BA1 Land north of Baldock

This is a copy of the representations about policy SP14, relating to Strategic Site BA1.

The Local Plan and supporting documents show that Site BA1 will have many adverse impacts which have not been given adequate weight, especially as there may be alternative sites which do not suffer such impacts. (See objections to policy SP8 Housing.)

1 Development on Site BA1 will be very difficult to integrate properly with the rest of Baldock because the railway line is a physical barrier with few crossing points. In effect, the development of Site BA1, with the infrastructure that it must have, will create a separate settlement. Thus it contravenes paras. 4.100 to 4.103 of the Local Plan, it fails to conform to the vision articulated in para. 3.6 and it fails to maintain the existing settlement pattern as required by objective ENV1.

2. The scale of growth proposed for Baldock, most of it in site BA1, will have overwhelming negative effects on road traffic in and around Baldock, but these have not been assessed adequately in the Local Plan and the proposed mitigation measures are minimal and unlikely to be effective. The draft AECOM Local Transport Modelling Report of July this year only examines the existing situation, not the impact of proposed developments, and the one mitigation measure proposed for Baldock (a mini roundabout and signal optimisation at Whitehorse Street/Royston Road) is trivial.

The proposed link road between the A507 and A505, and the proposed southern link road between Wallington Road and Royston Road B656 (in the proposals for Sites BA3 and BA4), will divert some traffic away from the junction at Whitehorse Street/Royston Road which is a known problem (para. 13.29), but additional local traffic from Site BA1 and other Baldock development sites will nevertheless lead to a large net increase in traffic through this junction. NHDC implicitly accepts that a proportion of traffic from Site BA1 will pass through this junction (para. 4.179). A high proportion of trips from Site BA1 will be towards Hitchin and Letchworth both for work and other purposes (e.g. to the retail trading site east of Letchworth) and most of these will go via this junction and through the town centre conservation area. The Local Plan notes how interconnected these towns are (paras. 2.31, 4.27, 13.14) and that many residents will commute out (paras 4.25 and 4.26). Use of the link road to the A505 to go from from Site BA1 to Letchworth and Hitchin will involve a long round trip, and most residents will not do this. In any case this route includes another problem junction, at Letchworth Gate. Trips from Site BA1 to the large supermarket at the south end of Baldock High Street will add to traffic problems within the town.

Some mitigation of the traffic problems might be achieved by upgrading an alternative route through Baldock via Icknield Way and Norton Road, but this is also very difficult and highly contentious.

The deliverability and financial viability of the link road to the A505 is questionable, given the lack of detail especially about the new rail crossing that is required and especially if, as is likely, this has to be under the railway.

The increased traffic through Baldock will breach air quality standards, which the plan notes are already close to being exceeded (para. 9.28).

3. The site makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt (Housing and Green Belt Background Paper, para. 3.14). Using it, along with the other sites around the edge of Baldock, will negatively affect the character of the landscape and townscape. The land north of Bygrave Road is of particular concern because it has been assessed as having moderate to high landscape sensitivity (Land North of Baldock: Landscape Sensitivity Study, July 2013, para. 5.2).

4. 4. There is insufficient detail about the masterplan and the other site-specific requirements that will have to be met. The list of requirements is encouraging but more detail is needed about such matters as the location of infrastructure facilities and the timing of their provision, so that they are determined before developers start producing proposals.

Part of the infrastructure needed within site BA1 is additional car parking for the railway station, and land needs to be reserved for this as close as possible to the station. This is not mentioned.

Traffic - whenever there is a bridge strike or Lights failure flooding, building stike at Raban Court at White Horse Street crossroad there is chaos. There will be some traffic redirected by the proposed bypass but there will be without doubt a significant increase in volume esp. as there is development underway on Icknield Way East and one prosed for Icknield Way (BA6) - 86 properties sin total. In addition theres overflow from Letchworth/ Hitchin as they to increase in size feeding into the total traffic at Baldock's crossroads.

RADWELL PARISH MEETING RESPONSE to NHDC LOCAL PLAN 2011-31
A special Parish meeting on November 10th 2016 was attended by about a third of the electors in the Parish.

Radwell Parish Meeting is very concerned about the North Hertfordshire DC Local Plan submission.
We are pleased to note there are no plans to expand Radwell village which is in the Green Belt.

We do not believe that the proposals are justified, effective or consistent with national policy, especially as regards the site BA1 to the North of Baldock.

General overview:
NHDC commissioned the North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study (April 2016) which concludes that a new settlement/Garden City will be required to meet housing needs post-2031. The proposed local plan makes no contribution to this and should be withdrawn and replaced with a plan that makes progress towards this objective. In particular, Baldock developments proposed will enlarge the town by about 80% of which the largest part will be Area BA1 which is separated from the town by the railway. It is a location which has nothing to recommend it. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan - the new railway crossings which are proposed, will only worsen the existing overcrowded vehicular access to the town.

It is not contested that the only reason BA1 has been included is the fact that the land-owner (Hertfordshire County Council) is willing to sell the land for development, despite its being green-belt. It is inconceivable that this area would have been selected for a major development of Baldock, were it not for this fact, which is not a 'planning' criterion at all. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the North Herts plan does.

Specific comments:
Radwell is North of Baldock, which is our nearest town. There is already a huge amount of traffic on North Road A507 in morning and afternoon rush hours, between the Radwell area and Baldock. The major housing development (BA1) is planned to extend Baldock northwards.
This will inevitably produce a great increase in traffic going to and from Baldock station, schools and town centre and through the already-inadequate railway bridge. The plan offers no solution to this central weakness and in this respect is unsustainable and not effective.

Although primary schooling may be provided within the development, some parents - particularly those seeking a Catholic or C of E school - will choose primary schools in the current town. A secondary school in the BA1 area would not have sustainable pupil numbers until most of the housing is occupied, and probably not even then, at today's level of school funding. The current Baldock secondary school has site capacity for substantial expansion. Thus pupils of secondary age will also be taken to school via this same narrow railway bridge. The plan's vague suggestion of 'secondary age education provision' (p.61, h) ignores this problem and is therefore unsound.

The suggested new road crossing over the railway to the east of the development may provide for residents seeking to travel East or South on the A505. Those heading for the station or town centre, and living at the East end of the development, might choose to use this crossing; if so they will then use the Royston Road (B656), already overcrowded at rush-hour. The expansion of the business areas (BE2, BA10) will also increase traffic on the B656. This road does not have sufficient capacity, nor room to be widened. In failing to recognise this, the plan is unsound and unsustainable.

Residents of BA1 travelling West will also contribute to A507 traffic under the railway to join the B656 West-bound.

In short, development BA1 will be quite unsustainable unless an alternative way can be found for access to the town, station and schools. The plans ignore this problem. Site BA1 was not, and would never have been, selected by rational thought, but only because the landowner (the County Council) has offered it for development. Development planning on the basis of landowners' offers is irrational and unsustainable.

The current rail service to Baldock will not accommodate an increased population. The provision of more, and longer, trains will require enlargement of the station, and much more car parking (already a severe problem). This is ignored in the plan. This point applies to all substantial development of the town, i.e. BA2, 3 and 4 as well as BA1. In the Local Plan Submission (p. 61, Policy SP14: Site BA1, e(ii)) there is a 'requirement' for safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to, Baldock Station, but the plan itself offers no solution as to how these are to be achieved, and if not achievable, the use of the word 'requirement' amounts to a recognition that the plan is undeliverable, and therefore unjustified and not effective.

This Local Plan has little sign of infrastructure and strategic planning. Adding to existing towns without proper planning for cycle paths, roads, railways, parking etc is chaotic. We need a proper long term plan; not a rapid reaction to a set of statistics for housing numbers, which themselves seem to be proving inaccurate. No justification is offered for building in the Green Belt - clearly the reason is not a planning argument, but simply the presence of a willing seller of the land in question. The plan is therefore not consistent with national policy.

NHDC should propose only reasonable numbers of houses, not on the Green Belt, and not enormously enlarging existing settlements. Brownfield sites should be used and plans for a new town should be advanced.

There seems little doubt that the character of Baldock will change as it almost doubles in size. Of course, this is difficult to quantify, but should be noted.

Pollution levels will undoubtedly increase as the town almost doubles in size. This will impact the health of the residents. (Prior to the A505 bypass, Baldock youth asthma rates were more than twice the national average, they are currently lower than the national average. It would not be good to see them rise to those high levels again).

The new development north of Baldock is situated in such a position that makes sustainable transport - specifically cycling - difficult, as routes would disgorge onto the busy North Road or B656.

Such a rapid rise in the population levels will most probably put stresses on services, especially schooling.

We are strongly objecting to the proposed plans of building another 33 homes on Claybush Road, outside Ashwell, Hertfordshire.

Village boundaries exist so that villages can keep their village character. It would be a dangerous precedent to re-draw this line for the proposed development, and similar plans have been rejected in the past for good reasons.

Recently, quite a few new houses have been built within the village boundary, in line with and above government requirements, and absorbing more people is simply untenable for our village facilities and social fabric.

Our school is already overcrowded, often with classes of over 30 pupils, or costly smaller split classes that require extra personnel, which the school can't afford. The school is trying to reduce its intake to make class sizes fairer on children and teachers, and adding children from the proposed development would undermine that effort.

It is already difficult to obtain an appointment within a week at our doctor's surgery, which leaves especially older people and young families vulnerable.

The sewerage and water systems are old with leaks and blockages already occurring.

Ashwell's streets are already clogged with cars and further influx would lead to complete chaos during peak hours.

On a different note, we also find the site wholly unsuitable for development, as the descent on foot into the village would be treacherous for older people, families or those with disabilities.

Finally, the density of the site exceeds that of the rest of the village and would alter its character.

Our opinion is that building a completely new town or village would do much to ease the tensions occurring in our village as well as other villages in the home counties, be it for infrastructural, social or practical reasons.

We furthermore object to the Ba1 development as this is a severe encroachment on pristine countryside and nearly starts to absorb a neighbouring village.

Many thanks for taking our objection seriously.

I am writing to comment on the NHDC 's local plan 2011-2031.
My comments concentrate on the impact which the development will have
1. on the Historic Market Town of Baldock and
2. the particular area which I have lived in since 1982 and
3. the particular dwellings situated in the area I live in

The Construction of 3,436 Houses (Reference 13.15)
The NPPF soundness criteria
Positively Prepared
During the 34 years in which I have lived in Baldock I have already seen the town grow steadily, the largest development being The Clothall Common Housing Estate which is earmarked to be increased by yet another 500 houses.
As a result of this expansion and other regional domestic and commercial growth the town became increasingly congested with huge traffic jams especially on the Eastern approach, a problem which was eased by the construction of the 2006 Baldock Bypass, reference 13,22.
The present plan is likely to reverse the slight improvement which was achieved by the by-pass as 3,436 new households will have to move about the town in addition to whatever new commercial development is planned along the B
Reference No.13.15
The town presently has 4,491 dwellings. The Local Plan intends to add a total of another 3,436 of which 3,136 are still to be built between now and 2031.
The 2011 census presented a population of 10,280 inhabitants. 3,436 new houses will increase the population of Baldock by a minimum of 7-8,000 people.
These figures speak for themselves.
This plan is not positively prepared as it is completely out of proportion with any other development in North Herts.
Justified
The land North of Baldock, reference BA1, is a large open site and seems to have been chosen as a convenient plot because 2,800 houses can be fitted into it. There is no justification for such inadequate planning.
The Local Plan is not justified because reasonable alternatives do not appear to have been fully explored.
Effective
The town of Baldock cannot absorb the intended development, it is not an effective development.
In order to add that number of dwellings the present infrastructure of Baldock needs to be almost doubled which is totally unfeasible. also, that would have to be done BEFORE the 3,436 houses are all up and running or serious shortages will be experienced as we know happened in Great Ashby nr Stevenage. It seems as if Modern Baldock is intended to be built alongside Historic Baldock which is neither effective nor conducive to the nature of this Historic Market Town with its distinct character.
Consistent with National Policy
The development of the land under reference BA1 is not sustainable.

The Importance of Baldock's History and Heritage (Reference 13.13/13.14/13.17)
Positively Prepared
Not at all.
When coming to Baldock on the Eastern Approach there is a BROWN Signpost saying BALDOCK - HISTORIC MARKET TOWN
Baldock's rich history has long been established. During the preparation for the construction of the Baldock Bypass extensive archeological diggings were carried out involving the Baldock Schools. The findings of Roman artefacts can be viewed in local museums.
Baldock's centre has a conservation area and many old buildings which are already seriously compromised by the intense through traffic.
"Managing growth in this relatively developed part of the District whilst allowing each town to retain its identity is one of the challenges to be addressed" (Reference 13.14)

Justified
The need for more housing cannot justify the destruction of a Historic Market Town.

Site BA10 New Employment Allocation- Royston Road

Positively Prepared
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Justified
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Effective
No comment, I am not able to assess that
Consistent with National Policy
No comment, I am not able to assess that

The Plan to develop the site BA10 into a larger business park fails in its entirety to acknowledge the fact that there are 8 existing family homes spread along the Royston Road and situated on the very site that is to be developed.
When I moved into my house in 1982 all these houses were owned by Hertfordshire Council.
Over the years the Council sold most of them into private ownership and all the privately owned houses have been renovated, modernised and extended. Two of those houses changed hands in 2015 and it is an outrage that none of the searches which were done found anything about the intended development of the site they are on. This poses some serious questions:
1. Is the Council hiding anything?
2. Why have we not been notified of anything regarding the future of our houses if there is going to be commercial development around our houses?
3. Why can Councillor Michael Muir and Councillor Mike Weeks not offer any information at all
about this part of the plan?
This section of the plan has not considered any alternative or any impact on the 8 dwellings along the Royston Road.
This situation has caused considerable anxiety amongst the residents along the Royston Road.
We do not know what the outcome for these 8 houses will be.
Nobody can tell us whether our homes will be subject to compulsory purchase and will eventually be demolished the Business Park will be built behind and around our houses thus hugely reducing the value of our houses and making a sale impossible.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in 2003 in the context of the construction of the Baldock Bypass I received a document from the Planning & Environment Directorate of North Herts District Council.
This document was a DRAFT REGISTER OF IMPORTANT LOCAL BUILDINGS FOR BALDOCK.
It included
Small Holdings, Royston Road
Early 20th Century small holdings are positioned at regular intervals along Royston Road. Each house has been designed with a group of outbuildings and a small area of land. The houses are simple rectangular blocks with rendered walls and plain tiled roofs. the outbuildings are weatherboarded with slate roofs.

The houses could not be included in the register in the end because the properties are within the Bygrave Parish and not Baldock. However, there is a case for their contribution to the Baldock heritage and they must not be destroyed.

The aspect of transport to and from a potential business park has not been addressed at all , nor has it been addressed how that would further impact on an already congested crossroads in the centre of Baldock.
This plan is neither positively prepared, nor justified, nor effective.

Conclusion
This plan is ill-prepared and unsound in its present form. The size of the suggested development is unfair and completely disproportionate with any other development and will destroy the character of an important town.
Whilst there is acceptance in the town that some development will have to happen, there is a very determined consensus that it cannot take on this size and shape and needs to be revised.