Proposed Main Modifications

Whilst I am disappointed that not one site in North Hertfordshire was deemed to be unsuitable by the Inspector. I am hardly surprised, since I and the population of North Herts now know that the purpose of the Inspectors examination was primarily not to establish site suitability.

Equally, the thousands of members of the public and organisations that spent thousands of hours putting together their representations were all largely wasting their time.

Moving on. The Inspectors conclusions, particularly in respect of site Barkway BK3 and possibly elsewhere, bring me to the conclusion that the Local Plan is currently unsound and is probably illegal for the following.

As I pointed out at the public hearing, site BK3 was not physically visited by the Programme Officer Mr Nigel Smith, prior to its selection, to ascertain its suitability. He relied on what he called a "desk top study". I assume, that many sites were visited by him and therefore the site selection process was inconsistent. The selection of sites that were not visited is flawed. They may have been visited later, however that will mean that their selection will have been coloured by the earlier decision to include them without seeing them. For a decision as important as this, it would surely be logic, custom and practice for all sites to be physically inspected.
This inconsistent methodology would, I believe, be a reason for a Judicial Review.
Proposed Main Modifications BK3. Wrong information and conclusions.

Page 110 (LP1) 143 Barkway

Does not have the largest population of the 3 villages. I believe that you have included Newsells, which is a totally separate Hamlet, some distance away by road from Barkway. Depending upon which information is used, Barkway and Barley have similar populations. This paragraph also says. "facilities are limited and so residents would presently be likely to travel to either Royston to the north or Buntingford to the south for many day to day items". Contradicts many requirements within NPPF and the logic of allowing an estimated 173 additional homes into this remote village. Fundamental contradictions of NPPF policy makes the ELP unsound.

Page 111 (LP1) 144

There is little logic to the statement of allowing lower density housing to the eastern part of the site. Surely it should be to the northern part of the site. A visit to the site would confirm this.

The correction "incorporation of a bridleway Barkway 017", attempts to mitigate the earlier mistake of describing it as a footpath.

Similarly. "Explore opportunities for connecting road from Royston Road to Cambridge Road" is unrealistic, since it would need to cross the existing bridleway/green route. In addition this paragraph does not mention that the bridleway is also an essential green route, which cannot be crossed by a road. This is pointed out on page 48 of CAG Consulting's document. It is therefore unrealistic to construct a road east-west across the site. This north south divide inhibits the development of this unsuitable site. This will need to be corrected to reflect the actual situation. The current description misleads the public and the land owner. These errors, unless corrected also make the ELP unsound.

I concur with the Inspector's view that any development would it be to the detriment to Newsells Park Stud. "In terms of proximity to built development, noise and increased activity". As pointed out many times, BK3 will place the future of the Stud in jeopardy.

The Directors of Newsells Park Stud may decide that, as a result of a housing estate on BK3, the stud should close. It's only future would then be farmland; employing perhaps 2 people. The Stud currently employs 35 people, plus supporting suppliers and local businesses. The owners also planted 70,000 trees when they created the Stud 20 years ago. These trees do not have preservation orders and would no doubt be removed by a farmer. An environmental and employment disaster. Again, the loss of jobs would fundamentally contradict NPPF making the ELP unsound.

The proposed changes to the Policies Map for Barkway.

Site BK3 is now shown as incorporating the reserved school site; described as "Legend housing allocation". This is confusing and incorrect in that the reserve school site was never selected or included as part of BK3. The land is owned by HCC and has not been put forward by them within the ELP. It is not available for housing and must be omitted. In addition the incorporation of the reserved school site was not part of any earlier consultation. The map also shows a path north south. This is incorrect, it is a bridleway/green route. These errors need to be corrected.

CAG Consulting Sustainability Appraisal.

Page 20 policy SP6. "We will deliver accessibility improvements and promote the use of sustainable transport modes insofar as reasonable and practicable". As is pointed out later in the document, there is only an infrequent bus service. There are no plans and it is not practical to introduce any regular sustainable transport.

Page 50 "Likely to be some residual impact on motor vehicle use, given village location" this is a significant under statement. An increase in the village population of 70% also concentrated in one area is not residual, it is significant and should say so. This error needs to be corrected.

In general, the critical Analysis by CAG Consulting appears to have been ignored by including site BK3. Again, had the Programme Officer bothered to visit the site, BK3 it would not have been included. Clearly, this report has not been taken into consideration.

Land North of Mill Croft Appeal Dismissed.

I would like to draw to your attention the dismissed appeal decision in respect of the adjacent land as shown on the attached Inspectors report and sites plan (outlined in yellow). Application ref. 17/00700/1. As you can see this land corresponds in many ways to BK3 (outlined in red). It is at the same high elevation on The East Anglian Heights and at the entrance to the village. This dismissed appeal further substantiates the inappropriateness of BK3.

Objectively, it was clearly an error to include BK3.

One that last general point. "Presumption in favour of sustainable development". The actual definition of sustainable development is Economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources. Building houses on grade 2 farmland does deplete food production, which is a natural resource.

I believe, that by removing BK3 from the Emerging Local Plan will then establish the plan as sound and acceptable. This would then remove the need to seek a Judicial Review.

Following my earlier emails. An additional matter has just come to light which should be taken into consideration when considering site Barkway BK3.

I have been dealing with a planning application for a house in Reed Village within my Ermine Ward. This house would be provided by the social housing provider The Settle Group.

I am attaching a letter that they have written to NHDC which is not confidential and comments on the Reed application. I would draw your attention to the fifth paragraph. I have underlined their point.

As you can see large numbers of social/affordable housing is not required in rural locations such as Reed and similarly Barkway, which is more remote.

Therefore, it is clear that a developer would not be able to meet the criteria dictated by Government and NHDC of providing 40% social/affordable housing.

This is yet another reason why the development of BK3 is unsound and should be removed from the emerging Local Plan.