain a problem for the area and given the outrageous comments from Anglian Water, in the NHDC report, a full review would be required to determine the effect of any proposed new development given the anticipated size. The main sewer, pipes and Pumping station are inadequate now and would require considerable changes at substantial costs to ensure improvement of the services.
Finally the traffic issues that such a potential increase of housing could produce would be enormous. The overall projected increase of housing in IC1, IC2 & IC3 plus LS1 is an increase of 40% on current levels with the majority of likely traffic emanating from this site, IC3, onto an already main busy road entering Hitchin. At present long delays consistently occur at peak times and with a potential increase of 150 homes on this site, each having a minimum of 2 cars per house, which I gather is higher than the Department of Transports Study indicates, which I think questionable, would make this road impossible. Bearing in mind also the likely increase of vehicles from Bedfordshire, when their plans are published, with Henlow having a development of 750 houses, and further likely developments at Fairfield, Clifton and Shefford, this road at peak times would grind to a halt.
Hitchin already suffers considerable traffic stress as detailed in a recently published paper, Hertfordshire Transport Vision 2020, and further volumes such as this site could produce could only make this situation even worse. Traffic modelling prepared by AECOM in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan Model Testing document indicates figures from this development which cannot be acceptable, as they mention only a possible 63 trips in the morning and 33 in the afternoon which given the proposed number of houses and likely vehicles is not feasible

Site LS1 Lower Stondon.

This site was again a late addition and no opportunity given for consultation, and whilst there is no problem here with Green Belt, the main objection relates to the traffic problems associated with such a large development od 120 houses.
As with IC3 this development will lead onto the Bedford Road A600 just out of Bedfordshire, and again not knowing the implication of any traffic numbers from new estates in that County, the likelihood is that there will be substantial vehicle movements throughout the peak times and th impact on Ickleford will be a constant threat.

This takes us onto the other important objection overall to these four sites, the Air and noise pollution generated by all of the traffic movements in the areas involved. The number of houses proposed is 40% increase in the population of Ickleford and will obviously lead to a proportionate in car journeys, and this coupled with the likely increase from Bedfordshire, and taking into consideration much of this traffic will come via the A600 or Arlesey Road, many of the residents will be subject to environmental health impacts due to traffic pollutants. NHDC Policy D4 on air quality requires consideration to be given to potential impact on total air quality. This does not appear to have been done, and would seem to be based on flawed traffic transport modelling.

As residents of Ickleford for over 40 years we have seen considerable changes, but the Village has maintained its community and Village Character, and we and our family consider these proposed changes will decimate the Village, and we strongly object to IC1,IC2 & IC3 for the reasons stated. LS1 will not have the same direct effect and if development is required then this would be the only acceptable site.