Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to object to The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan in regard to the following sites proposed for Ickleford and Lower Stondon:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

This is for the reasons outlined below:

The plan is not legally compliant in regards to IC3 and LS1 as these sites were added without consultation. They would make up the large majority of the new housing and would therefore have the greatest impact on the local community. However the local people have not had a say on this proposal.

The plan proposes building on green belt land. This is 'not sound'. It conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. I am particularly concerned about site IC2. This would make the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin extremely narrow and increase the risk of the village merging into Hitchin. This risk would be exacerbated if the school were moved and the centre of the village weakened (see below).

The proposals for site IC3 are 'not sound'. The plan rightly highlights that the additional housing would increase the number of primary school places required. The plan suggests relocating the existing school to a larger site in mitigation. This is against the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Why would this change the character of the village? I will briefly outline its current character and how this would change under this proposal.

The village school has been educating local children since 1848. It is at the heart of a beautiful and strong village centre where key village amenities are within minutes or each other. The school is situated on the village green opposite the local church, a church with which the school has strong links. The village shop, Village Hall (with pre-school), bus stop, two pubs and a beauty salon form the compact hub of the village.

I walk through this centre every day. It is a place where paths cross, parents and others in the community meet, where children play around the village sign and old water pump. There are carols on the green, pre-school Easter egg hunts and village life is lived.

To move the school would starve this heart massively of footfall and purpose. It would split and dilute the focus of the village. It would damage what makes the village so special, its strong sense of community and identity - its people talking to each other and engaging in community life. The National Planning Policy [Section 8 Promoting health communities] highlights the importance of promoting 'opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other' and the need for 'strong neighbourhood centres'. The proposal conflicts with this.

I appreciate that more housing is needed and that Ickleford must accept a proportion of this. Aside from the impact on the centre, I think the level of housing suggested is too much for the size of the village and is 'not sound' in relation to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

Any significant housing development will put pressure on the village school. I do think it is in the interest of the village to have a single central school so I think all options for expanding the school on the current site should be investigated. The proposal states that the site is 'constrained' and has 'no capacity to expand'.

However, the proposal for site IC3 came in so late that I cannot see how there has been time to fully investigate this issue. The school is single story, has generous playing fields, and has farmland on two sides. As identified in the proposed plan, the school sits partially within a conservation area. However this designation is to 'protect and enhance' an area's local character. Moving the school would undermine it.

An increase in the village population could bring many benefits. There is potential for more services, better amenities and more community activity. However, this change needs to be carefully planned. It requires local involvement and vision. I do not feel that this is currently the case. The largest housing increases have not had consultation. Moving the school is proposed with no discussion on the likely impact on the health and character of the village. The current lack of capacity of the sewers is not addressed and NHDC traffic modelling has failed to account for increased traffic from Bedfordshire and large housing developments there. This lack of planning is against The National Planning Policy. The proposals fail the village and are not sound.

I wish to object to The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan in regard to the following sites proposed for Ickleford and Lower Stondon:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

This is for the reasons outlined below:

The plan is not legally compliant in regards to IC3 and LS1 as these sites were added without consultation. They would make up the large majority of the new housing and would therefore have the greatest impact on the local community. However the local people have not had a say on this proposal.

The plan proposes building on green belt land. This is 'not sound'. It conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. I am particularly concerned about site IC2. This would make the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin extremely narrow and increase the risk of the village merging into Hitchin. This risk would be exacerbated if the school were moved and the centre of the village weakened (see below).

The proposals for site IC3 are 'not sound'. The plan rightly highlights that the additional housing would increase the number of primary school places required. The plan suggests relocating the existing school to a larger site in mitigation. This is against the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Why would this change the character of the village? I will briefly outline its current character and how this would change under this proposal.

The village school has been educating local children since 1848. It is at the heart of a beautiful and strong village centre where key village amenities are within minutes or each other. The school is situated on the village green opposite the local church, a church with which the school has strong links. The village shop, Village Hall (with pre-school), bus stop, two pubs and a beauty salon form the compact hub of the village.

I walk through this centre every day. It is a place where paths cross, parents and others in the community meet, where children play around the village sign and old water pump. There are carols on the green, pre-school Easter egg hunts and village life is lived.

To move the school would starve this heart massively of footfall and purpose. It would split and dilute the focus of the village. It would damage what makes the village so special, its strong sense of community and identity - its people talking to each other and engaging in community life. The National Planning Policy [Section 8 Promoting health communities] highlights the importance of promoting 'opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other' and the need for 'strong neighbourhood centres'. The proposal conflicts with this.

I appreciate that more housing is needed and that Ickleford must accept a proportion of this. Aside from the impact on the centre, I think the level of housing suggested is too much for the size of the village and is 'not sound' in relation to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

Any significant housing development will put pressure on the village school. I do think it is in the interest of the village to have a single central school so I think all options for expanding the school on the current site should be investigated. The proposal states that the site is 'constrained' and has 'no capacity to expand'.

However, the proposal for site IC3 came in so late that I cannot see how there has been time to fully investigate this issue. The school is single story, has generous playing fields, and has farmland on two sides. As identified in the proposed plan, the school sits partially within a conservation area. However this designation is to 'protect and enhance' an area's local character. Moving the school would undermine it.

An increase in the village population could bring many benefits. There is potential for more services, better amenities and more community activity. However, this change needs to be carefully planned. It requires local involvement and vision. I do not feel that this is currently the case. The largest housing increases have not had consultation. Moving the school is proposed with no discussion on the likely impact on the health and character of the village. The current lack of capacity of the sewers is not addressed and NHDC traffic modelling has failed to account for increased traffic from Bedfordshire and large housing developments there. This lack of planning is against The National Planning Policy. The proposals fail the village and are not sound.

I wish to object to The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan in regard to the following sites proposed for Ickleford and Lower Stondon:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

This is for the reasons outlined below:

The plan is not legally compliant in regards to IC3 and LS1 as these sites were added without consultation. They would make up the large majority of the new housing and would therefore have the greatest impact on the local community. However the local people have not had a say on this proposal.

The plan proposes building on green belt land. This is 'not sound'. It conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. I am particularly concerned about site IC2. This would make the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin extremely narrow and increase the risk of the village merging into Hitchin. This risk would be exacerbated if the school were moved and the centre of the village weakened (see below).

The proposals for site IC3 are 'not sound'. The plan rightly highlights that the additional housing would increase the number of primary school places required. The plan suggests relocating the existing school to a larger site in mitigation. This is against the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Why would this change the character of the village? I will briefly outline its current character and how this would change under this proposal.

The village school has been educating local children since 1848. It is at the heart of a beautiful and strong village centre where key village amenities are within minutes or each other. The school is situated on the village green opposite the local church, a church with which the school has strong links. The village shop, Village Hall (with pre-school), bus stop, two pubs and a beauty salon form the compact hub of the village.

I walk through this centre every day. It is a place where paths cross, parents and others in the community meet, where children play around the village sign and old water pump. There are carols on the green, pre-school Easter egg hunts and village life is lived.

To move the school would starve this heart massively of footfall and purpose. It would split and dilute the focus of the village. It would damage what makes the village so special, its strong sense of community and identity - its people talking to each other and engaging in community life. The National Planning Policy [Section 8 Promoting health communities] highlights the importance of promoting 'opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other' and the need for 'strong neighbourhood centres'. The proposal conflicts with this.

I appreciate that more housing is needed and that Ickleford must accept a proportion of this. Aside from the impact on the centre, I think the level of housing suggested is too much for the size of the village and is 'not sound' in relation to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

Any significant housing development will put pressure on the village school. I do think it is in the interest of the village to have a single central school so I think all options for expanding the school on the current site should be investigated. The proposal states that the site is 'constrained' and has 'no capacity to expand'.

However, the proposal for site IC3 came in so late that I cannot see how there has been time to fully investigate this issue. The school is single story, has generous playing fields, and has farmland on two sides. As identified in the proposed plan, the school sits partially within a conservation area. However this designation is to 'protect and enhance' an area's local character. Moving the school would undermine it.

An increase in the village population could bring many benefits. There is potential for more services, better amenities and more community activity. However, this change needs to be carefully planned. It requires local involvement and vision. I do not feel that this is currently the case. The largest housing increases have not had consultation. Moving the school is proposed with no discussion on the likely impact on the health and character of the village. The current lack of capacity of the sewers is not addressed and NHDC traffic modelling has failed to account for increased traffic from Bedfordshire and large housing developments there. This lack of planning is against The National Planning Policy. The proposals fail the village and are not sound.

I wish to object to The North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) Proposed Submission Local Plan in regard to the following sites proposed for Ickleford and Lower Stondon:

IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 homes
IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 homes
LS1 (North Ickleford, near Lower Stondon) - 120 homes

This is for the reasons outlined below:

The plan is not legally compliant in regards to IC3 and LS1 as these sites were added without consultation. They would make up the large majority of the new housing and would therefore have the greatest impact on the local community. However the local people have not had a say on this proposal.

The plan proposes building on green belt land. This is 'not sound'. It conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. I am particularly concerned about site IC2. This would make the gap between Ickleford and Hitchin extremely narrow and increase the risk of the village merging into Hitchin. This risk would be exacerbated if the school were moved and the centre of the village weakened (see below).

The proposals for site IC3 are 'not sound'. The plan rightly highlights that the additional housing would increase the number of primary school places required. The plan suggests relocating the existing school to a larger site in mitigation. This is against the NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. Why would this change the character of the village? I will briefly outline its current character and how this would change under this proposal.

The village school has been educating local children since 1848. It is at the heart of a beautiful and strong village centre where key village amenities are within minutes or each other. The school is situated on the village green opposite the local church, a church with which the school has strong links. The village shop, Village Hall (with pre-school), bus stop, two pubs and a beauty salon form the compact hub of the village.

I walk through this centre every day. It is a place where paths cross, parents and others in the community meet, where children play around the village sign and old water pump. There are carols on the green, pre-school Easter egg hunts and village life is lived.

To move the school would starve this heart massively of footfall and purpose. It would split and dilute the focus of the village. It would damage what makes the village so special, its strong sense of community and identity - its people talking to each other and engaging in community life. The National Planning Policy [Section 8 Promoting health communities] highlights the importance of promoting 'opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other' and the need for 'strong neighbourhood centres'. The proposal conflicts with this.

I appreciate that more housing is needed and that Ickleford must accept a proportion of this. Aside from the impact on the centre, I think the level of housing suggested is too much for the size of the village and is 'not sound' in relation to NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages.

Any significant housing development will put pressure on the village school. I do think it is in the interest of the village to have a single central school so I think all options for expanding the school on the current site should be investigated. The proposal states that the site is 'constrained' and has 'no capacity to expand'.

However, the proposal for site IC3 came in so late that I cannot see how there has been time to fully investigate this issue. The school is single story, has generous playing fields, and has farmland on two sides. As identified in the proposed plan, the school sits partially within a conservation area. However this designation is to 'protect and enhance' an area's local character. Moving the school would undermine it.

An increase in the village population could bring many benefits. There is potential for more services, better amenities and more community activity. However, this change needs to be carefully planned. It requires local involvement and vision. I do not feel that this is currently the case. The largest housing increases have not had consultation. Moving the school is proposed with no discussion on the likely impact on the health and character of the village. The current lack of capacity of the sewers is not addressed and NHDC traffic modelling has failed to account for increased traffic from Bedfordshire and large housing developments there. This lack of planning is against The National Planning Policy. The proposals fail the village and are not sound.