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

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.

I was alarmed to see that the site BK3 remains in the plan.

Discussions between the Parish Council and the planners at NHDC concluded that BK3 and with it the status of Barkway as a ‘village for growth’ should be removed from the plan. NHDC advised the inspector in 2020 that this should be acted upon and the status of Barkway and the BK3 site should be deleted from the plan.

There is no transparency on this matter. No public correspondence, just an assertion that the Inspector has agreed to the schedule of Further Modifications.

There are no reasons given for the Inspector’s decision not to accept NHDC’s request.

Doing this without disclosing a reason is unacceptable.

We, as a village represented by the Parish Council, have not had a fair opportunity to put our case against the inclusion of BK3. We support NHDC’s request to remove it.

There are other issues:

Ref ED175. Enlarging BK3 to include HCC’s school site is unacceptable. HCC have not requested this. This decision to include it gives rise to the risk of yet more unacceptable housing being built.

Ref MM010/FM039 and MM217/FM113 relate to housing applications and permissions. The number of 208 has been quoted but is without any explanation; again a lack of transparency. Similarly, the table shown in MM217/FM113 is incorrect. The Parish Council have told you separately why. Both these points have to be transparently explained.

Ref MM215/FM111 and MM216/FM112 and MM219/FM114 are also incorrect in a number of details. There are no S106 contributions to come from Barley as they have no significant developments. Any contribution from Barkway in relation to this cannot be matched by Barley and in essence, especially as school transport is already provided, Barkway S106 money would benefit Barley residents. Unacceptable. I suggest all three are deleted.