There is evidence that insufficient planning has been done with respect to the large, ambitious development north of Baldock. For example, other stakeholders have not been contacted to ensure these plans are in fact feasible. The district and county council lack the competency maturity to deliver a project of this size and speed, and given the lack of preparation (in the face of an "it'll be alright" attitude) then this site should be scaled back to ensure it is deliverable and sustainable.
I am concerned about how well prepared this plan is. For example, in the recent GoVia proposal to change the timetable for their lines (including services through Baldock) it became apparent that neither the district nor the county council had contacted them to indicate that Baldock may be growing by 80% with many homes close to the train station and so a doubling (approximately) of journeys. Also, it turns out that in producing the preferred options plan, the Network Rail/rail infrastructor owners had not been contacted even though the plan assumed the construction of a new rail bridge and increased traffic (motor and pedestrian) under the existing narrow bridge by the train station. However, in public meetings in response to questions we had been assured that rail infrastructure and train operating organisations had been contacted in constructing this plan. This being so, then the plan should be designed so as to minimise risk in the face of poor preparation from the district council/planners. An ambitious and challenging plan would be dangerous given the evidence of poor preparation. (Especially, given recent local track-record/experiences: e.g. Churchgate development in central Hitchin, or the overdevelopment Great Ashby, Royston and even nearby Stotfold and the schools chaos that have ensued - particularly at Great Ashby.)
Proximity of the London housing market and the fast direct train links from Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock train stations mean that any development too close to the train stations will simply be consumed by London housing need and push up prices and leave local need unmet. Natural organic growth of town with limited release of Green Belt, the separation of the new development north of Baldock from Baldock (and the train station) and the creation of 2 new towns (even if only started) is a better plan.
The elephant in the room in terms of development in North Hertforshire is the proximity of London and the London housing market and the rail link that provides an exceptionally fast connection straight into central London and the far greater salaries available there. As I understand it, the Local Plan has a duty to provide for the local housing need arising from those already living and working in North Hertfordshire and the surrounding areas, and for natural organic growth, through population growth and immigration from other areas. However, any development with a 20 minute walk of the train stations within North Hertfordshire up to and including Baldock will actually cater for London housing need, for those wishing to move out of London but continue to work in London. Hitchin, Letchwoth and Baldock train stations provide a link to London of 30 minutes approx. which combined with a short walk or tube ride on either end this is lower than many commutes within London and not much higher than the average intra-London commute. Furthermore, such developments will create an upward pressure on property prices in North Hertfordshire, not only from the raised house prices of these developments themselves, but also from the remaining unmet need. In short building too close to Hitchin, Letchworth or Baldock train stations will not meet local housing need and will actually make matters worse by raising house prices and leaving housing need unmet and rising. The best solution is natural organic growth of existing towns with limited release of Green Belt, combined with new settlements situated away from these train stations. For example, a Garden Village in the proposed Blackhorse farm site (north of Baldock), separated by Green Belt from Baldock could provide a significant number of homes - this is a change to the existing plan that could be made with limited affect on the overall plan. A new Garden Village at Odsey, that could grow over time into a Garden Town, and also a new Garden Village half way between Luton and Stevenage (not connected to London by a direct rail link), that also could grow into a Garden Town, are options that should should be included in the plan as desirable options - with respect to these options little work has been done by the district council to-date and these developments could not be counted against projections of housing to be delivered by this plan, but they could be specifically mentioned in the Local Plan so that as it is reviewed and revised over the period of the plan then progress against the development of these new villages/towns can be assessed, and development in other parts of North Hertfordshire can be adjusted accordingly. They would provide contingency and flexibility in the plan that is currently missing. I believe this would also be consistent with current government policy with regard to the creation of new Garden Cities and I believe NHDC has finally, belatedly started doing work on this. This offers NHDC a way out of the current disproportionate and quite unworkable plan (given the size and speed of the intended development at Baldock) and toward a more proportionate and workable plan over the period of the plan's operation - I feel that it provides a means that the plan can be altered and accepted by the Inspector, such that there is a proportionate, sustainable and workable Local Plan in place for North Hertfordshire.
Development remains disproportionate around Baldock (and in fact far from the areas of employment and areas of need to the west and south of the district). 2010-11 census data shows Baldock as having a population of 10,280, living in 4,491 homes (this is as a result of dramatic grow in the 80's with the Clothall Common development and then after this from significant infill development all over Baldock, particularly near the high street and the train station). The plan as-is would add an additional 3,590 (sites BA1-BA11) homes - this is an increase in size of 80% over 15 years. This is, quite frankly, planning to fail - it will be incredibly challenging to grow Baldock in a sustainable manner at such a rate (leaving aside concerns that much of this is close to the train station and will do little to address local housing need and will simply increase house prices). Any reduction in this overall number around Baldock will have a positive effect on the deliver-ability of the plan, will lower the risk and will make it more sustainable. I am not against development around Baldock. I would ideally like to see between 1000 to 1500 new homes added, with some of this delivered around Baldock and some of this delivered via a new Garden Village within the Blackhorse farm site, but separated from Baldock and Bygrave by Green Belt, and more than 20 minutes walk from the train station to ensure these houses actually address local housing need (instead of London housing need); However, if more than this is required, then every home must be justified against the increased risk, and decreased deliver-ability and sustainability of the plan, and against the possibility of using other sites around North Hertfordshire (for example sites that were considered in earlier versions of the plan prior to the preferred options plan).
Plan is disproportionate and involves a over-development of Baldock - increasing its size by 80% in a short time-frame. It is not deliverable (and the evidence to support it is not compelling, it is flawed by for example not adequately considering traffic constraints in Baldock). Site north of Baldock should be scaled back to reduce risk and increase deliver-ability and sustainability of the plan.
Traffic strategy for developments around Baldock is weak and does not support such ambitious development. Baldock has narrow traffic pinch points bounded by historic buildings and all traffic must run through these points - making it intolerant to even small fluctuations in traffic (there are regularly traffic jams). The north and south link roads suggested will help mitigate against increased traffic from these developments, but there is no evidence it will be sufficient. It is extremely optimistic to assume so. Development of site north of Baldock should be scaled back and separated from Baldock.
Traffic strategy is weak. There does not appear to be a valid traffic assessment or strategy covering Baldock, yet this is where the most dramatic development is planned to occur. As no doubt others will have pointed out the traffic lights between Station Road, Royston Road, Clothall Road and Whitehorse Street is a pinch point in the Baldock roads system. It is regularly clogged with traffic, including commuters dropping off/parking at the train station, parents doing the school run, and through traffic heading to Letchworth and beyond, or to the A505 and Royston, or along the 507 in either direction (to the A1 north or to Bedford, or to the south and along which traffic volumes have been growing - see the campaign Safer 507 which aims to change the status of the road from A road to B road) or heading through Baldock to the A1 south. This junction is bounded by listed buildings, hundreds of years old and there are no sensible options for enlarging this junction. Furthermore, it is not the only pinch point in Baldock, from the mini-roundabout at the top of the high-street along the B656 Hitchin Street is a narrow road bounded by historic buildings (again hundreds of years old) and forms the main route to Letchworth and beyond. Whilst at the other end of the High Street, South Road runs from the roundabout with the A507 (near Tapps garden centre) to the roundabout with London Round (outside Tesco Supermarket), which is a very narrow road providing the only other reasonable route from the east of Baldock to London Road and out to the A1 south. Adding to this, the main route north to the A1 is from the crossroads (mentioned above) along station road to North Road, which goes under a very narrow rail bridge, where traffic is often queued. The large development to the north of Baldock runs a serious risk of causing traffic chaos. The southern and northern bypasses suggested in the plan will be a great help (although it is unclear at which point in development they will be built) and they should certainly partially mitigate against traffic at the pinchpoints in Baldock, but it is unclear how well this will mitigate against the extra traffic produced by development around Baldock - greater work should have been done before plunging in for such a dramatic enlargement of Baldock. It should also be noted that all the development planned around Baldock is to the east, meaning traffic will need to flow through Baldock on its way through or out - very few people will be travelling north east to Royston, most will be travelling west and south toward Letchworth, Hitchin, Bedford, Luton and Stevenage. This is a key weakness in the plan as a whole - that development is planned almost as far away as possible from existing large areas of employment (and entertainment). The development to the north of Baldock should be scaled down and separated from Baldock as an effective way to reduce the risk inherent in the current plan. If the risk fails to materialise or is well mitigated by the northern and southern bypasses then the plans for Baldock can be scaled up over the course of the plan or even the next plan, but to assume, contrary to the local road layout, geographical constraints and historical traffic problems that everything will be fine, is planning to fail.

Need to increase the number of self build plots. Need to contact self build groups early to allow them time to organise. Self build is more affordable, provides tighter nit communities, creates housing with more character and is more sustainable.

13.27
This should be amended to be "provision of a new secondary school, or expansion of Knights Templar, or combination of both".
The new site creates a large requirement for additional provision and development of this site should make this provision available - however, it might be best to do this largely or even entirely through expansion and improvement of Knights Templar. The plan must not inadvertently exclude this as a possibility - it simply needs to ensure that provision is provided by the best means and is provided as a result of relatively early stages of this development.
13.29
South Road, which runs from the small roundabout on Clothall Road (with Wallington Road) to the large roundabout at the top of the High Street (with London Road) is a very narrow road. The new southern link road must not join with this directly, so as to encourage any traffic down South Road. Instead the new southern link road should run adjacent to the A505 from Clothall Road (some way south-east of the small roundabout with Wallington Road) up to the existing roundabout at the top of Royston Road (joining to the slip road to the A505).
Re: Point 13.30
The southern link road should not pass through BA4 (as commented against that site). Access to site BA4 would be direct from Royston Road, and with relatively few residents on this site there is no need for the link road to run through this site - in fact it would create through traffic, noise and environmental effects for the residents of that site, by design, rather than avoiding it. This point should not mention BA4, or add the words possibly BA4 to avoid the positioning of the road becoming a forgone conclusion as a result of this Local Plan.