Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
Search representations
Results for NHDC Ermine Councillor search
New searchObject
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
MM 010 / FM 039
Representation ID: 8642
Received: 23/05/2021
Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Object
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
MM 213 / FM 108
Representation ID: 9300
Received: 23/05/2021
Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Object
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
MM 216 / FM 112
Representation ID: 9301
Received: 23/05/2021
Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Object
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
MM 219 / FM 114
Representation ID: 9302
Received: 23/05/2021
Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Object
Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031
ED191A
Representation ID: 9306
Received: 23/05/2021
Respondent: NHDC Ermine Councillor
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
Schedule of Further Proposed Modifications to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031
MM010/FM039 Page 32
The phrase will be delivered is incorrect. The Inspector and NHDC do not have the power to guarantee delivery. Delivery is dependent upon economic circumstances, democracy and the desire of the landowner to develop.
MM213/FM108 Page 143
This paragraph seeks to justify a disproportionate amount of development in Barkway; reasoning that it has the largest in population terms of the three villages to the east of the A10 and south of Royston.
The population of Barkway is virtually the same as the population of Barley. In any event the size of the village is irrelevant. As Officers and the Inspector know, development is based upon other factors, sustainability, proximity to services, employment and availability of land. As the Inspector and Officers also know, Barkway has few services and yet Barley has more, yet Barley has not been categorised as a village for growth, whilst Barkway strangely has. Barley is also closer to the numerous missing services, which are located in Royston.
MM216/FM112 Page 144
The new suggestion of a contribution towards travel by sustainable modes of transport between Barley and Barkway schools it's not realistic. There is no other source of money available to provide this service; therefore it would have to use all the S106 contributions, leaving nothing for Barkway village in general. This benefit would then be shared 50-50 between Barkway and Barley, with Barkway only benefitting in part. The cost of providing this transport, effectively in-perpetuity, will far exceed any S106 money that is likely to be available (circa £500,000.00). The Parish Council has already been consulted and agreed how any S106 money could be allocated. This proposal contradicts that agreement.
MM219/FM114 Page 144
The NHDC Officer responsible for preparing the Plan, Recommended that site BK3 be removed from the ELP. He prepared a well argued report explaining why. The Inspector has decided that the Officer's report justifying the removal of BK3 is not relevant, thereby leaving BK3 within the ELP. The Inspector has not produced any report explaining why he reached his decision.
It should be remembered that the NHDC Plan Officer has lived with the evolution of this Plan over several years and has a better understanding of it than anybody else.
It cannot be acceptable to ignore the Officer's recommendation without providing a well argued reason why.
The ELP was submitted to the NHDC Cabinet 16th March 2021 and approved at that stage with BK3 included. The Cabinet were not able to understand any rationale as to why BK3 was included and not excluded. Therefore the Cabinet took their decision to approve with insufficient information. This decision and all the background arguments must render the Plan unsound and likely subject to Judicial Review.
It has also been explained to me by two NHDC Officers that the actual reason for not removing BK3, was that it would be too controversial. In that it would encourage other selected settlements to argue as to why their selected sites should not be removed.
New Issues.
Barkway has now been selected as a village for growth. The Officer and Inspector acknowledge that Barkway has limited services et cetera. Yet Barley, is acknowledged as having a far greater selection of services has not been categorised as a village for growth.
This, is not logical. The selection of Barkway as a village for growth, is clearly not based on the suitability of the village, only that there is a large piece of land potentially available. Discounting the negative consequences of this recommendation. Particularly the largest employer in the area, Newsells Park Stud.
The Office for National Statistics.
The ONS has reduced housing numbers in North Hertfordshire.
Originally housing numbers in North Herts were calculated at approximately 14,500 Plan ending 2031 (Excluding unmet needs but including a buffer of around 8% or approximately 1,160 houses).
However because of the current modifications by the ONS, these numbers are being reduced from 14,500 to around 11,500. A similar 8% buffer within this new figure of 11,500 would amount to 920 extra homes. In terms of selected sites, the ELP is much as it was, thus Increasing the buffer to approximately 37% or 3,920 homes).
This buffer is far too high.
This results in what now appears to be an unnecessary threat to some greenbelt, when there is little prospect of houses being built on much of this valuable greenbelt within the Plan period.
It would make more sense for the Inspector to include a reasonable buffer and remove land that is perhaps of marginal suitability in particular greenbelt.
The consequence of this strange way of doing things; is that some homeowners, who live close to selected sites including greenbelt are having their properties unnecessarily blighted and many suffering stress; whilst I appreciate that house prices are not a planning issue. This blight is completely unnecessary.
In addition, some tenant farmers that are renting land that is in green belt are also under the wrong impression that some of their land will be taken from them for housing. This has the effect of not only subjecting them also to unnecessarily stress but stopping them investing in their businesses because they think some or all of their land will be sold off shortly.
The obvious option, is for the selected sites to bear a realistic relationship to the ONS housing numbers.
The Inspector should include a sensible buffer of around 8% and take out specific sites that are less suitable for development.
I understand the reason for this weird way of doing things. Is that it is easier for the Inspector and for those involved to leave all the sites in.
Green Belt.
Government says time and again, that they will "continue to protect and enhance the greenbelt". Yet, it will permit NHDC to build on it.
Finally, it is disappointing that of the thousands of representations submitted by a concerned public and many organisations. Not one site has been removed from the ELP.
We have spent an enormous amount of time and emotional effort in trying to steer the Plan in a realistic direction all without success.
Pity that the public are ignored.
