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

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.

I am writing to you to express my interest and dismay concerning future building development in Barkway.
This a long and evidently continuing saga as it remains unclear whether the specific site of BK3 is or is not to be included in the NHDC Local Plan for 2011-2031. It seems to me that this hinges on whether Barkway is considered a village for growth or not; which logically depends on the total of allocations, recent completions and existing permissions. This total number needs to be clarified and justified and settled once and for all, which does not seem to be the case at present. The continuing communications between NHDC Planning and the independent Inspector does not help to clarify the position. For instance, I note that in late 2020 a planning officer from NHDC requested that BK3 should be taken out of the Local Plan and that Barkway was no longer to be shown as a village for growth; yet when the latest Schedule for Further Main Modifications was announced in February 2021, BK3 was still included in the Plan. Furthermore, the reasons for this inclusion have not been published for general information and public consultation.
At the risk of reiterating previously stated points of view, it is my opinion that BK3 should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The current building activities on the BK1 and BK2 sites would appear to me to be quite sufficient for the foreseeable future and commensurate with the current village infrastructure. Therefore, I have serious concerns about an additional 140 dwellings proposed for BK3.
2. Barkway has limited amenities, i.e. no shop, no surgery, no schooling provision beyond Year 4 and severely limited and ever diminishing public transport. The above application does not include any visible proposals to improve such infrastructure, apart from a proposed new shop. I suspect that there would be no guarantee that a future developer would build this shop nor is there any guarantee of its long-term sustainability as a stand-alone business. In any case a shop in Barkway would compromise the business of the existing and flourishing shop in Barley, our neighbouring village.
3. The development is at the extreme northern end of the village and north of an area reserved for provision of a new school. Thus, this development is effectively cut off from the rest of the village and is unlikely to encourage integration to sustain the vitality of the village and surrounding rural community.
4. The proposal will vastly increase the number and frequency of movements of private motor vehicles on the existing and narrow Royston and Cambridge Roads. I note that there is no intention to upgrade either of these approach roads. This increased movement will seriously increase the village carbon footprint and have a major impact on the local environment. This at a time when every effort should be aimed at reducing carbon footprint locally and globally.
5. It is already difficult to navigate Barkway High Street, Barley High Street and Hare Street at commute times, and more cars would definitely lead to traffic gridlocks.
6. Barkway stands on the extremity of the Chiltern Ridge. The proposed development will have a negative impact on the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding area and upon its wildlife. Together with the above comment, I believe this development to be environmentally unsound. Furthermore, when the natural flow of groundwater is disturbed, it could seriously compromise the water flow to the agricultural land to the north, towards Barley
7. Apart from the temporary employment afforded during construction, there is no evidence in this proposal of provision of any sustainable local employment or local business opportunities. Indeed, the concentration on residential property only does not apparently even provide for home business premises of any kind – an increased need since Covid.
8. The proposed site is currently a green field site and thus the development will take agricultural land out of any productive arable or grazing usage permanently. This is especially relevant now we are no longer in the EU. We should be conserving agricultural land, not taking it permanently out of food production.
9. The outline application proposes a mix of residential property the majority of which will command a high market value. The statement that up to 40% of the houses will be affordable is encouraging but there is no guarantee that any developer will adhere to this. This does little to inspire confidence for the younger generation in the village both now and in the future and will have a dramatic effect on the demographics and vitality of the village community.
There also appears to be a couple of other issues: namely a proposed extra inclusion of the HCC School Site into BK3 and a contribution to provide school transport between Barkway and Barley schools. The first issue would further increase the number of houses that could be built over and above the proposed 140 and transport between the two schools already exists. In any case if BK3 is not included in the Plan then these issues would become irrelevant and surplus to requirement.
I urge you to seek a reconsideration of the current situation and to oppose the inclusion of BK3 in the current Local Plan.