Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing to express my very strong objections to the proposed development plans for Barkway and list my main objections as follows:-

1) The proposed number of dwellings is a huge increase over the existing number of homes in the village and will swamp the limited local amenities. NPPF38, NPPF55 and NPPF72 will all be contravened.

2) The number of proposed houses will dramatically increase the number of car journeys as there are no proposals to improve public transport. Hundreds of additional car movements per month would be generated and this will no doubt increase the accident number on the local roads. There would also be a large negative impact on the local footpaths as well as the bridleways. This is in contravention of NPPF30, NPPF34, NPFF35, NPPF95 and NOOF38. Also NHDC Policy SP6 for sustainable transport. On top of this the NHDC sustainability 2c and policy 29 will also be contravened. What is the point of having policies that are ignored when it is considered to be convenient? It would be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of all members of the Planning Department if such proposals were supported.

3) The entrance to the site on Barkway Road leading to Reed Joint is not suitable for the number of proposed properties and NHDC have previously stated that the Chilton Ridge, part of the East Anglian Heights should be protected. The BK3 site will absolutely detract from the existing views in this area and will obviously contravene NPPF11 - yet another statement that would prove to be worthless if the development goes ahead.

5) There would be no additional employment created by the proposed development and it will not support economic growth either - contravening NPPF para 28.

6) In the past NHDC have considered that BK3 did not meet the minimum requirements for sustainability due to insufficient amenities and nothing has changed so why consider such proposals now?

7) Including BK1 and BK2 where 33 new properties have in principal been agreed the additional proposals for BK3 would mean that the total number of dwellings proposed of 173 would increase the housing numbers in Barkway by over 50%. This would undoubtedly mean a dramatic detraction to the linear character of the old village as well as the approaches to BK3 on Royston Road and Cambridge Road. Beautiful views desecrated for ever if NHDCC employees take the easy way out and endorse the proposals.

8) There are still plenty of smaller potential development sites behind the High Street which because they would be hidden from view would not detract from the character of the existing village and these should be investigated rather than permanently destroy one large area and essentially create a kind of ghetto separate from the existing village.

9) The only amenity proposed for the development is a single storey 'general store', where are the 300 or more additional residents going to go for their doctor etc?

I would appeal to the Planning Department to not take the easy way out and allow this proposal - history will no doubt judge you if you simply rubber stamped it when it goes against National and Local Policies in so many ways. Policies are there to protect the environment, the historical character of the village and to protect the existing residents who pay their Council Tax. If the Policies are not to be complied with then they serve no useful purpose so what was the point in drawing them up?