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

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.

I wish to express my strong objection to Barkway BK3 being included in the local plan especially after NHDC requested that it be excluded. My concerns / objections are as follows:

1. NHDC requested that BK3 be excluded but this request has not been accepted. The process has been far from transparent - and this seems to be a disagreement between professionals that will have a huge effect on a small village

All correspondence between the inspector and NHDC on the Draft Schedule of Further Modifications relating to BK3 must be published.

Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information to be disclosed.

2. Those who object to the suitability of BK3 must be given a chance to put their case once the above has been published.

3. Examination document ED175. HCC have not requested that the school site be included in housing allocation site BK3. The land is not required for a school and should not be part of the housing site. As such BK3 is not a suitable site as it is not connected with the rest of the village.

4. There are several material mistakes in the published documentation - these alone require a review of the decision. For example the tables showing new homes for the parish in MM217/FM113 do not agree / are wrong and include double counting. Another example relates to the S106 contributions where it proposes spending the money for the benefit of Barley (MM219/FM114 paragraph 13.39, MM216/FM112 in relation to BK3, MM215/FM111 in relation to BK2). It is wrong to suggest taking S106 contributions from a village that has a huge new housing development and spending it for the benefit of another village which does not have any proposed developments.

Clearly if decisions have been made on incorrect facts and assumptions the decision needs to be reviewed. Once we have access to the correspondence between the inspector and NHDC there may be further errors uncovered requiring further review.