Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I strongly object to the proposed local plan in so far as it relates to Ickleford, by which I mean sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, for the following principal reasons:

1. It flies in the face of HMG's own Planning Practice Guidance and in particular paragraphs 79, 80, 83, 85 and 87. HMG attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the basic and fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns. The Guidance continues that established green belt should only be altered in very exceptional circumstances. The massive deleterious effect of the proposals upon the village of Ickleford should be clear to any impartial observer, and it is clear that the circumstances are not "very exceptional". In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

2. Ickleford is a low-lying village which is already the subject of potential flood problems. In July this year one brief rainstorm caused my garden to flood because there is inadequate sewerage and water drainage. Last year properties at the lower end of the village had sewage backing up their lavatories and at a subsequent meeting with representatives of NHDC and Anglian Water it was admitted that the pumping station at Lower Green and the capacity of the pipes were both inadequate. Improvement of the pumping capacity was considered pointless because the pipe capacity throughout the whole of the village would have to be increased [which was considered "impracticable"]. There is already planning permission for additional houses on the site of the Green Man public house and any further housing would be disastrous unless major pipe enlargement works were conducted throughout the whole area and improvements made to the pumping station. This work would have to be undertaken and concluded before any housing development took place. In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

3. Traffic through Ickleford is already causing difficulties, mainly by reason of new housing in South Bedfordshire [Fairfield, Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon] and it is well known that Hitchin and, indeed the centre of Ickleford , are frequently gridlocked at busy times. A further 319 homes would cause impossible difficulties without the construction of a bye pass or bye passes, which in turn would doubtless be constructed [if at all] on Green Belt land! In the circumstances the proposal is unpractical and unsound.

4. It has already been tacitly admitted that the proposed development would destroy the character of the village, the centre of which [both physically and emotionally] is the school, church and village hall. The suggestion that the school would have to be moved to a site outside the confines of the village speaks volumes and no further comment should be necessary. The effect on the village renders the proposal unsound.

The submission smacks of a "panic" approach to an admittedly difficult situation caused by HMG's requirement to produce a plan by a specific date but there is no indication of any considered or sensible attempt to address the issues. The appearance is of a hurried decision simply to pluck enough ground, anywhere, to enable to Council to satisfy "the numbers". If the submission were put into effect the result would be a flagrant disavowal of HMG's own criteria.

I strongly object to the proposed local plan in so far as it relates to Ickleford, by which I mean sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, for the following principal reasons:

1. It flies in the face of HMG's own Planning Practice Guidance and in particular paragraphs 79, 80, 83, 85 and 87. HMG attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the basic and fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns. The Guidance continues that established green belt should only be altered in very exceptional circumstances. The massive deleterious effect of the proposals upon the village of Ickleford should be clear to any impartial observer, and it is clear that the circumstances are not "very exceptional". In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

2. Ickleford is a low-lying village which is already the subject of potential flood problems. In July this year one brief rainstorm caused my garden to flood because there is inadequate sewerage and water drainage. Last year properties at the lower end of the village had sewage backing up their lavatories and at a subsequent meeting with representatives of NHDC and Anglian Water it was admitted that the pumping station at Lower Green and the capacity of the pipes were both inadequate. Improvement of the pumping capacity was considered pointless because the pipe capacity throughout the whole of the village would have to be increased [which was considered "impracticable"]. There is already planning permission for additional houses on the site of the Green Man public house and any further housing would be disastrous unless major pipe enlargement works were conducted throughout the whole area and improvements made to the pumping station. This work would have to be undertaken and concluded before any housing development took place. In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

3. Traffic through Ickleford is already causing difficulties, mainly by reason of new housing in South Bedfordshire [Fairfield, Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon] and it is well known that Hitchin and, indeed the centre of Ickleford , are frequently gridlocked at busy times. A further 319 homes would cause impossible difficulties without the construction of a bye pass or bye passes, which in turn would doubtless be constructed [if at all] on Green Belt land! In the circumstances the proposal is unpractical and unsound.

4. It has already been tacitly admitted that the proposed development would destroy the character of the village, the centre of which [both physically and emotionally] is the school, church and village hall. The suggestion that the school would have to be moved to a site outside the confines of the village speaks volumes and no further comment should be necessary. The effect on the village renders the proposal unsound.

The submission smacks of a "panic" approach to an admittedly difficult situation caused by HMG's requirement to produce a plan by a specific date but there is no indication of any considered or sensible attempt to address the issues. The appearance is of a hurried decision simply to pluck enough ground, anywhere, to enable to Council to satisfy "the numbers". If the submission were put into effect the result would be a flagrant disavowal of HMG's own criteria.

I strongly object to the proposed local plan in so far as it relates to Ickleford, by which I mean sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, for the following principal reasons:

1. It flies in the face of HMG's own Planning Practice Guidance and in particular paragraphs 79, 80, 83, 85 and 87. HMG attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the basic and fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns. The Guidance continues that established green belt should only be altered in very exceptional circumstances. The massive deleterious effect of the proposals upon the village of Ickleford should be clear to any impartial observer, and it is clear that the circumstances are not "very exceptional". In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

2. Ickleford is a low-lying village which is already the subject of potential flood problems. In July this year one brief rainstorm caused my garden to flood because there is inadequate sewerage and water drainage. Last year properties at the lower end of the village had sewage backing up their lavatories and at a subsequent meeting with representatives of NHDC and Anglian Water it was admitted that the pumping station at Lower Green and the capacity of the pipes were both inadequate. Improvement of the pumping capacity was considered pointless because the pipe capacity throughout the whole of the village would have to be increased [which was considered "impracticable"]. There is already planning permission for additional houses on the site of the Green Man public house and any further housing would be disastrous unless major pipe enlargement works were conducted throughout the whole area and improvements made to the pumping station. This work would have to be undertaken and concluded before any housing development took place. In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

3. Traffic through Ickleford is already causing difficulties, mainly by reason of new housing in South Bedfordshire [Fairfield, Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon] and it is well known that Hitchin and, indeed the centre of Ickleford , are frequently gridlocked at busy times. A further 319 homes would cause impossible difficulties without the construction of a bye pass or bye passes, which in turn would doubtless be constructed [if at all] on Green Belt land! In the circumstances the proposal is unpractical and unsound.

4. It has already been tacitly admitted that the proposed development would destroy the character of the village, the centre of which [both physically and emotionally] is the school, church and village hall. The suggestion that the school would have to be moved to a site outside the confines of the village speaks volumes and no further comment should be necessary. The effect on the village renders the proposal unsound.

The submission smacks of a "panic" approach to an admittedly difficult situation caused by HMG's requirement to produce a plan by a specific date but there is no indication of any considered or sensible attempt to address the issues. The appearance is of a hurried decision simply to pluck enough ground, anywhere, to enable to Council to satisfy "the numbers". If the submission were put into effect the result would be a flagrant disavowal of HMG's own criteria.

I strongly object to the proposed local plan in so far as it relates to Ickleford, by which I mean sites IC1, IC2, IC3 and LS1, for the following principal reasons:

1. It flies in the face of HMG's own Planning Practice Guidance and in particular paragraphs 79, 80, 83, 85 and 87. HMG attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the basic and fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns. The Guidance continues that established green belt should only be altered in very exceptional circumstances. The massive deleterious effect of the proposals upon the village of Ickleford should be clear to any impartial observer, and it is clear that the circumstances are not "very exceptional". In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

2. Ickleford is a low-lying village which is already the subject of potential flood problems. In July this year one brief rainstorm caused my garden to flood because there is inadequate sewerage and water drainage. Last year properties at the lower end of the village had sewage backing up their lavatories and at a subsequent meeting with representatives of NHDC and Anglian Water it was admitted that the pumping station at Lower Green and the capacity of the pipes were both inadequate. Improvement of the pumping capacity was considered pointless because the pipe capacity throughout the whole of the village would have to be increased [which was considered "impracticable"]. There is already planning permission for additional houses on the site of the Green Man public house and any further housing would be disastrous unless major pipe enlargement works were conducted throughout the whole area and improvements made to the pumping station. This work would have to be undertaken and concluded before any housing development took place. In the circumstances the proposal is not sound.

3. Traffic through Ickleford is already causing difficulties, mainly by reason of new housing in South Bedfordshire [Fairfield, Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon] and it is well known that Hitchin and, indeed the centre of Ickleford , are frequently gridlocked at busy times. A further 319 homes would cause impossible difficulties without the construction of a bye pass or bye passes, which in turn would doubtless be constructed [if at all] on Green Belt land! In the circumstances the proposal is unpractical and unsound.

4. It has already been tacitly admitted that the proposed development would destroy the character of the village, the centre of which [both physically and emotionally] is the school, church and village hall. The suggestion that the school would have to be moved to a site outside the confines of the village speaks volumes and no further comment should be necessary. The effect on the village renders the proposal unsound.

The submission smacks of a "panic" approach to an admittedly difficult situation caused by HMG's requirement to produce a plan by a specific date but there is no indication of any considered or sensible attempt to address the issues. The appearance is of a hurried decision simply to pluck enough ground, anywhere, to enable to Council to satisfy "the numbers". If the submission were put into effect the result would be a flagrant disavowal of HMG's own criteria.