Baldock

I object to the size of the proposed developments within Baldock, which will be unsustainable from a transport (car) point of view.

In addition Govia Thameslink Railway are proposing to REDUCE train services to Baldock at the same time.

Also Baldock already cannot cope with the amount of cars in the centre of town; this would gridlock the entire town.

Having attended the recent public meeting I do not think the views of local Baldock residents were heard or taken into account.

I believe not enough detail has been taken into consideration on the development of the infrastructure currently in place. The residents suffer from insufficient parking, traffic congestion, lack of schools and medical facilities. With the proposed changes to our train timetable to abolish the fast trains into London will do little to entice the general public to move to Baldock into one of the many proposed housing schemes.

Consideration should be taken into account for the residents who already live in Baldock and the lack of current facilities. The traffic and parking will not encourage retail into the area and there are no proposed developments to increase job opportunities.

I endorse the need for increased housing but not without greater detail into the development of our area. One of Baldock's main advantages being surrounded by green fields and open space which my son has enjoyed I would hope the same could be said for my grandchildren. I cannot comprehend the fact Baldock is the target for such a greater percentage of all new housing in North Herts why Baldock and how can the Council defend this decision!

A massive increase in Baldock's population without education, medical, transport and additional employment will be detrimental on the long term growth and aspirations for our town.

Let us have our say!

I would like to express my objection to the above plans. In particular I have strong objection about the plans for new housing in Baldock.

Whilst I accept that there needs to be some new housing in Baldock I object to:

1) The huge and out of proportion amount of new houses proposed for Baldock town. The plans propose that 34% of North Herts are to be in Baldock. This will dramatically alter the nature of this small market town and have a magnified impact on a small town. The proposed plans, almost doubling the size of the town are too big a change. They need to be scales down considerable.

2) The current infrastructure in Baldock would not be able to cope with the proposed increase. In particular:
* School - Baldock primary schools are already full. In fact children living in Baldock are already having to travel to schools in Ashwell, Letchworth, Norton and surrounding areas as there is no room in Baldock schools currently. Adding 3000+ homes will not help! Before any new houses are built - new primary schools need to be built.
* The Secondary School is full. Again, a new school needs to be built before new houses can be built.
* Roads - the traffic going into Baldock is already bad, in particular North Road. Adding several thousand more cars to the town's traffic will create gridlock.
* Trains - there are already problems with parking and carriage space during peak times. This will be exacerbated by the proposed plans.
* There will need to be increase health, police and fire infrastructure.

3. Green Belt land is green belt. It should not be built upon and town/village envelopes stretched.


In my opinion the plans for 3000+ new homes in Baldock are flawed. Whilst new homes are required in North Herts, and some should be built in Baldock, the number is just too big.

Alternatives would be to look to:
a) Spread the proposed housing far more proportionately across North Herts
b) Create a whole new, small Garden City within the North Herts area - like Cambourne in Cambridgeshire.
c) Where ever more than a few hundred house are to be built, schools and infrastructure needs to be addressed, planned and paid for before the house building starts. With punitive damages for not doing so. Referring back to Cambourne the town existed for 10 years before a site for a secondary school was even looked for - and the school then took a further 5 years to open. 15 years to provide the fundamental infrastructure of schooling is too long. North Herts needs to learn from this and ensure the education of our young people - of our future - is not compromised for the profits of a few builders. The schools, the GP surgeries, the roads, the parks all need to be planned before the builders start building houses and punitive damages applied if and when the planning constraints are breached.

I strongly object to the current proposed plans. They need a drastic rethink.

It is with regret that I find myself writing this as I would like to lodge my concerns over the planned developments around Baldock. This small market town needs to stay as it is , the infrustucture is not here nor will it be added to cope with another 3500 homes which will result in some 10,000 people. The surgery and schools, as well as the road system cannot cope.

Please see below for some feedback. Call me a sceptic but it seems utterly morally reprehensible that the town with the lowest number of councillors happens to take the bulk of the burden of the new plan. Baldock is without doubt the worst place you could choose to add houses to, some key points:

- Baldock has the shortest train platforms of all of the towns in the area, it also has inadequate parking and no lifts

- In addition Great Northern are proposing to CUT the train services to Baldock, a town you are expecting to double in size. In short Baldock is barely able to cope with the number of commuters in the area as it is.

- Having recently moved to the Baldock, I'm already disgusted at the NHS provision vs that I have experienced elsewhere. Getting a Drs appointment here takes upwards of two weeks, we cannot handle the inflow of new people. Equally the school here is already over subscribed.

- BA3 is also one of the few nice views of countryside available from Baldock. Building here would be a devastating blow to the beauty of the town and would forever change its character. In contrast the large site to the North is an area much less visited - if you must build it would be far more sensible to build here.

- The A1 connections at Baldock are insufficient - there is already extensive queuing at the cross roads near the station and on the road from Clothall to Tesco (another reason not to build at BA3, it requires a drive through town to reach the A1). Site BA1 makes more sense given connections to both the station and the A1.

- To be clear, I'd prefer building at site BA1 to site BA3 (the other sites on the plan are small and incidental which is why I'm highlighting these two) but this does not represent an endorsement for site BA1 - I find the whole plan to be ill thought through as Baldock infrastructure cannot cope.

- As a slight aside please resurface some roads! Everyone round here is terrified for their house values as it is with you building all the new houses. Its doesn't help that the new devlopments are pristine whereas the older streets have roads the resemble dirt tracks.

In summary, I find your plan utterly bonkers! Building 2800 houses in a town this small with an already strained infrastructure is amongst the most ridiculous and harmful proposals I've ever seen suggested. I know that the local community has already been vocal and you have done your level best to ignore them so I doubt my writing in will have any effect, but please register my feedback as disapproval in the strongest possible terms.

I have again reviewed the plans for the proposed development of Baldock and wish to raise my objections. I think everyone understands the need to build more properties but the sheer scale of the proposed development around Baldock is ludicrous and will totally destroy the town and surrounding areas.
- If you look at the current traffic situation in Baldock it is a disaster. At certain times of the day you can queue from a mile outside Baldock and it can take 20 minutes to get to the junction on Station road. The whole town is extremely busy and cannot cope with anymore traffic. As well as all the local roads the A1 is total grid lock every morning and these vast amount of new houses will have more than one car and will make things drastically worse.
- The rail station at Baldock is tiny and during rush hour gets very overcrowded and simply cannot cope with a huge influx of people without it becoming extremely dangerous and simply unfit for purpose. Also the carpark and roads/junctions near the station are totally unsuitable for more people. Alongside the Great Norther trains are about the change the timetable to reduce the number of fast trains in 2018 which will only make things worse.
- The doctors, dentists and schools are all full and cannot cope with more people.
- The shops and recreational activities cannot cope with the current population of Baldock let alone thousands more.
- Baldock will become totally overrun and from being a very historic town with lots of heritage and history will be totally destroyed.

These plans need changing. The infrastructure and the residents cannot cope! There are areas in North Herts where brand new towns could be developed from scratch. These plans need amending or you will be destroying our town. Areas of Baldock are already be developed and the plans need to be much more realistic.

I would like to express my objection to the above plans. In particular I have strong objection about the plans for new housing in Baldock.

Whilst I accept that there needs to be some new housing in Baldock I object to:

1) The huge and out of proportion amount of new houses proposed for Baldock town. The plans propose that 34% of North Herts are to be in Baldock. This will dramatically alter the nature of this small market town and have a magnified impact on a small town. The proposed plans, almost doubling the size of the town are too big a change. They need to be scales down considerable.

2) The current infrastructure in Baldock would not be able to cope with the proposed increase. In particular:
* School - Baldock primary schools are already full. In fact children living in Baldock are already having to travel to schools in Ashwell, Letchworth, Norton and surrounding areas as there is no room in Baldock schools currently. Adding 3000+ homes will not help! Before any new houses are built - new primary schools need to be built.
* the Secondary School is full. Again, a new school needs to be built before new houses can be built.
* Roads - the traffic going into Baldock is already bad, in particular North Road. Adding several thousand more cars to the town's traffic will create gridlock.
* Trains - there are already problems with parking and carriage space during peak times. This will be exacerbated by the proposed plans.
* There will need to be increase health, police and fire infrastructure.
3. Green Belt land is green belt. It should not be built upon and town/village envelopes stretched.

In my opinion the plans for 3000+ new homes in Baldock are flawed. Whilst new homes are required in North Herts, and some should be built in Baldock, the number is just too big.

Alternatives would be to look to:
a) Spread the proposed housing far more proportionately across North Herts
b) Create a whole new, small Garden City within the North Herts area - like Cambourne in Cambridgeshire.
c) Where ever more than a few hundred house are to be built, schools and infrastructure needs to be addressed, planned and paid for before the house building starts. With punitive damages for not doing so. Referring back to Cambourne the town existed for 10 years before a site for a secondary school was even looked for - and the school then took a further 5 years to open. 15 years to provide the fundamental infrastructure of schooling is too long. North Herts needs to learn from this and ensure the education of our young people - of our future - is not compromised for the profits of a few builders. The schools, the GP surgeries, the roads, the parks all need to be planned before the builders start building houses and punitive damages applied if and when the planning constraints are breached.

I strongly object to the current proposed plans. They need a drastic rethink.

I have again reviewed the plans for the proposed development of Baldock and wish to raise my objections. I think everyone understands the need to build more properties but the sheer scale of the proposed development around Baldock is ludicrous and will totally destroy the town and surrounding areas.
- If you look at the current traffic situation in Baldock it is a disaster. At certain times of the day you can queue from a mile outside Baldock and it can take 20 minutes to get to the junction on Station road. The whole town is extremely busy and cannot cope with anymore traffic. As well as all the local roads the A1 is total grid lock every morning and these vast amount of new houses will have more than one car and will make things drastically worse.
- The rail station at Baldock is tiny and during rush hour gets very overcrowded and simply cannot cope with a huge influx of people without it becoming extremely dangerous and simply unfit for purpose. Also the carpark and roads/junctions near the station are totally unsuitable for more people. Alongside the Great Norther trains are about the change the timetable to reduce the number of fast trains which will only make things worse.
- The doctors, dentists and schools are all full and cannot cope with more people.
- The shops and recreational activities cannot cope with the current population of Baldock let alone thousands more.
- Baldock will become totally overrun and from being a very historic town with lots of heritage and history will be totally destroyed.

These plans need changing. The infrastructure and the residents cannot cope! There are areas in North Herts where brand new towns could be developed from scratch. These plans need amending or you will be destroying our town. Areas of Baldock are already be developed and the plans need to be much more realistic.

A very concerned resident

I wish to place on record my objection to the proposal to add a further 3,500 dwellings to Baldock as this number is totally disproportionate when compared with proposed expansions in all the other towns in North Hertfordshire. In addition to this, the suggestion that a significant percentage of these dwellings should be given over to accommodate "overflow" from Luton, which happens to be in Bedfordshire, would be to the detriment of the character and nature of what is still, at present, a small and pleasant market town.
The Council would have us believe that it would address issues of infrastructure by building more schools and surgeries. This is ignoring articles in the national press this year concerning the lack of both qualified teachers and General Practitioners in this country - so from where would these staff be found? Our existing schools are struggling to meet existing demands and the one surgery in Baldock has at present in excess of 12,000 registered patients!

See attachment

While the need for housing is not in doubt the local plan for Baldock co terminally lacks imagination and viability.
Until a northern relief road and bridge are constructed the centre of Baldock will become virtually gridlocked between 0700 and 1900. Currently delays of up to 20 mins can be experienced in passing through Baldock using the A507. This will only get worse with the building an additional 2800 heriditiments to the North of the town.
There are no sensible recommendations in the plans for sustainable transport solutions other than very vague generalities and seemingly no consultation with the local railway company about increasing passenger capacity.
The whole plan smacks of a poorly thought out approach to the future needs of the area needs that could be better met by creating a new town between Royston and Baldock.

I would like to express my objection to the above plans. In particular I have strong objection about the plans for new housing in Baldock.

Whilst I accept that there needs to be some new housing in Baldock I object to:

1) The huge and out of proportion amount of new houses proposed for Baldock town. The plans propose that 34% of North Herts are to be in Baldock. This will dramatically alter the nature of this small market town and have a magnified impact on a small town. The proposed plans, almost doubling the size of the town are too big a change. They need to be scales down considerable.

2) The current infrastructure in Baldock would not be able to cope with the proposed increase. In particular:
* School - Baldock primary schools are already full. In fact children living in Baldock are already having to travel to schools in Ashwell, Letchworth, Norton and surrounding areas as there is no room in Baldock schools currently. Adding 3000+ homes will not help! Before any new houses are built - new primary schools need to be built.
* The Secondary School is full. Again, a new school needs to be built before new houses can be built.
* Roads - the traffic going into Baldock is already bad, in particular North Road. Adding several thousand more cars to the town's traffic will create gridlock.
* Trains - there are already problems with parking and carriage space during peak times. This will be exacerbated by the proposed plans.
* There will need to be increase health, police and fire infrastructure.

3. Green Belt land is green belt. It should not be built upon and town/village envelopes stretched.


In my opinion the plans for 3000+ new homes in Baldock are flawed. Whilst new homes are required in North Herts, and some should be built in Baldock, the number is just too big.

Alternatives would be to look to:
a) Spread the proposed housing far more proportionately across North Herts
b) Create a whole new, small Garden City within the North Herts area - like Cambourne in Cambridgeshire.
c) Where ever more than a few hundred house are to be built, schools and infrastructure needs to be addressed, planned and paid for before the house building starts. With punitive damages for not doing so. Referring back to Cambourne the town existed for 10 years before a site for a secondary school was even looked for - and the school then took a further 5 years to open. 15 years to provide the fundamental infrastructure of schooling is too long. North Herts needs to learn from this and ensure the education of our young people - of our future - is not compromised for the profits of a few builders. The schools, the GP surgeries, the roads, the parks all need to be planned before the builders start building houses and punitive damages applied if and when the planning constraints are breached.

I strongly object to the current proposed plans. They need a drastic rethink.

The infrastructure in Baldock is already struggling to cope with existing use. Poorly thought out parking and road crossing alterations a few years ago make navigating central Baldock dangerous for pedestrians and drivers. Accidents with large lorries at the White Horse crossroads and collisions with the railway bridge abound. Proposed changes to rail timetables in 2018 will increase journey time to London by 20 minutes.

The plan is flawed. The main questions that need straight, definitive, plain speaking answers to have NOT been communicated satisfactorily to the public. In all the jargon, legal speak and confusion o f interpreting the plans,where is the wording that answers the following questions succinctly and accurately.

1.Is a new Health Centre and extra doctors being allocated for the increased population?
2.Are school places being increased over all age groups?
3.How will road infrastructure be improved to keep traffic OUT OF BALDOCK TOWN CENTRE.
4.What provisions will be made for, in time, an increasingly elderly population from an extra 3,290 houses?
5.How will rail links to London AND Cambridge be made more efficient on an already overcrowded route, to avoid yet more traffic on our local roads?
6 How will a potential increase in crime be monitored? the police station was closed because Baldock deemed to be too small to need one!
7.Why has there been no "joined up" and long term thinking in these plans?

Unless the above points are all clarified positively, Baldock will continue to be the "poor relation" of North Hertfordshire , with the only difference being thousands of more peoples and vehicles to share what will be a miserable and soul destroying place to live if these plans are passed. But then again, those people who may pass the plans for this huge increase of houses wont HAVE to live here , will they ? Thus illustrating that yet again ordinary peoples concerns will be ignored.

I wanted to take the time to write to you in hope that my voice will be heard.

I am a Baldock resident and I am sure you will have heard a lot from us in recent months.

My plea is simple, please reduce your plans. I have read through the detail and understand that people need a place to live and the area needs to be kept affordable.

That said, what happens to the items below:

* A1 - Cannot sustain any more traffic, even if extended. 15 miles takes 45-60 minutes at present.
* Whitehorse Street Crossroads (A507) - Traffic is always backed up and a link road will not take the load off.
* Possible reduction in rail service.
* Locations further south have been ignored - Hertford? Hoddesdon? Both have better infrastructure.
Even without the concerns above, what happens to Baldock? We live here to enjoy the community spirit of a place that pulls together. Extending it will not add to the community in anything other than numbers.

Thank you for reading my message and I hope you hear our voice.

At the moment we live in Wood End East Herts and we are in the process of moving to [...] Baldock. I only saw by chance a small paragraph in The Comet saying that there was a meeting at Knights Templer School regarding a NHDC Local Plan: up until this moment we had no idea what was going on. When we arrived at the meeting there must have been nearly 200 people in the hall and it was only then that we realised that all these homes were going to be build around Baldock by 2031.

I realise that people have to live somewhere but to build that amount of housing in Baldock is a disgrace. How can Baldock cope with that amount of cars and people. Say all these people living outside Baldock have 2 cars to each house, how is Baldock going to cope with all the traffic? The relief road around Baldock was built some years ago for the very same reason you are now building all these houses. It will be impossible for Baldock to cope with all that traffic especially when cars will be travelling to Letchworth and Hitchin for work and shopping, it will be a nightmare in Baldock with all that traffic.

What about all the services ie Doctors/schools/shops and all the everyday uses. Surely someone must realise that the roads will never cope with the traffic, it will be impossible to move around Baldock in a vehicle.

Do you think that the plan quoted in NPPF section 4 ie ''Promoting sustainable transport'' is applicable. It states that Transport Statements and Assessments should be carried out, that developments should take up opportunties to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure and that plans should take account of whether ''safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people''.

Will Baldock town choke? NPPF Chapter 2 is entitled ''Ensuring the vitality of town centres''. It covers aspects including requirements to ''retain and enhance existing markets'' and ''promote competitive town centres... which reflect the individuality of the town..'' By having all these houses built we will lose the town centres.

NPPF paragraph 177 describes that ''it is...important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion...the local planning authority must understand district wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up''

All these new residents need to go somewhere in the evenings and in Baldock i can imagine that we will have crowds of youngsters milling around Baldock High street with nothing to do. This is going to add to the crime figures.

I do not like the plan as it will kill Baldock, i hope you will reconsider and scrap the plan around Baldock and build somewhere else more suitable.

The scale of growth proposed is likely to have a serious negative impact on local roads. Whitehorse Street / Royston Road crossroads is a key pinch point (Plan (13.29)) with congestion and long queues all day. Alteration is not possible because of listed buildings . Many trips from site BA1 are likely to be towards Letchworth and Hitchin. The Plan stresses that the 3 towns are interconnected (paras 2.31, 4.27, 13.14) and that many new residents will commute out of Baldock (paras 4.25-6). The employment allocation over-provides (policy SP3) which is likely to increase the peak-time journeys. The proposed road through site BA1 would involve longer journeys. Experience following the opening of the Baldock bypass shows people take the shortest route rather than the least congested.

See attachment

I accept that houses need to be built but the plan is *hugely* unfair, placing an excessive burden on Baldock and its infrastructure and has been *very* poorly thought through.
* The plan proposes a doubling of the population which will entirely change the character of the small market town
* The also uses green belt land which should be the last resort for development
* The areas B2,B3,B4,B5 propose to add 500 houses. These areas will cause a large volume of traffic to route via the North Road crossroad, or the roundabout at the end of High Street. Access out to Cambridge and Letchworth/Hitchen is therefore very heavily constrained by these two pinch points. Such an increase in traffic on Clothall Road past the nearby Hartsfield school inevitably will cause an increased danger to children and increase in pollution.
* Direct access from the B656 to the Clothall estate and the new areas B2,B3,B4,B5 *MUST* be addressed, to ease congestion at the crossroads
* Reconsider the possibility of a junction between A505 to A507
* The road network around the small town is already very busy and polluted at rush hours, and cannot easily be redesigned due to its tight layout and its many historic listed buildings. The traffic at the crossroads is already a problem and backs up along the B656 and North road and into High Street and excessively inhibits journey times and causes pollution.
* Construction work will take place over a long period and will cause massive disruption to the town, for which it will receive no compensation.
* Local services are already stretched and are certainly not sufficient to serve such an enormous increase in the population of this small town and *must must must* be extended to comfortably serve the proposed population *before* the houses are built
* Fresh water supply is likely to be an issue, as is drainage, potentially flash flooding in the town centre unless managed appropriately.

My feeling is that the development has been insufficiently thought through and the proposed suggestion of a New Town has been outright rejected on the grounds of not having enough time. However this is a very weak excuse for a plan that is meant to take into account long term development over a period of 20 years. Why can other councils manage to properly plan housing in a sustainable and creative way but NHDC cannot?

It *is* possible to build housing in a thoughtful and considerate way. The plan for Baldock does not.

See attachment

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.

The proposed new areas for housing look sound. The largest area to the North of Baldock uses countryside which is not part of an AONB and is reasonably level. It is positioned away from the High Street so should have little impact on the historic centre of the town. The other areas appear to be logical 'fill in' areas.

The plan if implemented will provide much needed new housing to North Herts and provide prosperity to all residents.

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.

First, the plan is not justified as it does not present the most appropriate strategy for the distribution of housing, with too large a number allocated to Baldock - in particular given the acknowledged negative impacts of site BA1, serious questions about its deliverability, the fact that it is not proposed for early release, and the availability of alternative sites that do not appear to have such significant drawbacks:
1. Impacts: the plan and its supporting documents acknowledge that site BA1 would have several adverse impacts:
a) Although Green Belt land will need to be released to meet North Hertfordshire's housing requirements, this site is acknowledged by the Council as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes (Housing and Green Belt background paper, para. 3.14);
b) The sustainability appraisal notes (Table 9) that this site, along with the others proposed for the edges of Baldock, creates a high probability of adverse impacts on landscape and townscape character - with the Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2013) identifying the land north of Bygrave Road having moderate to high landscape sensitivity;
c) Increased traffic arising from this scale of development is likely to breach air quality standards in the Whitehorse St/Hitchin St areas, which the plan notes are already close to being exceeded in these locations (para. 9.28). The Housing and Green Belt Background Paper notes that former site 209E (Priory Fields, Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for allocation for precisely this reason;
d) The site is highly likely to impose severe and unsustainable pressure on the local highways network, for reasons set out below;
e) Development would be difficult to integrate effectively with the rest of Baldock, due to the extent to which the railway line creates a hard barrier with limited existing or potential crossing points;
2. Deliverability: there are serious questions about whether this site is deliverable without unacceptable highways impacts, and whether it is viable. This is covered under whether the proposals are effective (below).
3. Phasing and availability of alternative sites: the proposed release of this and the other strategic sites from the Green Belt is justified by the Council partly on the basis of its ability to contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan" (Housing and Green Belt Background Paper, para. 5.52). However the plan itself is clear that other proposed sites at Baldock would be developed first. This fact also undermines the rationale for allocating site BA1 in preference to land at Stevenage West, which is proposed to be safeguarded for future development for up to 3,100 homes rather than being released during the plan period (Policy SP8). Land at Stevenage West could be allocated to meet housing needs in a way that does not have the range of adverse impacts associated with BA1, and which would be closer to main centres of employment, retail and public transport.

Second, the plan is not effective, because it is very unlikely that the scale of growth proposed for Baldock can be achieved without an overwhelming negative effect on the local highway network, but insufficient evidence has been provided about the highways impacts and the potential effectiveness and viability of the suggested mitigation measures. As a result there can be no confidence that the plan's proposals for Baldock are deliverable:
1. Baldock is a historic town with a medieval street pattern at its core. The plan acknowledges (13.29) that the Whitehorse Street/Royston Road crossroads is a key pinch point. Both it and Station Road/North Road already suffer from congestion and long queues both peak and off-peak, with the narrow width of the railway bridge also inhibiting easy pedestrian and cycle connections from north to south. AECOM's technical note identifies the crossroads and Letchworth Gate as problem junctions (above capacity, unacceptable queuing) by 2013 even without further development (table 4.1).
2. The proposed allocations for residential and employment development in Baldock will generate a significant increase in trips through the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads due to:
a) The high proportion of trips from site BA1 (North of Baldock) that are likely to be towards Letchworth and Hitchin. The plan stresses how interconnected these towns are for movement (paras. 2.31, 4.27, 13.14), and that many new residents will commute out (paras. 4.25-6).
b) The way the employment allocation (policy SP3) deliberately 'over-provides' for the needs of the town, even on its expanded basis (paras 4.25-6), which is likely to lead to more peak hour trips between Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin.
c) The fact that the proposed link road through BA1 would involve a long round trip to Letchworth/Hitchin for most residents of the site, rather than following natural desire lines. Experience following the opening of the Baldock bypass shows that a lot of traffic follows the shortest route rather than the least congested.
3. The plan acknowledges (4.179) that "not all" traffic from site BA1 will have to use the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads - so it is clear the Council accept that at least a proportion of it will.
4. However there has not been adequate modelling of these impacts. It is only this year that AECOM's transport model has been extended to Baldock. While it identifies the crossroads and Letchworth Gate as problem junctions by 2031 even without development (table 4.1), it makes clear that it does not attempt to identify specific highways impacts of the proposed developments, or their dependency on new infrastructure (section 7 of AECOM's note); it has not modelled the effect of the proposed new highways links; it provides no assessment of post-mitigation impacts; and no information is given about the sole mitigation measure proposed within the town (mini roundabout and signal optimisation of the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads). We have seen separate modelling work undertaken for the promoters of the site - Hertfordshire County Council - by White Young Green, which appears to underestimate the extent to which trips are likely to use the crossroads, especially as it looks solely at the proposed residential developments and not the employment allocation as well.
5. It is clear, therefore, that the is a high probability that the highway network in the centre of Baldock would be unable to cope with the level of development proposed, but insufficient work has been done on behalf of the Council to assess the deliverability and impact of mitigation measures. As the plan's single largest site relies in part on this local road network functioning, there can be no confidence that this aspect of the plan is deliverable, or indeed that the overall scale of growth planned for Baldock can be accommodated in highways terms.
6. Nor does it appear that the financial viability of the proposed mitigation measures has been tested fully, especially if a new crossing of the railway is to be delivered without unacceptable visual impacts, and without prohibitive costs being imposed by Network Rail. The Local Plan Viability Assessment (Update, August 2016) has only taken an indicative approach to assessing the potential viability of the major sites, rather than looking at the specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation measures associated with each.

Third, the plan is not consistent with national policy. While the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the evidence base for plans should be proportionate, it is equally clear that plans should identify whether transport improvements can be made to limit the significant impacts of development, and that where the residual cumulative impacts are severe there may be a case for preventing development (para. 32).

The Proposed Submission Local Plan does not satisfy this test. As set out above, it's very clear that the full impact of the scale of development proposed for Baldock, or of individual major site proposals, has not been properly assessed, with no information available on the impact and viability of the proposed mitigation measures.

This applies not only to site BA1, but also to the other major sites: for example, the plan mentions a new "southern link road" in relation to sites BA3 and BA4, but no further information to explain its route, viability or impact is provided in the plan or supporting documents.

The Odyssey Markides technical note for the Council asserts (para. 1.5) that "there are no issues that have emerged from the transport modelling work that... would cause a significant highway issue that cannot be resolved through appropriate mitigation measures". This conclusion is fundamentally flawed, resting as it does only on the wholly inadequate transport modelling work that has been undertaken.

Whilst I support the concept of further house building in areas such as Baldock, the means of delivering this set out in the local plan are not appropriate.

The increase in size of Baldock (the smallest of the towns in the area) is disproportionately larger than that proposed for other towns in the area, such as Hitchin and Letchworth.

Infrastructure must be protected and enhanced before construction commences. The threat of the loss of train services to Baldock, which are already at capacity at current levels, must be ended for this plan to be workable; this number of houses cannot be built at the same time as the train service is slashed. The likely increase in traffic to Baldock will surely overburden already 'at capacity' parking and road use levels in the town centre.

Baldock is a great place to live and it should shoulder some of the burden of our need for more housing. However, infrastructure issues must be solved before construction commences. I have not been persuaded that the current plan provides for suitable infrastructure improvements to meet the demands that will be placed by the proposed increase in Baldock's population.

With proposals for the railway services to/from Baldock and London set to be reduced, there is also no room for expansion of the railway station in Baldock or parking for it in the surrounding area to accommodate the increase in population that will result from the proposed housing allocation.

I believe 'SP6: Sustainable Transport' is unsound in relation to Baldock, notably 'Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock'. I don't believe it has been 'positively prepared', will not be 'effective', and is not consistent with national policy (National Planning Policy Framework 'Promoting sustainable transport'). Of greatest concern is the dramatic increase in traffic on roads leading to the Whitehorse Street intersection & traffic lights, an obvious pinch point within Baldock. North Road (A507), for example, already suffers from very significant congestion.

I believe the use of Green Belt land for proposed Baldock developments, notably 'Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock' is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (National Planning Policy Framework 'Protecting Green Belt land' and 'Conserving and enhancing the natural environment'). I can see no evidence of 'exceptional circumstances' for losing this Green Belt land, only that it is a convenient and easy option as Hertfordshire County Council are willing to sell the land.

Baldock sits in a valley and its physical character inhibits the good dispersal of air pollutants. I am greatly concerned that the dramatic increase in dwellings and therefore cars will lead to a significant degradation in air quality. Many of the worst congested roads in Baldock (North Road, Whitehorse Street, Hitchin Street) are popular routes for children to walk to and from schools. I believe the proposal to be unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (National Planning Policy Framework 'Promoting healthy communities').

"The River Ivel catchment is a fast responding catchment meaning it is vulnerable to flash flooding following a significant rainfall event." (Central Beds report CB/FLO/15/09003)

Currently (and for the last 60 years since my family have lived here) Radwell has NOT suffered from flooding, but in wet winters sometimes it does come close to it.

The proposed developments in Baldock plan to add c. 3200 new homes, all of which are in the River Ivel catchment. This infers the development is likely to significantly affect Radwell through increased water flows both from runoff and sewage treatment outfall.

Apparently no Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) study has been conducted despite the fact that the proposal is to nearly double the size of the Baldock urban area which by any measure must represent a massive increase in flood risk to areas downstream of the catchment.

River flow at Radwell Mill has been measured to vary between 3.5 and 16 Megalitres(Ml)/day (oct 2015 - oct 2016, Affinity Water study).

Treated water:
In the absence of any alternative proposals, it is reasonable to assume the treated water from the developments will go into the River Ivel. On the basis of 2.3 persons per houshold (2011 census), annual water consumption of 110 m3 per houshold/annum (consumer council for water) and 3200 new households this represents an increased output of treated water into the Ivel of some 352 Ml per annum, increasing flow by between 6% and 27%.

Runoff:
"Developing a green field site may result in 10 times the runoff during extreme rainfall" (Woods-Ballard et al 2007). The plan mentions "Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and other appropriate measures" but these are in large part merely a 'buffer' of limited capacity and not capable of restricting flow for extended periods of wet weather when the river Ivel is already close to capacity. It is therefore easy to envisage that a development of this size is highly likely to lead to flooding in Radwell and other villages (eg Stotfold) downstream. This happened as recently as July 2015 and again in June 2016 when extreme rain events in Letchworth (c. 25mm in 90 minutes) overwhelmed Pix Brook and flooded houses in Stotfold.

25mm (c. 1 inch) of rainfall over 91 Ha is 22 Ml of water. The 5% runoff expected from the green field site would be 1.1 Ml, the runoff from the same area as residential development could be expected to be between 30% (6.8 Ml) and 60% (13 Ml) representing a potential increase of between 5.5 and 12.5 Ml of runoff in a single event, this will increase flow by between 78% and 157% representing a very serious risk of flooding.

Pollution:
Radwell lake is already deemed an area of "Wildlife and Nature policy 14" and we work hard to keep it nice. The massively increased runoff is likely to increase temperatures in our river, harming fish and other organisms; A sudden burst of runoff from a rainstorm can cause a fish-killing shock of hot water. Salt used to melt ice and snow on pavements and roads in the new developments will further contaminate our river.

Oil and other hard-to-monitor pollutants will get into our river from the newly developed areas. This already happened when the SuDS ponds associated with runoff from the A1(M) built in 1966 silted up after only 25 years of service and we began to see an occasional oil film (on one occasion a large quantity of it) polluting our river. Eventually the ponds were dredged at considerable expense because the silt was classified as hazardous waste.