Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031

I am writing to object to the above planning application on a number of grounds.

1. I understand that late last year, an NHDC Planning Officer wrote to the Inspector requesting that Barkway be no longer classified as a “Village for Growth”. This would presumably have had the effect of halting BK3 development at source. However, we now discover that BK3 is still included in the Schedule of Further Main Modifications, without any reason being given - nor an opportunity to make the case against the inclusion. Any final approval should be delayed until local bodies have been given the chance to make their case, if the process is to be seen as fair and transparent. I would most emphatically support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from the Local Plan.

2. Barkway is surely one of the least suitable sites in the county for such a hugely disproportionate addition to its housing stock. There are virtually no opportunities for employment, implying that residents will need to travel at least as far as Royston (and probably further) to find jobs. There is no doctor’s surgery, no shop, and extremely limited public transport.

3. If 140 houses are built, therefore, each household will need to possess at least one car (probably more, especially where young adults living in parental homes are concerned). I understand that planning applications for 25 homes at land next to Royston Road have already been turned down on the grounds that local roads are insufficient to handle the increased traffic. What, then, is the logic in allowing an even larger number of houses to be built? I would suggest that planning officials visit Barkway at peak periods - rush hours, the beginning and end of the school day, for example - and see for themselves the congestion that already exists on the High Street and on the road into Royston.

4. The application would appear to go against several widely-publicised governmental objectives - for example, the requirement that new developments should be “sustainable”. The lack of employment referred to above means that the damaging effects of the development will far outbalance the benefits of creating new homes. Affordable housing, for instance, is pointless if the costs of commuting make them impracticable for the people most in need of such accommodation, which should be built where amenities like public transport, schools, surgeries etc. are more conveniently available.

5. There are also substantial environmental considerations, and it would be good to know that these had been addressed. The additional emissions of (say) 200 extra cars to the environs of a small village will be considerable and will militate against a number of planning guidelines concerning pollution and sustainability.

Please consider my objections seriously.

I am writing to object to the above planning application on a number of grounds.

1. I understand that late last year, an NHDC Planning Officer wrote to the Inspector requesting that Barkway be no longer classified as a “Village for Growth”. This would presumably have had the effect of halting BK3 development at source. However, we now discover that BK3 is still included in the Schedule of Further Main Modifications, without any reason being given - nor an opportunity to make the case against the inclusion. Any final approval should be delayed until local bodies have been given the chance to make their case, if the process is to be seen as fair and transparent. I would most emphatically support NHDC’s request to remove site BK3 from the Local Plan.

2. Barkway is surely one of the least suitable sites in the county for such a hugely disproportionate addition to its housing stock. There are virtually no opportunities for employment, implying that residents will need to travel at least as far as Royston (and probably further) to find jobs. There is no doctor’s surgery, no shop, and extremely limited public transport.

3. If 140 houses are built, therefore, each household will need to possess at least one car (probably more, especially where young adults living in parental homes are concerned). I understand that planning applications for 25 homes at land next to Royston Road have already been turned down on the grounds that local roads are insufficient to handle the increased traffic. What, then, is the logic in allowing an even larger number of houses to be built? I would suggest that planning officials visit Barkway at peak periods - rush hours, the beginning and end of the school day, for example - and see for themselves the congestion that already exists on the High Street and on the road into Royston.

4. The application would appear to go against several widely-publicised governmental objectives - for example, the requirement that new developments should be “sustainable”. The lack of employment referred to above means that the damaging effects of the development will far outbalance the benefits of creating new homes. Affordable housing, for instance, is pointless if the costs of commuting make them impracticable for the people most in need of such accommodation, which should be built where amenities like public transport, schools, surgeries etc. are more conveniently available.

5. There are also substantial environmental considerations, and it would be good to know that these had been addressed. The additional emissions of (say) 200 extra cars to the environs of a small village will be considerable and will militate against a number of planning guidelines concerning pollution and sustainability.

Please consider my objections seriously.