Some of the statements about infrastructure, particularly paragraphs 13.24 and 13.28, are worrying and need clarification. Development will of course occur sequentially, but any resources released by this process, be they developer contributions or community infrastructure levies, must be used first to satisfy the infrastructure needs generated by the early developments at the time those developments take place, and any funds left after that made available for upfront costs of the large strategic development. It is not appropriate for the south of the town to suffer temporary arrangements, which are all too likely to become permanent especially if costs rise, in order to fund the large development.

Schools are of particular concern. Permanent primary school places should be provided in the south of the town when they are needed, and not be delayed in order to release resources for upfront costs of the strategic development. Further expansion of Knights Templar School is problematic: it has been extended many times already. Short- to medium-term secondary provision - a temporary school - to the south of the town risks providing an inferior education unless it is as well resourced as a permanent new school, in which case it will not save money.

A major issue, if not the major issue, for the older part of Baldock is the traffic movement within and through the town centre, given that it is a conservation area and that all main routes pass directly through it. The Local Plan does not pay sufficient attention to this, and to how the pressure on the town can be alleviated.

In managing transport the Local Plan indicates that the main priority is to influence car use by promoting alternative modes of transport (paragraph 7.13). This is a worthy sentiment but there is no indication of how it is going to be achieved for the development on Site BA1. Recent experience is not encouraging: bus services to and from Baldock have got worse recently, and there is a threat that the semi-fast trains will no longer stop at Baldock from 2018. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan notes that 47% of journeys to work are in cars as drivers (paragraph 5.8). The proportion for other journeys is likely to be similar. There is no reason to suppose it will be significantly smaller in the new development. This reinforces the argument for more serious planning for motor vehicle traffic.

The particular traffic pressures that will be generated by homes on site BA1 have been discussed in detail in the response to Strategic Policy SP1.

Road access to the Sites BA2, BA3 and BA4 will be via Wallington Road, which will also carry some traffic to and from Site BA1 and to and from the Royston Road, B656. Road access to site BA5 will be via Clothall Road. Both roads converge on the roundabout at the junction of Clothall Road and South Road, and much of the traffic will use South Road to go south via London Road or to turn into the High Street. Much more thought needs to be given to managing the congestion this will create, especially because South Road is built up on both sides, is used for on-street residential parking, and is likely to suffer excessive noise (already highlighted prior to a recent adjacent development, Convent Close) and poor air quality. Thought should also be given to encouraging the use of Mansfield Road and Weston Road as a way of diverting traffic towards Letchworth from these sites away from the most sensitive part of the High Street in the conservation area.

There is no mention of parking in the town for people using its retail facilities. Parking is already barely adequate, and will be totally inadequate long before all the projected new houses are built. The difficulty of seeing a solution to this problem is no reason for ignoring it.