Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am respond to your consultation on the local plan for North Hertfordshire, with particular reference to sites IC2 and IC3 in Ickleford.

The amount of housing allocated to sites within Ickleford - being sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 is out of all proportion with the size of the existing village of Ickleford. That amount of development in a small village is totally disproportionate and places a larger burden on the existing village than that imposed on any other community in North Hertfordshire.

The allocation of housing to Ickleford fails to take into account existing applications for developments (or sites with potential for development within the timescale of the local plan) within the existing village of Ickleford such as at The Green Man (Arlesey Road), Ickleford Manor (Turnpike Lane), Arnold Farm (Chambers Lane) and indeed the Bowmans Mill site. All of these sites (which are already developed and not greenfield sites) and far more suited to housing development that the destruction of the green belt that would result from the development of sites, IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

My particular objections to sites IC2 and IC3 are as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt
Sites IC2 and IC3 involve building on the existing green belt. In this regard, the local plan is not sound as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Site IC2 is fundamental to prevent the outward urban sprawl of Hitchin into Ickleford and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open". Your local plan fails to take account of this with regard to site IC2. The development of this site would remove the remaining fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin and directly cause the coalescence of Ickleford and Hitchin in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework. This existing gap (whilst small) makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt due to its importance in preventing the uncontrolled northerly expansion of Hitchin.

2. Lack of proper consultation
In relation to site IC3, your local plan is not legally complaint as NHDC did not allow for any prior consultation in relation to this site.

In relation to site IC2, your local plan is not legally compliant as the prior consultation failed to take into account the objections received particularly with regard to the importance of site IC2 in the prevention of urban sprawl as set out above. The summary of the representations in relation to site IC2 presented to members contained no reference to the objections made on the grounds of urban sprawl and coalescence. This was extremely misleading to members and is a fundamental failure of due process causing your local plan with regard to this site to be not legally compliant.

3. Traffic
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3, NHDC's traffic modelling fails to take into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport. The A600 (Bedford Road) is already gridlocked between Hitchin and Ickleford each morning and the existing road does not have capacity to deal with either development. Any occupier of housing at site IC2 will use their car as their sole method of transport with almost of all traffic being towards Hitchin. There are no public services in Ickleford village itself - other than its primary school which is already at full capacity in providing for the existing village - therefore occupiers of housing at site IC2 will be using private cars to access both employment and education from this site, entirely in the direction of Hitchin. Access to the A600 from site IC2 will only add to the existing traffic problems on this road which blight the whole area. On this basis your local is not sound.

4. Air quality
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3 your local plan is not sound as the resulting increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

5. Relocation of School
The proposal to move the existing Ickleford primary school (required by site IC3) would have a material adverse effect on the village of Ickleford - particularly as regards its historic centre and the continuation of daily life in the centre of the village between the school, church and its village shop. The destruction of the physical proximity of the school and the church would have a catastrophic impact on the village. This is in breach of NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

6. No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities
You have failed to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring authorities and in particular have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan when presenting information and in determining factors such as traffic and indeed the overall housing need. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

I have no further comment to make in relation to IC1.

I have no further comment to make in relation to site LS1 - save to note that this site, despite being regarded by NHDC as being part of Lower Stondon, if in fact part of Ickleford and so the housing allocated for this site should be considered as part of the Ickleford's contribution towards the perceived housing requirement for North Hertfordshire.

Your local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would keep me informed as to the progress of the local plan in relation to these sites and I would like to be involved in the Examination by the Inspector.

I am respond to your consultation on the local plan for North Hertfordshire, with particular reference to sites IC2 and IC3 in Ickleford.

The amount of housing allocated to sites within Ickleford - being sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 is out of all proportion with the size of the existing village of Ickleford. That amount of development in a small village is totally disproportionate and places a larger burden on the existing village than that imposed on any other community in North Hertfordshire.

The allocation of housing to Ickleford fails to take into account existing applications for developments (or sites with potential for development within the timescale of the local plan) within the existing village of Ickleford such as at The Green Man (Arlesey Road), Ickleford Manor (Turnpike Lane), Arnold Farm (Chambers Lane) and indeed the Bowmans Mill site. All of these sites (which are already developed and not greenfield sites) and far more suited to housing development that the destruction of the green belt that would result from the development of sites, IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

My particular objections to sites IC2 and IC3 are as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt
Sites IC2 and IC3 involve building on the existing green belt. In this regard, the local plan is not sound as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Site IC2 is fundamental to prevent the outward urban sprawl of Hitchin into Ickleford and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open". Your local plan fails to take account of this with regard to site IC2. The development of this site would remove the remaining fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin and directly cause the coalescence of Ickleford and Hitchin in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework. This existing gap (whilst small) makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt due to its importance in preventing the uncontrolled northerly expansion of Hitchin.

2. Lack of proper consultation
In relation to site IC3, your local plan is not legally complaint as NHDC did not allow for any prior consultation in relation to this site.

In relation to site IC2, your local plan is not legally compliant as the prior consultation failed to take into account the objections received particularly with regard to the importance of site IC2 in the prevention of urban sprawl as set out above. The summary of the representations in relation to site IC2 presented to members contained no reference to the objections made on the grounds of urban sprawl and coalescence. This was extremely misleading to members and is a fundamental failure of due process causing your local plan with regard to this site to be not legally compliant.

3. Traffic
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3, NHDC's traffic modelling fails to take into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport. The A600 (Bedford Road) is already gridlocked between Hitchin and Ickleford each morning and the existing road does not have capacity to deal with either development. Any occupier of housing at site IC2 will use their car as their sole method of transport with almost of all traffic being towards Hitchin. There are no public services in Ickleford village itself - other than its primary school which is already at full capacity in providing for the existing village - therefore occupiers of housing at site IC2 will be using private cars to access both employment and education from this site, entirely in the direction of Hitchin. Access to the A600 from site IC2 will only add to the existing traffic problems on this road which blight the whole area. On this basis your local is not sound.

4. Air quality
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3 your local plan is not sound as the resulting increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

5. Relocation of School
The proposal to move the existing Ickleford primary school (required by site IC3) would have a material adverse effect on the village of Ickleford - particularly as regards its historic centre and the continuation of daily life in the centre of the village between the school, church and its village shop. The destruction of the physical proximity of the school and the church would have a catastrophic impact on the village. This is in breach of NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

6. No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities
You have failed to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring authorities and in particular have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan when presenting information and in determining factors such as traffic and indeed the overall housing need. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

I have no further comment to make in relation to IC1.

I have no further comment to make in relation to site LS1 - save to note that this site, despite being regarded by NHDC as being part of Lower Stondon, if in fact part of Ickleford and so the housing allocated for this site should be considered as part of the Ickleford's contribution towards the perceived housing requirement for North Hertfordshire.

Your local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would keep me informed as to the progress of the local plan in relation to these sites and I would like to be involved in the Examination by the Inspector.

I am respond to your consultation on the local plan for North Hertfordshire, with particular reference to sites IC2 and IC3 in Ickleford.

The amount of housing allocated to sites within Ickleford - being sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 is out of all proportion with the size of the existing village of Ickleford. That amount of development in a small village is totally disproportionate and places a larger burden on the existing village than that imposed on any other community in North Hertfordshire.

The allocation of housing to Ickleford fails to take into account existing applications for developments (or sites with potential for development within the timescale of the local plan) within the existing village of Ickleford such as at The Green Man (Arlesey Road), Ickleford Manor (Turnpike Lane), Arnold Farm (Chambers Lane) and indeed the Bowmans Mill site. All of these sites (which are already developed and not greenfield sites) and far more suited to housing development that the destruction of the green belt that would result from the development of sites, IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

My particular objections to sites IC2 and IC3 are as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt
Sites IC2 and IC3 involve building on the existing green belt. In this regard, the local plan is not sound as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Site IC2 is fundamental to prevent the outward urban sprawl of Hitchin into Ickleford and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open". Your local plan fails to take account of this with regard to site IC2. The development of this site would remove the remaining fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin and directly cause the coalescence of Ickleford and Hitchin in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework. This existing gap (whilst small) makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt due to its importance in preventing the uncontrolled northerly expansion of Hitchin.

2. Lack of proper consultation
In relation to site IC3, your local plan is not legally complaint as NHDC did not allow for any prior consultation in relation to this site.

In relation to site IC2, your local plan is not legally compliant as the prior consultation failed to take into account the objections received particularly with regard to the importance of site IC2 in the prevention of urban sprawl as set out above. The summary of the representations in relation to site IC2 presented to members contained no reference to the objections made on the grounds of urban sprawl and coalescence. This was extremely misleading to members and is a fundamental failure of due process causing your local plan with regard to this site to be not legally compliant.

3. Traffic
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3, NHDC's traffic modelling fails to take into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport. The A600 (Bedford Road) is already gridlocked between Hitchin and Ickleford each morning and the existing road does not have capacity to deal with either development. Any occupier of housing at site IC2 will use their car as their sole method of transport with almost of all traffic being towards Hitchin. There are no public services in Ickleford village itself - other than its primary school which is already at full capacity in providing for the existing village - therefore occupiers of housing at site IC2 will be using private cars to access both employment and education from this site, entirely in the direction of Hitchin. Access to the A600 from site IC2 will only add to the existing traffic problems on this road which blight the whole area. On this basis your local is not sound.

4. Air quality
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3 your local plan is not sound as the resulting increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

5. Relocation of School
The proposal to move the existing Ickleford primary school (required by site IC3) would have a material adverse effect on the village of Ickleford - particularly as regards its historic centre and the continuation of daily life in the centre of the village between the school, church and its village shop. The destruction of the physical proximity of the school and the church would have a catastrophic impact on the village. This is in breach of NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

6. No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities
You have failed to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring authorities and in particular have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan when presenting information and in determining factors such as traffic and indeed the overall housing need. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

I have no further comment to make in relation to IC1.

I have no further comment to make in relation to site LS1 - save to note that this site, despite being regarded by NHDC as being part of Lower Stondon, if in fact part of Ickleford and so the housing allocated for this site should be considered as part of the Ickleford's contribution towards the perceived housing requirement for North Hertfordshire.

Your local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would keep me informed as to the progress of the local plan in relation to these sites and I would like to be involved in the Examination by the Inspector.

I am respond to your consultation on the local plan for North Hertfordshire, with particular reference to sites IC2 and IC3 in Ickleford.

The amount of housing allocated to sites within Ickleford - being sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1 is out of all proportion with the size of the existing village of Ickleford. That amount of development in a small village is totally disproportionate and places a larger burden on the existing village than that imposed on any other community in North Hertfordshire.

The allocation of housing to Ickleford fails to take into account existing applications for developments (or sites with potential for development within the timescale of the local plan) within the existing village of Ickleford such as at The Green Man (Arlesey Road), Ickleford Manor (Turnpike Lane), Arnold Farm (Chambers Lane) and indeed the Bowmans Mill site. All of these sites (which are already developed and not greenfield sites) and far more suited to housing development that the destruction of the green belt that would result from the development of sites, IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1.

My particular objections to sites IC2 and IC3 are as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt
Sites IC2 and IC3 involve building on the existing green belt. In this regard, the local plan is not sound as it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and conflicts with NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt.

Site IC2 is fundamental to prevent the outward urban sprawl of Hitchin into Ickleford and the coalescence of Hitchin and Ickleford.

Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open". Your local plan fails to take account of this with regard to site IC2. The development of this site would remove the remaining fragile gap between Ickleford and Hitchin and directly cause the coalescence of Ickleford and Hitchin in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework. This existing gap (whilst small) makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt due to its importance in preventing the uncontrolled northerly expansion of Hitchin.

2. Lack of proper consultation
In relation to site IC3, your local plan is not legally complaint as NHDC did not allow for any prior consultation in relation to this site.

In relation to site IC2, your local plan is not legally compliant as the prior consultation failed to take into account the objections received particularly with regard to the importance of site IC2 in the prevention of urban sprawl as set out above. The summary of the representations in relation to site IC2 presented to members contained no reference to the objections made on the grounds of urban sprawl and coalescence. This was extremely misleading to members and is a fundamental failure of due process causing your local plan with regard to this site to be not legally compliant.

3. Traffic
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3, NHDC's traffic modelling fails to take into account increased traffic from Central Bedfordshire and conflicts with NHDC policy on transport. The A600 (Bedford Road) is already gridlocked between Hitchin and Ickleford each morning and the existing road does not have capacity to deal with either development. Any occupier of housing at site IC2 will use their car as their sole method of transport with almost of all traffic being towards Hitchin. There are no public services in Ickleford village itself - other than its primary school which is already at full capacity in providing for the existing village - therefore occupiers of housing at site IC2 will be using private cars to access both employment and education from this site, entirely in the direction of Hitchin. Access to the A600 from site IC2 will only add to the existing traffic problems on this road which blight the whole area. On this basis your local is not sound.

4. Air quality
In relation to sites IC2 and IC3 your local plan is not sound as the resulting increase in traffic pollution conflicts with NHDC policy on air quality.

5. Relocation of School
The proposal to move the existing Ickleford primary school (required by site IC3) would have a material adverse effect on the village of Ickleford - particularly as regards its historic centre and the continuation of daily life in the centre of the village between the school, church and its village shop. The destruction of the physical proximity of the school and the church would have a catastrophic impact on the village. This is in breach of NHDC policy to protect and enhance the historic character of villages. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

6. No co-ordination with neighbouring authorities
You have failed to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring authorities and in particular have not accounted for any impact associated with the Central Bedfordshire local plan when presenting information and in determining factors such as traffic and indeed the overall housing need. On this basis your local plan is not sound.

I have no further comment to make in relation to IC1.

I have no further comment to make in relation to site LS1 - save to note that this site, despite being regarded by NHDC as being part of Lower Stondon, if in fact part of Ickleford and so the housing allocated for this site should be considered as part of the Ickleford's contribution towards the perceived housing requirement for North Hertfordshire.

Your local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

I should be grateful if you would keep me informed as to the progress of the local plan in relation to these sites and I would like to be involved in the Examination by the Inspector.