Baldock

There is a vibrant interest in football, with the senior team and a lot of junior teams that are doing very well in their particular age groups. With the chance of Baldock expanding in a few years there will be an even greater reason for more sport and recreational facilities to stop crime that is caused primarily when boredom sets in.
Baldock is a lovely market town and when we look around all the towns nearby we seem to have been left behind so please give this matter your attention and hopefully we will soon have the facilities we crave in the not to distant future.

I have lived in Baldock all my life and have seen the sports and social facilities deteriorate over time , as well as a football club my family grew up watching moving out of the area. New facilities and bringing Baldock Town FC back to Baldock would be great for the town, and a much needed social scene for the youth of today rather than use neighbouring facilities or worse just hanging around the streets of town.

Sports facility idea for Baldock

If new houses are being developed infrastructure and services must also be provided to meet the demands of the local population, a sports facility would be an exceptional idea in maintaining and promoting the community sprit which Baldock is favoured for and would enable the town to attract more businesses, creating more jobs continuing its prosperity.

I believe this a necessity to enable Baldock to grow with same standards which has been doing for many years now, people are already fearful that characteristics that make Baldock a desirable place to live are under threat if infrastructure and services don't meet the anticipated growth rate of the community.

Now that Baldock is expected to expand with the building of a substantial number of new houses, it would seem appropriate to have the old football club back. There is also an opportunity for the venue to be used for a variety of non football local events for the benefit of the community. It would be a wonderful if you Guys took the lead in mustering local support to restore this important facility, as I am sure that such a project would be the catalyst for building a new community spirit of the expanded town.

I am writing to show my support for our wonderful little historic Market Town of Baldock against the developers and NHDC who want to destroy the surrounding countryside and pollute the air further by the unfair amount of homes proposed. May I ask why Luton is mentioned when this is Hertfordshire. May I ask why keep developing is it so we can become another Stevenage with different estates and all its problems? Surely if so many homes gave to be built why can't a new town be built away from all pre existing towns? Give it its own identity and new schools, Drs surgeries etc instead of having to shuffle schools about here and we all know that facilities promised will not if ever appear leaving everyone involved worse off. Lister Hospital cannot cope now, Drs Apps are hard to get, schools are packed, Roads are getting worse and that's not just the potholes! Policing has been cut so why want to bring the possibility of 8000 or more people into area and who knows how many cars on our packed roads. We live in a Valley that any pollution collects in,flooding occurs on the fields but we have the views and the farmers have fields. Will be absolutely tragic to remove all this and make everyone else's quality of life so much worse.

I am writing this email in support of a new multi purpose sports facility for proposed new and existing residents of Baldock.

I feel that this facility is hugely needed in the town. Not only would this be a strong base for Baldock town FC to grow and bring through youth development without losing them to neighbouring towns, but build a stronger future to allow BTFC to stay in existence. For a number of years now the club has had to move around the county playing at different grounds just to survive. This is becoming increasingly difficult and costly for both parties agreeing terms.

This facility will not only be good for BTFC but other sporting clubs to develop and grow within its own town, without having to travel to towns outside of Baldock. This would also bring the football club back to the town after a long absence.

NHDC Proposed Local Plan October 2016
This letter sets out a number of objections to the proposed Local Plan dated October 2016 by NHDC based on two of the "Tests of Soundness" set out in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF"), namely a Local Plan should be:
"Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of
sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the
Framework."
The proposed Local Plan falls short in a number of areas, in particular:
the viability and vitality of Baldock;
inadequate plan for transport infrastructure in the North Herts area generally;
inadequate plan for transport infrastructure as a result of the proposed developments in Baldock, in particular BA1, BA2 and BA3;
inadequate plan for the development of core infrastructure such as schools, doctor surgeries, leisure facilities; and
impact on Green Belt
There is clearly a need to increase the housing capacity to allow for the expanding population and the increasing employment opportunities in London and surrounding areas. All areas must contribute to the expansion, however the proposals in the Local Plan are not workable and lack a holistic approach to transport and core infrastructure and will destroy the essence of the historic market town of Baldock.
The letter sets out in more detail the details of the objections and then discusses alternate ways and amendments that could achieve the objectives.
Viability and vitality of Baldock
Baldock is an historic market town with a vibrant community spirit. The centre of the town is characterised by a wide high street, numerous public houses and restaurants, specialised retail outlets including an award winning butchers. There are a number of events throughout the year that bring together the local community, in particular the Baldock festival in May, a free music festival in September, the charter fair in October, numerous farmers markets and other cultural events in the recently refurbished Town Hall and market square.
All of these events allow the people of Baldock to come together as a community and build friendships. The housing in Baldock itself is generally quite modest and therefore the people are of broadly like minds. Over the last 30 years there has been an expansion of housing, primarily on Clothall Common, but in smaller developments of up to 20 houses. This type of expansion enhances the community spirit in Baldock, however the town amenities are at capacity and the proposed increase of 80% more homes threatens to destroy the community spirit and overburden the amenities in the town centre which has limited capacity to expand.
The recreation facilities in the town are limited today. The Town Hall is recently refurbished and is operated by volunteers primarily for art and musical activities. The Community Centre has three function rooms which are used a variety of clubs for all ages. Both have limited capacity and are just about sufficient for the needs of the town, the proposed expansion would render them inadequate. There is a bowls and cricket club located on Avenue Park, which are popular, and Baldock Crusaders netball team use the public courts also at Avenue Park. These facilities are functional but have limited capacity. There is a junior football club (Baldock Town Youth FC) which uses pitches at Hartsfield School and Knights Templar School, the proposed increase in population would mean that more football pitches would need to be made available, preferably with a club house. There is no mention of provision of any additional recreational facilities in the proposed Local Plan.
Baldock has excellent schools, three primary and a secondary school (Knights Templar School). All work together well and receive good or outstanding reports from Ofsted and they are very much part of the community. All of the schools are at full capacity with limited (at best) room for expansion in buildings and facilities, and even less capacity financially, as recently highlighted by an appeal from Knights Templar to parents to help buy
equipment for a newly built science block. The proposed Local Plan sets out a policy for expanding capacity by 8FE, however there are no details on the location or timing of the building of this extra capacity. A condition of any permission must be the building of sufficient school capacity in advance of any housing expansion and that the new schools must be associated with the existing school structures.
The proposed Local Plan has failed to take into account adequately the unique community spirit, recreation facilities and schooling requirements and therefore fails the Test of Soundness to be consistent with national policy, in particular:
NPPF paragraph 70 requires a Local Plan to plan positively to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs - the lack of any provision in the proposed Local Plan for Baldock in BA1, BA2 and BA3 demonstrates this has not been done
NPPF paragraph 72 requires sufficient school places are available, the proposed Local Plan for Baldock in BA1, BA2 and BA3 lacks any detail on how and when this will be delivered.
NPPF paragraph 74 requires a Local Plan to provide access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation, in the proposed Local Plan for Baldock there is no acknowledgement of the limited capacity of current amenities or the need to create expanded facilities.
Transport in North Herts
The area between Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock is already over capacity for the infrastructure that serves it. The employment level in the area is high but with limited jobs available in the immediate area, a significant amount of the people commute to work either by train or by car using transport links that are already at capacity, specifically:
peak time trains into and out of London are always crowded with inadequate seating and regular delays;
the train operating company has recently announced plans to change the service into London, it was reported at recent meeting that the councillor who prepared the plan was unaware of the changes and the adverse impact they would cause, in particular on off peak journey times and overall capacity;
the A1(M) has solid queues every day between 6.30 am and 9.15am from Junction 10 (Baldock Services) to Junction 6 (Welwyn Garden City) caused by only having 2 lanes for the majority of the distance and increase in usage over the last 10 years with the expansion in towns such as Biggleswade, Stotfold, Stevenage and Shefford;
in the evening peak between 4.30pm and 7.00pm there is a solid queue between Junction 5 and Junction 8
the main through road from Baldock to Hitchin (the B656) has queues into and out of Hitchin and Baldock because of the sheer weight of traffic
there is a significant pinch point at Junction 9 coming out of Letchworth, which causes drivers wishing to travel to Royston, Baldock and Buntingford to avoid this and go through Baldock town centre
As a result journey times are at least double what they should be with significant overcrowding on trains. The proposed expansion in housing proposed in the Local Plan will obviously increase significantly the demand on these key transport links, however it does not make any mention of proposals to alleviate the problem, therefore it is not consistent with national policy in a number of areas:
NPPF Paragraph 34 sets out "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised". With limited employment opportunities in the North Herts area the proposed developments have not considered minimising the need to travel.
NPPF Paragraph 36 requires that where there is a significant amount of movement a Travel Plan is published with the Local Plan. The expansion of Baldock by 80% qualifies as "significant amount of movement" and no Travel Plan has been produced.
Transport in Baldock
Baldock is an historic market town of approximately 4500 houses. The proposed Local Plan is seeking to increase the size of the town by 80%. The transport infrastructure does not cope with current demands and therefore an increase of 80% without significant infrastructure development will grind the town to a stop and the consequential impact on the town centre and
environment will increase public health issues and reduce the enjoyment of living in Baldock with its vibrant community spirit.
 The road system in Baldock has been shaped over hundreds of years and has a pinch point at an intersection of the A507 and B656, which is managed by traffic lights and the junction itself is surrounded by listed buildings which prevent any material changes to the junction.
 Traffic at peak times in the morning and evening mean queues onto the junction are regularly in excess of 10 minutes from all directions with the exception of cars coming from Royston.
The railway station is located near to the intersection, it has limited parking, and is accessed from the A507 approached from the North. As has been stated, there are always queues into the intersection and so getting access to the station by car takes significantly more time than necessary.
Approaching from the north of the town along the A507 there is a railway bridge which has very little space for pedestrians and cyclists to access alongside the queuing traffic. This particularly is dangerous, and with the proposed building of 2800 houses in site BA1 the situation will become critical and lives will be endangered. The proposed Local Plan does not have any policy to alleviate this issue.
The capacity of Baldock station is limited, there is not adequate covered area on the platform, parking spaces are limited but adequate, the ticket office is open for a limited time in the morning, there are no retail facilities or toilets, and the train operating company is proposing to change the off peak service times. It is a small station. It is fair to assume a large majority of the people who would move into the new houses will commute to London and therefore the station facilities must be upgraded as part of any proposed expansion in the town.
 Following the recent town centre development, parking in Baldock is limited but adequate for the demand today, and any material expansion in population will cause parking problems and there are no proposals to alleviate this.
The proposed southern link road associated with BA2 and BA3 has no details. Whilst it may alleviate some pressure on the intersection of the A507 and B656, it could create a route through the Clothall Common estate which will increase the safety of the residents who benefit from the estate being a no through road. Any proposed development should
simply create a junction between the A507 and the new A505 Baldock bypass.
In the proposed BA1 development, there is a proposal to create a link road from the A507 between Junction 10 of the A1(M) and the roundabout east of Baldock on the A505. This road will be extremely busy, it must be a dual carriageway and it must be built in a cutting with adequate provisions for noise and air pollution reduction. The proposed Local Plan does not provide any details of the nature of this road
Any one of these points on their own are enough to demonstrate the proposed Local Plan does not take into account the transport needs created by an expansion, but in aggregate they demonstrate the proposed Local Plan is unworkable and therefore fails the Test of Soundness on the grounds of not being Effective and inconsistent with national policy, in particular:
 NPPF paragraph 31 requires neighbouring authorities to be included in the development of strategic solutions for viable infrastructure, this clearly has not happened with the train company, Network Rail or the authority responsible for highways.
NPPF paragraph 35 requires the Local Plan should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. The lack of any proposals in BA1, BA2 or BA3 for improving pedestrian and cycling links, in particular through the railway bridge on the A507 demonstrates no consideration has been taken to encourage sustainable transport for Baldock.
NPPF paragraph 39 and 40 set out policies to ensure there is adequate parking in town centres. There are no proposals in BA1, BA2 or BA3 to address the increase in demand for the parking in Baldock town centre.
Core infrastructure in Baldock
Baldock has one doctors surgery which provides an excellent service but it is notoriously difficult to get an appointment. Parking at the surgery has been removed and there is no physical capacity to expand the practice. The proposed Local Plan for Baldock makes no proposals on the addition of additional GP capacity.
The nearest hospital is Lister in Stevenage. There has been considerable investment in the capacity and services at the hospital but it is still operating at capacity and the proposed increase in housing will place additional burden an already creaking system. There is no discussion on increasing the capacity of the hospital.
Baldock has two care homes for the elderly. The ageing population and increasing demands for social care mean that the existing social care provision will be inadequate for an expanded population. The proposed Local Plan makes no reference to how social services will be expanded to cope with demand of the residents as well as the increasing demands of the existing population.
I have already set out the position that the proposals in the Local Plan contain inadequate details about the provision of additional schooling, but this is another example of the lack of coordinated planning in the proposal.
Taken in aggregate the lack of provision in the proposed Local Plan for the Baldock area fails the Test of Soundness to be Effective and to be consistent with national policy, in particular:
The proposed Local Plan does not consider the broader infrastructure required to service the expanded the Baldock community;
NPPF paragraph 17 set out 12 Core Planning Principles that should underpin plan-making and decision-making, the proposed Local Plan does not apply the following:
o #3 - proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs;
o #4 - take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;
o #11 - actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and
o #12 - take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.
Impact on Green Belt
Four of the large "strategic developments" proposed by NHDC, including the Blackhorse Farm development, have been located on Green Belt land. Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework lists five purposes for the Green Belt:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Table 5 in the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review6 provides a "Green Belt Review Assessment Matrix". The Green Belt has been divided into sectors, and each sector is subjectively assessed against the first four of the five Green Belt criteria listed above. However, the table does not provide any assessment in relation to the fifth criterion, which demonstrates there is no evidence of urban regeneration in this Local Plan.
The proposal in BA1 north of Baldock is clearly urban sprawl, and is exactly the kind of development the Green Belt was intended to prevent. How has this been allowed to happen when the scale of the site is so out of proportion with the size of Baldock? Through research it is clear that the site has been chosen out of political expediency as the land is owned by Hertfordshire County Council and by allocating such a large scale development without due consideration of the impact on the town of Baldock, as demonstrated in this letter, was the path of least resistance, ignoring the NPPF and best practice for planning.
NPPF paragraph 87 and 88 sets out that inappropriate development harmful to Green Belt will not be approved unless there are "very special circumstances". The proposed Local Plan does not make it clear what the very special
circumstances are that mean the significant development proposed in BA1 should be approved.
Alternative Approach
Having demonstrated the proposed Local Plan does not pass Tests of Soundness across a number of elements and therefore does not constitute a sustainable development, there is still the underlying need to increase the housing capacity. I believe a more strategic and holistic approach is needed, not just in North Herts but with associated districts, and such an approach needs to address the following points before any significant housing developments are started:
Increase the capacity of the A1(M) from Biggleswade to Welwyn to have at least 3 lane, but preferably 4 lane carriageways;
Build a bypass for the whole of the Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock to alleviate the pressure on the B656 (old A505 route) and the associated pinch points such as the intersection between the A507 and the B6565 in Baldock. Wherever possible this bypass will be built in a cutting and be dual carriageway;
Identify a site where a new town, built on Garden City principles, for up to 10,000 houses and associated infrastructure can be built with close transport links to rail and road - the site West of Stevenage is ideal and a tram route can be built to transport commuters to Stevenage station;
Identify the site for a new hospital or significantly expand the capacity at Lister Hospital;
The plans for building on site BA1 should be shelved in favour of the consolidated larger new town;
To accommodate a small increase in housing in BA2 and BA3 in Baldock, there should be a new intersection built on the intersection of the A507 and A505 new Baldock bypass and an expansion of capacity in local schools, community amenities and social care provisions
Summary
The proposed Local Plan does not support the principle of sustainable development and fails Tests of Soundness on a number of levels. There is no fully costed plan because all of the elements such as transport and schooling have no details to be able to fully cost them. The approach seems to be build the housing then worry about the infrastructure later, this is totally flawed and
will destroy the viability and vitality local Baldock community. Finally, the sheer scale of the proposed expansion is out of all proportion and would in and of itself ruin the beautiful town of Baldock.

I would like to protest most strongly, on behalf of the members of this Society, about the possibility of massive and disproportionate housing development at Baldock. The following remarks refer to site references BA1, BA2, BA3 and BA4.
1. Historic Environment (HE) & Countryside and Green Belt (CGB):
As a History society the first matter we wish to draw your attention to is the effect any large increase in housing would have on the historic character and culture of Baldock and its setting within the countryside. This historic value of the town has been noted over the years by various authorities and I summarise them below for your information:
* Sir Patrick Abercrombie's Greater London Plan of 1944 considered Baldock to be
compactly developed with little discordant building and with a pleasing
relationship with the countryside, especially towards the north. In other words an
unspoilt, small country town. The report concluded that the town was "not
topographically suited for any appreciable expansion".
* In 1974 the Department of the Environment assessed the Baldock Conservation
Area as being of Outstanding Historic Interest.
* In 1977 NHDC and HCC jointly published the Baldock Town Scheme which
stated that "Baldock is one of five Hertfordshire towns listed by the Council for
British Archaeology as being of National Importance".
* Today the town has over 100 listed buildings in the town centre, equivalent, pro
rata, to an historic centre like Ely. It has one of the finest medieval churches in
Hertfordshire and the relationship of the church with the town clustered around in
its attractive valley setting is an important part of its charm.
Over the years neither BUDC nor NHDC have taken notice of these views or taken much care of the historic townscape and the rural setting which is so vital to it. The town has doubled in population since 1945 but nevertheless has managed to retain some of its rural charm and small-town feel because to the north and north-east there has been little development and because the countryside still reaches into the town from the south-east.
Yet these are precisely the areas that the Council have listed for development.
The Council planners appear to have completely ignored the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that councils must "recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance."
Likewise they have ignored the Government's intention that the Green Belt (which, like all the countryside, must surely also be considered a 'heritage asset') should be
preserved. Instead the only discernable planning issue that appears to have been taken into account is availability and political expediency, that is to say, 'let us dump these houses on the smallest town with the smallest vote'. As Sir Oliver Heald, MP, has pointed out, Green Belt land is supposed to be protected wherever possible yet, even though most of the District is not Green Belt, the Council have allocated the bulk of the housing on Green Belt land.
It seems from their Local Plan documents that the Council considers that its
responsibility for the heritage aspect of the towns in its care extends only as far as the boundaries of their conservation areas (this is despite the requirement of the NPPF that there should be 'conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment including landscapes' clearly implying that the two are one and the same, and that the setting of one in the other is important.) The Council's Plan is indifferent to this and the likely consequence, as far as Baldock is concerned, can be seen elsewhere all over the country in, what English Heritage calls, 'heritage ghettos': isolated islands of old buildings along a street frontage surrounded by unsympathetic and inappropriate urban development and infilling. Baldock's heritage character is that of a small country town in its country setting and that is the 'heritage asset' that should be preserved and not simply a selection of old buildings.
2. The economic effect on the town (ETC):
To a great extent, the economy of Baldock town centre, such as it is, relies on its
attractive character to draw people into the town. However, if there is to be any
significant return to a prosperous town centre it will need to attract more tourists and visitors from outside the town because the experience of the last 30 years has
demonstrated that population growth does not bring noticeable extra trade to the town centre. The town has only one real asset to attract that further trade and that is its historic character, because it has little else to offer a visitor. Without that asset there is little hope of a recovery. The Plan says that the survival of tourism "depends upon conserving and maintaining the quality of the resources upon which it depends" (ETC5) yet in Baldock the housing proposals threaten to destroy that very quality of attractiveness that is its only relistic hope.
In fact there are signs of prosperity returning to the town centre for the first time in
decades and visitors are being attracted to the town because of its character. The recent improvements to the town centre seem to have played a part in this and, with the new Arts and Heritage Centre project, there are grounds for hope that things may improve further, but it is a tenuous hope and could easily be destroyed by massive, unsympathetic development.
I should also point out that these considerations do not apply, to anything like the same degree, to the other towns in the district which are already of such a size that a few thousand extra houses would make little difference to them. The proposals are more akin to hugely increasing in size an historic village like Ashwell. It will be noted that Council would not countenance such an increase at Ashwell and yet almost precisely the same arguments apply to Baldock as they do to Ashwell.
Natural environment (NE):
Apart from the aesthetic damage to the landscape these proposals will bring and the loss of valuable farmland (which ought to be considered vital for our food security) we are concerned about the potential damage to the River Ivel. It is noticeable that the Ivel, which is an important and rare chalk-stream habitat, as well as an important local amenity, has run dry on several occasions in recent years and there is the possibility of doing irreversible damage to the river, its flora and fauna and environment, if the local water table or the capacity of the sewerage treatment works is overwhelmed by such a large increase of housing. This is not a concern that is really dealt with in the Plan except in vague terms.
There is also the related question as to whether local ground water sources can adequately supply the river and a development of this size with water especially in time of drought.
A great deal of money was spent on carefully landscaping the A505 Bypass to minimise its environmental impact on the lower end of what is surely one of the prettiest valleys in the District with its picturesque views of the town from the hills at its head. This would be so much money - ratepayers' money - wasted if the 'trapped land' is to be developed in BA2, and BA3.
Infrastructure delivery (ID):
Baldock's road network is already under strain despite having two bypasses. For large parts of the day there is congestion in the historic town centre which cannot be relieved because it is caused largely by local traffic. The Council acknowledges that this already causes significant pollution in the Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street areas which nearly exceeds national guidelines and yet despite claiming that your policy 'addresses the protection of the health of the residents' it will, in fact, make it worse.. A massive increase in housing would exacerbate these problems and, because so much of the traffic is local with local destinations, they are unlikely to be solved by the proposed relief road to the eastern A505 junction in area BA1. If the present town is still congested after the construction of two bypasses then a town 40% larger is not going to be relieved by a third bypass heading in the wrong direction. Wrong, that is, because most of the traffic through the town centre seems to be going to or from Letchworth with school runs also causing extra difficulties at certain times of the day. No one would use this proposed relief road to go to Letchworth, or the supermarkets, or the schools, because of the length of the
diversion and the likelihood of traffic jams on Letchworth Gate.
Area BA1 is a particular cause of concern here because its sheer scale is likely to cause severe congestion at the Whitehorse Street/Clothall Road/Station Road/Royston Road junction which will also have to cope with added traffic from BA2, BA3 and BA4.
Pedestrian access to the town from BA1 would also be severely limited by the
dangerously narrow pavements under the railway bridge and it is hard to imagine that parents would be happy for younger children to use it. This would add to the likelihood of BA1 being cut off from the town and increasing congestion on the school run.
The proposals for BA2, BA3 and BA4, as well as increasing traffic volume at the
abovesaid junction would mostly add to the existing problems in South Road, a
residential road that is already being used as a 'rat run' and is too narrow to deal with greater volumes of traffic The Preferred Options Plan appears not to have investigated the feasibility of the third bypass/relief road for BA1, either as a realistic means of relieving the congestion in the town centre or for its economic viability. In effect the railway holds a ransom strip and may use it to extract a sizeable sum. There is also the cost of building a bridge over the railway. Who would pay these costs? Is it the developer or the Council? If the latter why
should we be throwing ratepayers money at, what the NHDC's own planning portfolio
holder considers, a 'flawed plan'?
The proposed increase is proportionately so large and so rapid that it is going to put
severe strain on schools, medical services, surgeries, water supply and the railway system none of which are likely to be adequately catered for and some of which are beyond the control of the Council but nevertheless need to be considered. It will therefore cause significant problems and severely impact on the quality of life of the residents of this town and neighbouring villages.
As Baldock's treated sewerage flows into the Ivel it is vital that the treatment system is able to cope with a 75% increase in volume and be in place before a problem occurs. Has the cost of this been assessed and, again, who is to pay for the consequent costs?
NHDC's Vision and Objectives for Baldock:
It would seem that there is no discernable vision or viable plan for the future of Baldock beyond dumping the bulk of the District's housing problem here. There is no indication that there will ever be an ultimate capping of population/housing or any alternative to further urban sprawl, just a rush to solve an immediate problem.
There seems to have been no attempt to find alternative sites for housing in order to
spread the distribution more fairly. In particular there is no indication that Herts County Council has been approached about any of its other considerable landholdings within the District. There is a sizeable holding north of Ickleford, for example, on a very unremarkable, flat piece of countryside (unlike the attractive countryside around Baldock); it is convenient to Arlesey Station on the mainline which would be far better able to cope with increased traffic than the Cambridge branch line and it is on the main Hitchin to Bedford road with consequent employment opportunities in those towns, yet it has not been considered.
Baldock, on the other hand, has few employment opportunities, except those offered on the Letchworth Industrial Area, and this fact will be another cause of increased traffic through the town.
The consequence of dumping far more houses than the town needs, or that local
employers require, is that Baldock will become largely a dormitory town with a
consequent detrimental effect on its sense of community and its economy.
All three of our MPs consider the plan flawed, inadequate and unfair; even the NHDC
Planning Portfolio holder apparently agrees. If so, how can it be acceptable to proceed with a flawed plan?
Most people would surely agree that to meet the District's quota each town and village should accommodate its own housing needs and those of the employers and industries within those communities. It is against all natural justice and fairness that the quota should be allocated largely to one town simply because the land has been made available and because it is the smallest town with the least votes and power to oppose it.
This Local Plan threatens to destroy the identity of the last remaining small rural market town in your District and the equally precious sense of community that makes it such a pleasant place to live.

See attached

Now that NHDC has decided that it does not intend to develop an equitable Local Plan across North Herts and that Baldock will take a disproportionate number of the new housing which will result in the town being doubled in size, there are a number of questions and considerations that arise with such a large increase which need to be carefully considered and answered before the development commences.

Firstly and most importantly the proposed road network for Baldock is weak and undefined and will be totally inadequate for the number of new houses proposed. The bottle-neck problems today are well known particularly at the Whitehorse Road / Royston Road crossroads and also on the A1 south around Stevenage. A new road connecting the A507 London Road to the A505 Baldock bypass including a new bridge across the railway and some tinkering around the station area will not provide the road infrastructure that will be required from three thousand new homes and as a consequence in excess of four thousand additional vehicles.

Has anyone associated with the Local Plan considered where these new homeowners might work and how will they travel to their work and what the impact will be on roads in and around Baldock. It is most likely that people will work either south or west of Baldock given the limited employment opportunities to the east or north. There are no provisions in the Local Plan to address these requirements, which render it unsatisfactory and ineffective as it stands. These needs must be addressed as a matter of priority if this Local Plan is seriously to be pursued.

The proposed development of 2,800 new homes to the north of Baldock is effectively the development of a 'new town' adjacent to the oldest market town in North Herts and therefore, the planning must be considerably more robust and effective than has been identified in the Local Plan. Areas of weakness relate to road infrastructure, water and sewerage provision, employment provision, infrastructure and its funding, greenspaces and landscaping of the 'new town'.

Furthermore what provisions have been made for the retention of the community based culture that currently exists in Baldock?............the answer....... none whatsoever.

My request is for the Local Plan to be withdrawn in order that all or at least some of these issues are adequately addressed.

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

I am responding to the NHDC Local Plan Consultation, and specifically to the proposals in the direct Baldock area, as representative of the trustees of Christchurch Baldock.

We note that the proposals comment on the requirement of additional primary and secondary schooling facilities, as well as additional provision of community premises/ places of worship should the proposed housing development of circa 3,000 homes proceed.

We note these are in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirements.

We would emphasise the need to be given to provide these facilities at an early stage of any future development in order that existing facilities are not over-burdened and to provide an attractive and well facilitated community.

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

We would like to strongly object to the proposed number of houses that the North Hertfordshire Local Plan has allocated to Baldock, there are just too many.

Baldock is the oldest and smallest market town in Hertfordshire and has a large number of listed buildings and conservation areas. We acknowledge that new houses are needed in North Hertfordshire but the amount of over 3,400 which is proposed for Baldock would double the size of the town and totally change the towns ambience. Our roads are already very busy and the centre of Baldock still has jams despite the bypass. The southbound A1 traffic is always at a standstill in the morning rush hours and very often at other times, due in part to the two lane only stretch which passes Stevenage. It has now been disclosed that our train service is to be cut to one train an hour at all but peak times starting in 2017. New houses mean people who will need to travel to work and it is impossible that they will all find work locally they will therefore add to the already overloaded road and rail networks. Much of this proposed housing is to be built on Green Belt land which we all have a duty to protect and nurture. Green Belt land was designed for a very good reason and should be respected. Future generations will loose our countryside if Green Belt land is allowed to be built on.

We hope that you will take into account the wishes of the local community and revise the proposed number of new houses to a much smaller number.

See attachment

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

We would like to comment with reference to the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (Proposed Submission, October 2016) and specifically the massive proposed development at the Blackhorse Farm site to the north of Baldock. We are not opposed to houses being built in the area, in fact we are very much in favour. However the plans put forward by the Council are completely ill-advised, inappropriate and irresponsible and will mean an increase of 80% in the size of the town. This we believe will destroy the historic town of Baldock and its surrounding area.

Our objections are based on the two tests of soundness that local plans are required to meet:

1. Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities;"
2. "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework

We do not believe that the Council has shown to the public and the residents of Baldock and surrounding villages that it has a deliverable plan in relation to:

* The volume of traffic in Baldock. There is a key area of traffic congestion in Baldock which has not been covered adequately by the Council - the junction where the A507 North Road meets the Royston Road. The junction is used by local traffic as well as a through route for all vehicles from surrounding main roads including the A1M. This is already a severe bottleneck especially at busy times - commuter rush hour, school runs etc. The junction cannot be widened due to listed building on either side of the junction. Therefore building a massive housing estate on the Blackhorse Farm estate will only make the current problems even more intolerable. The council has made little or no attempt to resolve this issue even though the National Planning Policy Framework clearly requires a Transport Assessment to be produced.

* Baldock Train Station. The town train station is situated between the congested junction (as raised in the previous point), and the railway embankment with its reduced access due to the railway bridge. The council does not appear to have taken into consideration that the building of 2,800 houses will put an intolerable strain on the station not least regarding parking and access at peak times of the day. It is expected that many people who will move into the new Blackhorse farm estate will work outside of Baldock - Cambridge, Stevenage, London etc. - and will use the local train station.

* As well as accessibility to the train station the capacity of the train station and the actual rail journeys capacity required to meet the commuter demand will be a significant issue if the Blackhorse Farm estate is built. The council has not indicated how this increase in capacity will be handled by the current station or indeed by the rail company who runs the rail franchise (Govia). The Council has not shown how they are working with Govia to deliver a sustainable plan. Indeed it appears that Govia are actually planning to reduce the overall Baldock service which indicates that the Council are not working "with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development"
as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

* Road Infrastructure - Bypass connecting A507 and A505.
The council has proposed that a new bypass should be built connecting the A507 and the A505 (although as yet no plans have been produced. The proposed bypass will not address the issues raised in the previous paragraph as residents will need to access Baldock in order to use the railway station or alternatively use a station further up or down the line (which is unlikely). The full implications of the increased traffic on Baldock and the train station have not been fully considered by the Council.
The bypass, which will go through the Blackhorse farm estate, will inevitably lead to an "M25 effect" with traffic increasing as access is made easier from all points between the M1 through Ampthill and on to Royston and Cambridge. Once again we have seen no evidence that the Council has taken this likely effect into account

* The Council have not shown any realistic plans with regards to how the Baldock town infrastructure will be enhanced to take account of an 80% increase in size. The historic town of Baldock will be severely ravaged by this proposal and the Council has not shown the residents of Baldock and the surrounding impacted villages how it proposes to realistically cope with the proposed increase. What are the clear proposals for road infrastructure for the whole area, doctor surgeries, schools, impact on waste, water usage etc. The council has tried to put off all queries with meaningless platitudes and vague statements but unless there is a clear strategy and clear plans, the Blackhorse housing development could be given the go ahead without all the evidence and plans being made available for scrutiny.

* The proposed Blackhorse Farm development is on Green Belt land which is owned by the Council. It is in our opinion the ownership of the land that is driving the plans - it is a relatively easy and "cheap" decision for the Council to make without having to look for other more acceptable solutions. The council does not appear to have taken into account the National Planning Policy Framework covering the Green Belt. The Council plan will lead to urban sprawl which they are obliged to avoid. This proposal appears to ride roughshod over the Government's stated aim with regards to the Green Belt and that Councils should not build on Green Belt land merely to meet planning targets. The Council has failed to prove to Baldock residents that there are no alternative sites available rather than this massive development which will ostensibly double the size of Baldock but will not increase the required facilities to meet demand.

Conclusion

In our opinion the Council has failed to prove that it is meeting the "Tests of Soundness" that local plans are required to meet and has failed to develop an adequate strategy and detailed plans with regards to the impact of the Blackhorse Farm estate on Baldock, the surrounding villages and settlements, the overall road and rail infrastructure and the impact of the internal town infrastructure.

Baldock is already struggling with the traffic due to its historic buildings and road access which was not developed for modern day traffic volumes. To increase this by almost doubling the size of the town is completely unacceptable.

We are not against building houses in Baldock and the surrounding area but we are against a massive development with no clear strategy for the area which appears to be based on the main fact that the green belt farm land is owned by the Council and so can be used as they wish without taking into account local concerns and their statutory duty around the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council need to revisit their plans, dramatically reduce the size of the Blackhorse development and form a clear strategy and detailed plans in order to meet their requirements for the 2011 - 2031 Plans.