Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

This policy is considered generally sound in that it recognises at (a) the need, inter alia, to focus development in key settlements and on Previously Developed Land. The district being largely rural in character, the policy acknowledges the need at sub-section (b) to "ensure the long-term vitality of the District's villages by supporting growth which provides opportunities for existing and new residents and sustains key facilities".

At the time of the Draft Local Plan Consultation in February 2015, we commented on the categorisation of settlements in the district. As now published, little change appears to have been made. The three categories for the villages continue to be predicated on the facilities available in each settlement. This is the criteria chosen without any recourse to the level of population, the relative isolation of the settlements and their unsustainability in terms of transport modes.

Category A Villages
Are generally those with the largest populations and consequential services. However, even in this category, there are villages included such as: Preston (pop 420); Reed (pop 310); Sandon (pop 495) and Therfield (pop 556), which are relatively remove and have very few, if any, essential services such as a shop that would enable residents to restrict their everyday use of the private car. It is difficult to differentiate between these Category A settlements and those included in Category B.

Category B Villages
A number of the villages set out in Category B, appear to have been identified as having only a village hall and church in the settlement (examples are Kelshall (pop 163); Newham (pop 209); Rushden (pop 242)). Neither of these facilities is particularly useful to the residents in a practical day-to-day sense. All of these settlements are relatively remote, having little access to any useful public transport and residents are entirely reliant on the private car for their everyday needs. However, these settlements are designated as areas where infill development can occur within the 'built core' of the village. This is a policy currently applied in the existing Local Plan. The lack of any certainty as to what is the 'built core' causes confusion and uncertainty. The areas considered to be appropriate for development should be demarcated. If this is not the case, then the likelihood of such settlements providing for any, albeit modest level of housing, will be extremely limited, as proposals will be judged against the stringent policies of the proposed CGB1 'Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt'.

Category C Settlements
This category includes a more limited number of settlements, but development will be more restricted as a consequence of a "modest level of facilities". Bygrave is included in the category notwithstanding that it is of a not unsubstantial size.

Bygrave is a settlement of 304 people, but is included in Category C, where "a more restrictive approach will be taken...." It is larger in population terms than two Category A settlements and a number of Category B settlements. It is also considerably less isolated, being physically closer to the main town of Baldock, with easy links to both the local railway station and the main and motorway routes. Bygrave should be reclassified and upgraded to Category B.