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

Search representations

Results for Mr and Ms Keith and Prue Hayden and Nixon search

New search New search

Object

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

FM 010

Representation ID: 8951

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr and Ms Keith and Prue Hayden and Nixon

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

See attached representation - Barkway

Full text:

I agree that the transparency of the process is a very important issue and I feel the residents and interested parties have not been properly informed as they should be on matters such as "the reasons for the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan".
The inclusion of "the school site" is not in keeping with the correct process of development and including it raises questions of validity of the process.
Anywhere a council uses any proposal figures they should be accurate and transparent. For figures to be transparent they need to be fully explained and the table MM217/FM113 needs scrutinising to see if it does meet requirements.
The last area of concern is S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport. Any suggestion that Barkway should take the brunt of growth and other nearby places do not have such radical change is indeed unfair and deletions should be applied.

Object

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

MM 217 / FM 113

Representation ID: 10051

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Mr and Ms Keith and Prue Hayden and Nixon

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

See attached representation - Barkway

Full text:

I agree that the transparency of the process is a very important issue and I feel the residents and interested parties have not been properly informed as they should be on matters such as "the reasons for the Inspector's decision not to accept NHDC's request to exclude BK3 from the Local Plan".
The inclusion of "the school site" is not in keeping with the correct process of development and including it raises questions of validity of the process.
Anywhere a council uses any proposal figures they should be accurate and transparent. For figures to be transparent they need to be fully explained and the table MM217/FM113 needs scrutinising to see if it does meet requirements.
The last area of concern is S106 Contributions to Provide School Transport. Any suggestion that Barkway should take the brunt of growth and other nearby places do not have such radical change is indeed unfair and deletions should be applied.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.