Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing to object to the inclusion of BK3 in the local plan. The evidence base for the local plan includes a landscape study for Barkway (source
http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/sites/northherts-cms/files/files/230_2011.pdf ) which contains many of the reasons why BK3 is not a sutiable development for Barkway.

In more detail these are

1. To quote the report: "The historic settlement pattern in the main settlement of Barkway is characterised by ribbon development along the B1368 and would be sensitive to inappropriate of unsympathetic development and any form of development not in scale with the village"

BK3 does not fit in with the ribbon development along the B1368 and will destroy the historic linear nature of the village. This appears to contravene NPPF 11

2. The report also states

"Large urban extensions and new settlements (>5ha).
This type of development would not be appropriate within this Character Area, due to its rural and small scale nature"

BK3 is a development that is >5ha so not appropriate and totally disproportinate to the existing size of Barkway. Even if BK3 was only to be partly developed to keep it under 5ha the report also states that smaller developments would not be appropriate due to the rural and undeveloped character.

3. Unsuitable roads and sustainable transport
The report states that increased housing will effect the existing minor roads but also states that the landscape capacity for improving these roads is low and would erode the character, peace and tranquility.

Given the lack of amenities and employment in the local area there is no viable alternative to car use for any new developments in Barkway. The increased reliance on private transport seems to contravine NPPF30 NPPF34, NPPF35, NOOF 38 and NPPF95 as well as NDHC Policy SP 6 - sustainable transport. And their sustainability objective 2c as well as NHDC policy 29.

I suspect a large amount of taxpayers money has been used on the North Herts Landscape Study. This study rules out a development such as BK3 for the above reasons. If BK3 is not going to be removed from the plan then can I ask why taxpayers money was spent on a report if it is to be ignored and also ask how much of our money was spent on the report?