BA2 Land west of Clothall Road

The site is adjacent to the Weston Hills Nature reserve which is rare chalk downland and home to slow-worms and the rare chalk blue butterflies. The number of houses is too large for the site and for its proximity to the above. It is valuable farmland and an important recreational area.
This site will have an adverse impact on traffic through the town and will significantly increase congestion and pollution as most of the new traffic will pass through the town to access the A1M (north- and south-bound), the supermarket, and to get to other North Herts towns.
There is insufficient infrastructure to support the development of 4 sites in the Clothall Common area without detriment to the life of present residents.

Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.

Section 4 - Communities

Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
*2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
*The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
*Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
*It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
*Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
*No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
*All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
*BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
*Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
*Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
*More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
*A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
*A large green space with ample parking
*Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Tree planting along every public road
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
*Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
*Funding to extend the library and community centre.
*Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
*Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.

Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
*Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
*Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
*The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
*Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
*No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
*All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
*Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
*There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
*Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require each site to include a children's play park.
*Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Funding to extend both the library and community centre
*Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.

There is no mention of providing additional schools and doctors services -
the current surgery already has a 2 week wait for appointments.

Baldock's schools are oversubscribed, with many children having to travel
out to village schools. This proposal would fill another classroom, which
does not exist.

The increased traffic would put further pressure on already congested
junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.

All construction traffic for the development would need to go through the
town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.

This site needs a link to Clothall Road, A507. This is not stated.

Development of Site BA2 would not by itself to justify additional infrastructure, but the total number of homes proposed for Sites BA2, BA3, BA4 and BA5 exceeds the threshold for a strategic housing site (para. 1.3 of the Local Plan) and requires appropriate additional infrastructure. This is not made sufficiently explicit. Existing infrastructure (schools, health care etc.) operates close to capacity, so the additional infrastructure needs to be provided at an early stage (most likely within enlarged Clothall Common estate).

The point "Creation of appropriate, defensible Green Belt boundary along south-western perimeter of site;" appears to be incorrectly worded. Land to the south-west is currently developed (apart from a tiny strip to the south), this probably means to the "south-eastern and south-western perimeter of the site" and should be corrected.

I object to the proposed draft plan. The draft local plan does not represent consistency with government policy. It doesn't provision enough supporting infrastructure or provide enough mitigation to support such a high number of houses in such a small town. It fails to demonstrate flexibility to preserve Green Belt land or provide policies to protect existing estates and infrastructure. Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to constitute changing the greenbelt boundaries in Baldock.

The 'soundness test' on this feedback form is fundamentally flawed. It is not clear if checking the box accepts or rejects the soundness criteria in question.

[...] We move to Baldock because of its Rural setting and background, we were forced to accept the building of the Baldock bypass which has made little difference now to traffic flow through the town, especially from the A507 traffic entering the town from the north -west and south-east. The prospect of building 200 additional homes east of Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 400 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock. The provision of a link road from the Wallington Road will become a bypass affecting the residents of Clothall Common

[...]We move to Baldock because of its Rural setting and background, we were forced to accept the building of the Baldock bypass which has made little difference now to traffic flow through the town, especially from the A507 traffic entering the town from the north -west and south-east. The prospect of building 200 additional homes east of Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 400 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock.

This development area will presumably be connected to South Road. This road has a variable width and is unlikely to cope with much more traffic, especially in conjunction with developments BA3 and BA4 (and their proposed southern link road). There is limited scope for road improvements here.

There is an expectation that town can cope with the new properties under BA2, BA3, BA4, BA5 BA6, BA7, BA11 excluding those under BA1 with not support which is incorrect.
There is an expectation that Baldock can just take the 800 additional homes with no impact. Child care, schooling, sports facilities are already under significant strain with both Hartsfield and Knights Templar dropping an Ofsted rating at the last review. If anyone went to see the schools you can see how they are struggling to cope with number of pupils and additional class sizes and have no space.

I am writing to express my concerns, hopefully just like many other Baldock residents will in the consultation period, towards the proposed developments on what is currently, rich and diverse rural countryside which comes under the green belt. We, as residents who remain unconvinced about the plans are becoming rather concerned as to whether democracy will prevail in the decision and that logistics and communication appear severely lacking.

I sincerely hope you will take the time and the effort to read through my response. Being a younger individual whose 16 years old possibly 17 by the time you read this, and always lived in Baldock, the views put across may come from a different perspective from what you read on a more regular basis and above all the fact I have different concerns to the 'typical' youngster.

I fully except the fact that we need houses but is this proposal one that has been properly thought out in a logical manner?
After attending the public meeting on the 31st January in Baldock Community Centre I have been made aware of the fact that less that only about a third of land in North Hertfordshire comes under the 'Green Belt' and that green belt should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Have you really considered other options seriously?

This was the question theme among many people on the protest march which certainly helped publicise the topic.
Brownfield sites and liaising with private land owners appear to be far more viable options in the eyes of Baldock residents.
In my opinion, you should consider the idea of adding a far smaller amount of houses over a much larger area. Figures suggest that 12,100 houses are needed in the North Hertfordshire district, between 2011-2031. My theory states that you should add approximately 1500 houses to the 5 major towns, Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage but leaving green belt land alone if possible by making use of brownfields. This would leave around 4600 houses to be spread across the 33 villages and hamlets in the district. This would mean adding approximately only 130 houses to each village. On a map you wouldn't notice a difference and the population density across the district would be more proportional. It was have less of a detrimental effect in specific areas and every getting their fair share in development.

From following the proposals it appears to me that you're taking the 'easy' option and burying your heads in the sand so to speak at the expense of fairness to Baldock residents and the environment. Baldock would be no longer a closed community. Around 3400-3600 houses to be placed in one specific area just seems a little extreme especially for is currently relatively small historic market town with a current population of around 10,000 people. The population density will increase dramatically and I firmly believe that the town itself could not cope unless infrastructure is developed.

Green belt around Baldock is open countryside laden with bridleways and footpaths providing a free leisure facility to improve the health of its people and potentially cut down levels of obesity which in turn will cost the NHS less money. These bridleways will be destroyed but most of all, the views North East of Baldock of will be ruined and we'll never get them back as Hertfordshire becomes one large urban sprawl with Bygrave, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage becoming linked together as one mass of houses.

I have an allotment on the Clothall Road allotment site and with my eyes set on a future in farming, seeing the countryside and tenant farms(the only way of being able to farm in your own right due to land prices unless you have a large sum of cash) built on would be me to tears. I stand and try to visualize the urban development on site BA2 but I can't. The thought of the allotments losing their traditional appearance and increased vandalism due to the increased number of young people stuck for something to do is unbearable. This is because the government and local councils do not push for leisure facilities for young people.
From attending the meeting it sounds as though lots of pieces of paper and pencils are being used.
Have you actually put your wellies and 'high vis' vests on and walked up to your paper proposed sites and physically tried to look at how the development will look and the eye sore it will put in the landscape?

Baldock sits in a dip surrounded by rolling hills. From up on these hills, there would no longer be a view to admire.
The proposed Blackhorse Farm site currently, is home to several successful agricultural businesses producing a wide range of products from things as simple as Free Range local eggs through to large scale combinable and root crop production on what is Grade 2-3 agricultural land (some of the best found in Britain).

These businesses will lose their jobs, livelihoods and the money these farms bring into the local economy would not be any more if this unorganised development goes ahead. All things I've mentioned above are keys elements to Britain's survival and all things the government currently seem fairly keen to support.
The developments on Works Road in Letchworth are not a long term answer and the people who would occupy the houses would just be people who commute into the hubs of London and Cambridge in order to earn a decent wage. This commute business will be struggle given the ludicrous proposals to cut train services.

Less land for food and more people will mean that food miles and quantities needed, will increase due to imports, leading to greater pollution. Importing food is by far, not a long term solution in the 21st century economic situation of Britain and the rest of the world. We need to look into more long term solutions in this world which ministers fail to address. Farming shapes the countryside not houses.

I've already gone into detail about things that link to the environment but the increase in cars, concrete, waste water and electricity usage all pose problems. Waste/run off water will pose a huge problem in terms of flooding in wet years. At least crops use the water in a useful way.
Have you considered sustainability when constructing plans?
If not then here are some ideas solar powered street lights and waste water harvesting and treatment for reuse.
The number of species in our countryside is rapidly decreasing and building on such a vast acreage of land is just going to exacerbate the problem. Farmland ecosystems are vital.
If waste/run off water is left to go off into the rivers rather than being used by crops and animals then it is just go into rivers and flow into the sea where it will become expensive in future to extract. The river Ivell and Weston Hills dry up most years due to over extraction to cope with the ever growing population. This puts huge pressure on river ecosystems.
So, will there/are you going to make sure there will be enough water today, tomorrow or in 50 years' time?

I attend the Knights Templar School and am heavily involved in Sustainability in the school, hence that fact that environmental issues concern me the most as I see the importance of them as my passion lies the countryside.
From my point of view as a student I feel that the communication between schools and the council has been severely lacking and students are making decisions on the topic that are non viable because there's been no encouragement.

Views expressed by the local councillors and local MP's including Sir Oliver Heald seem to display a sense of concern towards the plans. Up to 3591 homes on green belt land doesn't appear viable in current circumstances. Some of my thoughts clearly display this having focused on many points on more of a national scale and what could be done across the whole district.

I'm concerned that there appears no plans for schools. Schools in Baldock are already over subscribed.

I'm concerned that there appear no plans for schools. Schools in Baldock are already over subscribed.

We have strong objections against the proposal of the building of houses on site BA2, it is a greenfield site and allocating the site for housing goes against government guidance set in the NPPF. We consider 200 houses to be to high relative to the site's size. We are concerned about the impact of so many houses to access. The impact on neighbouring estate as the slope direction will cause precipation and sewerage will run down towards us. We are also concerned about schools and doctor's surgeries and the extra traffic going onto the Buntingford road.

I object to BA2 as the proposed plan is not in accordance with government policy. The current plan looks to provide a high density of housing, for a small site. It also makes no provision to establish guidance on policies in respect to the association with adjacent housing to the site, beyond making proposals for site-specific assessment.

The plan is not justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

North Hertfordshire Local plan 2011-2031

I feel the proposed plan for area BA1 Black Horse Farm would be extremely unwise.

*Any additional traffic from the site to the town centre would have to enter the cross roads at White Horse street/Station road junction.
This is already extremely congested with queues stretching back towards Baldock services. The junction cannot be altered as there are listed buildings
At this point. If the suggested new road joining the A505-A507 were used to get into Baldock the same junction has to be used.

*The resulting vehicular increase would cause further air pollution.

*The increase in population would completely overwhelm existing services in the town Surgery, Schools, we have no Police station, Rail services are
Likely to be reduced according to recent news reports.

*Ivel Springs nature reserve could well be in danger of pollution/ flooding with all the proposed building.

The idea of the planned first development at BA2 & BA3 without any additional Schools and other services cannot be supported with the towns present amenities.

*The schools are full, in fact some children have to be bused out to neighbouring villages!

*All construction traffic to the two sites would need to pass through the town on already very busy roads.

*Parking in the town is difficult at most hours of the day and night ,no provision for more is planned and there appears to be nowhere for it.

BA7 is allotment land so cannot be built on.

Baldock is a pleasant market town the smallest in the North Herts and the least able to cope with an 80% increase in size.

I would however like to make some further points why the proposals BA2-4 and SP10 are neither effective nor consistent with other policies.
Many people will point to the transport infrastructure because this is something visible to us all. This is demonstrably not up to the standard necessary to support large scale development. But what about all the other key infrastructure and its capacity that needs to be demonstrably deliverable in a timely fashion prior to development such as sewage, water etc to comply with para 177 of the NPPF. Hopefully the inspector will have expertise and look at this rather than relying on representations. Similarly schools, as far as I can see, proper development of Knights Templar School has for years lagged behind the need and numbers enrolled. I do not think the plan meets the effectiveness test.
There are various comments from the planners about things it is planned will be done. But I am afraid I have no confidence that there is anything of substance and credibility behind the words and I am concerned that if the transport assessment required by the NPPF has been produced as required by NHDC/HCC then it lacks credibility. Opportunities to start doing some of the things are already probably lost. The A507 rail bridge had several weeks of work last year but it changed nothing on the footways or actual bridge width and height. If any of the developments go ahead it will make it more difficult to deal with problems in the future. The bridge is a hazard; recently pallets were strewn about following one of the periodic bridge strikes; the risk of hitting pedestrians will increase if the footfall and cycle miles increased. Delays are already caused by bridge strikes and HGVs attempting to turn when they realise at the last minute they cannot get through. Again, this demonstrates the plan is not deliverable and not effective.
Currently the old car repair site opposite "The Engine" pub is being developed for housing. This and the car sale site could surely have been a strategic acquisition to do something about roads and reducing the traffic light chokepoint. And at the same time put in a smallish multi storey car park as found near quite a few stations to do something about car parking for station users which will become a far greater issue if any of the proposed Baldock developments proceed. Presumably the plan is that there will be less rail users given the current proposals to reduce fast services to/from Baldock. Again, this demonstrates the plan is not deliverable and not effective.
Elsewhere, South Road is also heavily used and any more usage (inevitable from BA2,3,4) will be difficult certainly given the increasing parking already going on there. I don't see that being covered. Another specific example where the plan is silent is Clothall Road; this already has vehicles parked nose to tail and it is barely wide enough for a lorry and a car to pass each other. It will only get worse with BA2-4.
I do not know, but do also worry that SP15 (North Letchworth) will also feed more traffic through Baldock. Undoubtedly this happened with the extensive Stotfold developments that have taken place in recent years. And the talk of feeding traffic onto the A1must be more than a little optimistic and not a realistic solution as the A1 is already a problem certainly when traffic gets south of Letchworth. Once again I consider this demonstrates the plan is not deliverable and not effective. It probably isn't consistent with the national policy requiring sustainable developments.
Baldock has seen a considerable volume of redevelopment and increase in the number of houses in the past 20 years due to use of small plots and redevelopment of old commercial sites etc but there has been no visible infrastructure improvement or enhancement and the consequences are far more on street parking adding to general congestion. I do not think it is appropriate to embark on any of the developments BA1-4 until the infrastructure has been addressed. Taken together B1-4 are sizeable and will significantly impact on an already inadequate infrastructure. The plan is not effective.
I could be persuaded that use of current green belt land for SP14 was appropriate if there were good quality substitutions if all the other minus points were dealt with, but the current NHDC plan seems to me to have too much coincidence of needs given that it proposes to use Herts CC land in the main and no doubt they would like to sell at enhanced development values, and it saves them and NHDC looking properly at other more environmentally and green belt friendly areas. As it stands, I do not see the plan as compatible with para 80 of the National policy framework nor with the NHDC green belt review and think that BA2-4 and SP14 would be examples of undesirable urban sprawl. It is therefore not consistent with the national policy on sustainable development.
Taking the likely increase in stationary traffic, health problems associated with pollution must surely increase and make the policy on healthy communities infeasible.

I write to voice my objection concerning the planned large scale building development in Baldock.

Whilst most people accept more houses are required in North Herts, the plan is completely imbalanced with Baldock seemingly having to take much more than its fair share of planned development.

In addition to the obvious change of character of the town which will take place, there are several practical reasons why this plan is ill conceived.

Primarily, there is a major infrastructure issue , ie the roads, schools & health centre will simply not be able to cope. In addition, the railway is in plans to reduce its fast train service to London.

With regards to BA2 near to where I live there are environmental issues ie the nature reserve at Weston Hills & safety issues concerning the road to Buntingford.

I would like to object in the strongest terms to the NHDC Local Plan proposal and specifically the 3290 new homes indicated for Baldock by 2031 (both the 500 in Clothall Common and 2800 on land North of Baldock).

Baldock does not have the infrastructure or amenities to support such development.

In addition the plans are such that the unique and individual character of our small market town would be utterly destroyed by these proposals.

I do not consider that the plan was positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

Please confirm receipt of my response.

I wish to object to the proposed plan for housing in Baldock. In particular to the proposal to site 500 houses at Clothall Common. The land outlined in your plan is good agricultural land, which is used for food production. In addition, I hear that the access road will be the former Wallington Road. This is a much used resource in Baldock, being used safely by families out walking, joggers, cyclists and dog walkers. To return this to traffic will mean that people will have to move further and further away from Baldock to find green spaces for recreation, where they can safely walk etc.

Further, I feel that the infrastructure cannot support the total number of houses proposed for Baldock. Baldock is essentially a small market town which has evolved slowly over time. To double its size is to destroy its character.

See attachment

I am writing in with regards to the Baldock development in particular and BA2/BA3 proposals.

Whilst we all agree that there needs to be further housing made available ,the strategy adopted does not seem sound :

*At one of the town meetings David Levett of NHDC openly admits that a Garden City new settlement approach would be more beneficial but they do not have the time to do this ; what we need here is a long term viable and sustainable programme , something we can look back on as a success like the local Letchworth Garden City. This is just a quick plan (as NHDC have no plan in place) to tick off the numbers as mentioned in point2.
*Sir Oliver Heald MP has expressed concerns over this plan as he can see it is just an exercise of mass building that NHDC needs to sign off to essentially provide a quick plan.
*The distance of these expansions to Baldock will mean that most people are effectively encouraged to get in the car to go everywhere as they are not localised enough to the town and all of its facilities that attract people to the town - meaning further traffic flow through the town and less community spirit as people do not walk around.
*When I go to the local park , schools and out in the town it appears most of the people moving to Baldock are from the London area as you can now commute from Baldock in good time and people like the feel of a small town. How does this support a local plan for local people ?
*The NPPF states that it needs to be a sustainable development with three dimensions (i) economic - as the housing in general is too far to walk into Baldock people will get in their cars and travel further afield as the town will not cope with this demand on parking etc (ii) social - by bolting on large housing estates these become their own enclaves and will not contribute to the real spirit and culture of the town (iii) environmental - a properly thought out new Garden City encourages people to walk to its facilities whereas bolt on estates at a distance ensure people drive everywhere damaging the environment and detracting from the character of a small town.
*From where I live you have country views and there are always people walking dogs , out with families - this opportunity will be replaced with housing.
*You can not logically increase a small towns size by 80% and expect the amenities/infrastructure/traffic etc to cope - you cant not change existing infrastructure that is built around already. The town itself will not be able to cope with the massive extra volume - it is not designed for this volume of people/traffic and the actual town infrastructure can not be changed. Even with the considerations infrastructure is an inherent problem when expansions of this size are undertaken.
*The extra traffic from sites BA2/3 will be predominantly going south and therefore have a major impact at the north end of Baldock town where there are problems already at most times of the day.
*The Plan does not as detailed above retain and enhance the town centre of Baldock as recommended by the NPPF.

I am writing to express my concerns and objections to aspects of the Local Plan 2011-2031. My primary concerns centre around BA2 which covers what is currently known as Cambrai Farm. My chief concern regarding this particular development is that the building of houses on this farm will increase the risk of flooding to the houses in this street. Currently, if we have heavy rainfall the road here resembles a river and this does not clear until some time after the rain stops. When you add more houses which will be on a slightly higher level than we are now then the risk is bound to increase and flooding WILL occur.

On a broader level, I object to the high numbers of houses being proposed for Baldock as a whole. The roads through this town are struggling to cope with the traffic we already have. Add to that the local rail proposal for reducing the service into London and it adds up to a potential disaster. The local schools are full to capacity and amenities in the town are already stretched. As the smallest town in the local area why is Baldock being given more houses than any other town. To increase the population by approximately 80% is unjustifiable and will destroy the character and spirit of the community here.

Whilst it is generally accepted that some building will have to take place I feel that the proposed Local Plan is a step too far and should be reduced considerably to preserve to nature of this historic market town.

Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.

Whilst further detail around my objections can be found below my main concerns are that the plan is not effective as there is insufficient evidence that the traffic issues can be resolved within the plan period and it is not justified as there are more suitable alternative sites for houses closer to existing transport links and in towns where there is better existing infrastructure to support growth (for instance in Stevenage).

Section 4 - Communities

Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* 2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
* The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
* It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
* Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
* No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
* Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
* Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
* More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
* A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
* A large green space with ample parking
* Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Tree planting along every public road
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
* Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
* Funding to extend the library and community centre.
* Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.

Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
* Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
* The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
* No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
* There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
* Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require each site to include a children's play park.
* Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Funding to extend both the library and community centre
* Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.

If you could confirm receipt of my email, that would be much appreciated.

I have lived in Bygrave for more than 30 years and I was born within one mile of the A507 in Bedfordshire. Because my parents both had parents living in Essex I regularly travelled on this route from a young age. My first memory of a traffic jam dates from 1950 when we were stuck on the A507 between Stotfold and Baldock which gave me a feeling of complete desperation that we might never arrive. Traffic gridlock is stressful for adults also and having worked in Letchworth Industrial Area for 12 years in the 1980's and 1990's I know that the bottleneck on the A507 entering Baldock is a continuing and progressive problem. It took me three times as long to drive to my workplace in the 1990's as it had done a decade earlier, and this was almost entirely due to traffic jams on the A507. I have driven the length of the A507 for both business and leisure for more than fifty years, and it is the proposed developments close to this road in the vicinity of Baldock that I most strongly object to in the NHDC plan. At a time when the Government is promising to spend more than one billion pounds to tackle congestion and claiming to promote "joined-up thinking" the NHDC plan appears to be completely at odds with Government policy.
The following points relating to the A507, to Baldock and its surrounding towns and villages should demonstrate the deficiencies in the local Plan.
A 507
1. This road provides an important east-west route with good links to the A1 and M1 motorways west of Baldock, and good links to Stanstead Airport and the East Coast ports to the east of Baldock.
2. There are no good alternative routes in this region.
3. Every town and village along this route has been bypassed in Bedfordshire. In Essex improvements to the route to both Stanstead and the coastal ports have been made. No improvements to the A507 have been made in Hertfordshire since the Buntingford bypass was built many years ago.
4. The only traffic lights and the only one way system on this road are in Baldock, which hosts the only section of this road that is subject to regular congestion and delays.
5. Lessons learned by most councils in the twentieth century should have informed NHDC by now. Most councils try to move major through roads out of town ( bypass ) rather than building the town around a through route, which is what the NHDC plan appears to do.

BALDOCK
1. It is an historic coaching and market town that benefited well into the twentieth century from the confluence of three major roads ( A1, A505 & A507 ) in the town. The rapid increase in traffic volumes during the last century meant that this became the main problem for Baldock which became the site of the worst traffic jams in North Hertfordshire.
2. Planning mistakes of the past, notably the extension of Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin along the route of the A505, have resulted in one large built up area in which each town suffers from the proximity of its neighbours. Baldock is the the least accessible and most congested town in this conurbation .
3. It has become primarily a dormitory town with the majority of its working inhabitants employed elsewhere. Baldock ranks as the worst shopping venue of any town in the region according to Venuescope UK shopping index, as well as having the smallest projected growth of retail space. Lack of ready access makes it an unattractive location for most types of business. It would also almost certainly rank amongst the most deprived towns in terms of its recreational facilities or most other amenities. More housing will destroy rather than revive the town.
4. Previous bypasses - the A1M and Baldock Eastern bypass - have provided only temporary or incomplete solutions to the towns traffic problems., While A1 through traffic has been removed from the town, the attempt to divert traffic from the A505 has been less successful. The Whitehorse Street junction where the A505 crosses the A507 will always remain the focal point for the towns traffic problems, and it is stating the obvious to say that further building along either of these routes in Baldock will compound an already intractable problem.
5. Unfortunately the Council have contributed to the congestion in Baldock by siting an Industrial area on the A505 immediately north of and close to the Whitehorse Street junction with the A507. Lorries turning left at this junction from the A507 towards this industrial area often navigate the junction so slowly that traffic inevitably backs up behind them. Lorries travelling north along Whitehorse Street towards the Industrial area are usually wide enough to block the filter lane left onto the A507 when traffic is stopped at the junction. Apart from this badly located Industrial area, the building and infilling with resid ential properties on the north of the A507 all contribute to congestion in and around the Whitehorse Street junction.
6. Access to Baldock railway station is often compromised by long queues of slow moving traffic approaching the junction ( as is access to and from the Ashwell Road ). Thus it may soon become as difficult to depart from Baldock as it is to enter the town.
7. The solution to this growing problem is a moratorium on all building north of the A 507 and no further extension of Baldock along this road unless and until an A507 Baldock bypass has been built. In the meantime the Green Belt should be extended on the north side of Baldock to ensure no further infilling contributes to the congestion.
NHDC LOCAL PLAN
This plan fails to meet any of the NPPF soundness criteria. It is not positively prepared because it fails to take into account regional travel requirements, and the major developments are planned in the most inappropriate locations ( Area codes BA1 & BA2 ). It is not justified because even if this large number of new houses is required in North Hertfordshire, which I doubt, it is easy to identify more appropriate locations. I note that this plan proposes a large new retail park
park in Royston together with a limited amount of new housing. Venuescope reveals that Royston already has much better shopping, as well as better recreational facilities than Baldock. It lies on the same London-Cambridge railway line and even a large scale retail and housing
development would have minimal effect on through traffic. Thus it is a more suitable location for such development.

NHDC admit that their plan would have negative effects upon residents in Baldock, which would also apply to residents in nearby settlements. The proposed expansion of the town in area BA1 would effectively turn Bygrave into an inaccessible suburb of the inaccessible town of Baldock.
Among negative effects noted by the Council are the following:
Significant loss of agricultural land.
Reduced access to open countryside.
Traffic congestion and pollution.
Reduction in quality of landscape and townscape character.
Impacts upon amenities and "a reduction in tranquillity for existing residents".

It sounds like a very bad plan. It is. This plan should be rejected.

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

Baldock is already severely lacking in recreational amenities for its current population - we would be inviting more bored teens and young adults to hang around in a town filled with pubs and little else. There is no longer any resident police to deal with problems that arise now, never mind the future.
Please consider the current plans for Baldock and the whole of North Hertfordshire carefully. The North of England is crying out for growth and yet the South continues to be further and further stretched and ruined.
Whatever building is eventually decided for Baldock, I would like to be assured that it will be allocated to local people first. There must be a guaranteed proportion set aside for local people. After all, this is supposed to be meeting our needs - rather than accommodating yet more commuters moving in to an area. The number of dwellings currently being planned for Baldock is unjust, unfair and completely disproportionate compared to the rest of the area.
There are many more reasons to not develop certain planned areas around Baldock - excavation of Roman sites, flooding, sewerage, access roads, local work opportunities (or lack of) etc. I hope that other residents will take up clearer and more informed reasoning on those points than I can. I again ask you to consider carefully all the objections put forward and look at the wider picture for the whole of North Hertfordshire.
I would like to be kept updated on the Plan's progress and I would like to be invited to the Public Hearing. Thank you for your time and informed consideration.

Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2, BA3 and BA4.

Section 4 - Communities

Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
* 2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant additional pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long (slow) tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
* The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
* Limited parking is available at Baldock railway station.
* Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
* The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new build will generate additional children to be catered for, with nowhere to go and yet it is already significant problem.
* Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
* There is no mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
* Construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
* Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
* Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
*More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
*Construction of Schools and Healthcare facilities to be prioritised within the first phase of development.
*A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
*A large green space with ample parking
*Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Tree planting along every public road
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
*Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
*Funding to extend the library and community centre.
*Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours, possibly more parking)
*Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.

Site BA2 & Site BA3 & BA4:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
*Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3. This also applies to BA4.
*Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
*The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 495 combined builds will generate at least another class worth of primary school children with nowhere to go and yet it is already significant problem.
*Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
*No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
*All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
*Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional primary school provision along with the new builds at sites BA2, BA3 and BA4 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock. This to be available and online at completion of first phases of building.
*Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require each site to include a children's play park.
*Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Funding to extend both the library and community centre
*Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.

I am writing with concern to the proposed plans for the development of housing in Baldock. Whilst acknowledging that extra housing is necessary to meet the needs of the local population I must question the disproportionate number of new houses in Baldock compared to other areas in North Herts and the justification of the plans.
Concerning BA2 and BA3
There is no mention of providing extra provision for the increase in numbers arising from the 400 houses proposed, requiring registering at the only doctors surgery in the town. It is very difficult to book a same day appointment, unless you are lucky enough to get through on the telephone in the first few minutes of opening time. Long term bookings are at a premium and similarly difficult to secure, usually a two week wait.
There is no reference to school places for this stage of development. Currently there are two faith schools and one Primary school which is oversubscribed. The new houses will surely generate the need for extra places to be provided.
There is no reference to the planting of extra trees, the lungs of a community, as well as being of an aesthetic value. Do not the residents deserve a quality environment?

Concerning site BA1
The road network is already very congested at peak periods and this is exacerbated when either of the by passes are closed in times of emergency, which is not infrequent. As there are few opportunities within the town for employment, to which people might walk, it follows that the extra population will need to travel beyond the town. This will be either a rail or road journey.
There is tremendous pressure at the traffic light junction where the A505 and A507 meet. The tail back queues are a reminder that the junction cannot cope with the existing demand. This is an historic situation which has failed to be resolved due to the fact that the properties at this junction are listed. The impact on people who need to arrive in Baldock for work or school is significant and I have personal knowledge of a shop manager who has failed to open on time due to being held up in this traffic for up to an hour. The proposed mini roundabout (AECOM Table 5.1) will not resolve the congestion that already exists and therefore will not cope with the added volume of traffic.
If, as frequently happens the railway bridge with a head height of 14'6'', is struck by over height vehicles, then the congestion is severely impacted upon. The increase in traffic will only add to the probability of this occurring more frequently.
This road is not capable of carrying the current volume of traffic and as the IDP Traffic Baseline (para) shows that traffic in North Herts will go up by 16.1% anyway then the building of extra homes in this corridor is surely unjustified and not effective.

I am very concerned about air quality in the town; Baldock is located in a valley and consequently air circulation is not good. The volume of existing traffic means that there is a high level of emissions. The invisible ultra fine particles, PM2.5, emitted by diesel engines are a major risk to health as they penetrate the lungs and circulatory system. This increases the risk to the health of our children, the old and the vulnerable and in fact, to the whole community. It has been reported that prior to the Baldock By-pass being built in 1995, the levels of asthma in local children was well above the national average.
One only has to walk along Hitchin Street or Whitehorse Street at the beginning and end of the school and working day to be aware of this. In fact the levels are close to exceeding EU permitted levels (para 9.28). The housing and Green Belt background paper informs us that site 209E was considered unsuitable for these very reasons. Is not the quality of the air for Baldock residents not of equal value? The increased volume of traffic can only add to these levels. For this reason alone the plan is unjustified.
The plan is unjustified and not effective as there is not an adequate highways structure to take the extra traffic that will come with the development. Both vehicular and pedestrian, currently the A507 /Bygrave Road junction has poor sight lines when accessing the A507 from Bygrave Road, a significant increase in vehicular traffic onto the A507 will increase the accident probability at this junction; Bygrave Road is not even classified as a B Class road; the width of the road is not sufficient for safe passage, together with the blind bends, lack of pedestrian footpath along the rural section all add up to an inadequate facility, which would not be funded by the developers at the outset as the infrastructure aspects are always funded from housing receipts in retrospect, invariably resulting in a reduced scope, if at all!
The existing station is very small and there are proposed cuts to the existing train services by Govia. It appears that this company were unaware of the proposed development. Many people commute out of Baldock and the proposed development would significantly add to the volume of traffic entering the town. The car park is already limited and many commuters park in the surrounding residential streets. This has an impact on domestic parking. No provision appears to have been made for the extra parking spaces that will be required.
There is also no reference to provision of extra play facilities. Although some do exist within the town they do not have car parking provision, the BA 1 development will be too great a distance for young children to travel to enjoy any of the existing sites. Children need to have safe areas in which to play and exercise. There are already signs of obesity amongst primary children (in my professional role as a teacher I have seen an increase in such cases). We cannot deny them this essential facility.
No consideration appears to have been given to the natural environment and the fact that the area is home to several endangered species including the corn bunting, pipistrelle bats and newts. It is our duty to protect these species, not further add to the destruction of their habitats.
There is no modelling of the impact from the new developments on the infrastructure (AECOM section 7 summary). The Local Plan Viability Assessment (update 2016) has not considered specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation concerns associated with the major sites especially the BA1 site.
Drainage is also a concern; as Baldock sits in a valley, flood risk could potentially be high. During recent heavy rainfall, the town has suffered flooding with St Mary's school suffering several times within a few weeks as the drainage system was unable to cope. This caused severe disruption to the school. A significant increase in hard landscape due to housing will always increase the rate of flooding (especially if the required infrastructure is not in place), the infrastructure in Baldock does not have the capacity for additional storm water or sewage treatment.
Baldock has a thriving community, we as residents; enjoy a good quality of life. The proposed expansion will irreparably damage the unique feature of this historic market town. Surely we should be preserving our heritage for future generations; it is their right to inherit this and ours to protect it for them.

We wish to protest about the utterly unfair, disproportionate and unjust proposed housing developments at Baldock which will ruin our lovely town. Ever since NHDC was formed Baldock, as its smallest town, has been at the back of the queue for everything and now the Council has decided to dump the bulk of its housing allocation on us simply because it is easy to do so and because we do not have the power or the votes to prevent it. It is a mockery of democracy and so-called localism.
Baldock has already undergone enormous expansion in the last 60 years or so and
particularly in the last 35 years. It is remarkable that it has managed to keep some of its rural charm, historic character and sense of community through all those changes and the indifference of successive Councils. It is unlikely to survive the sheer scale and rapidity of these latest proposals and a unique community will be lost forever.
Natural Environment, Historic Environment, Countryside and Green Belt:
* The Ivel
These four large developments are bound to have an adverse effect on the water table, threatening not only our water supply but also the rare chalk stream habitat of the River Ivel which rises on the northern edge of the town and draws its water from the same chalk strata. The Ivel already suffers from the growth of the town as it is now and the effects of an increase of a further 75% of housing could cause severe damage.
The Plan does not seem to have made any assessment of the likely damage to the water supply or the river nor does it include any plan to avoid these effects.
* Sewerage
The Plan does not say whether or not it has been ascertained if the sewerage pumping station at Baldock (all Baldock's sewerage flows into the Ivel after treatment) can cope with a 75% increase in sewerage and prevent an overflow into the Ivel.
* Green Belt
The Plan involves building on Green Belt contrary to Government guidelines when there is a preponderance of non-Green Belt land in the District.
* Heritage:
No account been taken of the historic landscape setting of the town contrary to
Government guidelines specifying 'that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource'
and should be conserved 'in a manner appropriate to their significance'.
The Plan quotes the NPPF guidelines as saying that there should be 'conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environments, including landscapes' yet it treats the historic environment as a separate matter relating only to conservation areas and listed buildings. A town or village is often an important part of a landscape and it is ridiculous to treat them separately.
The Plan claims to refuse developments (NE1) that are 'have a detrimental impact on the appearance of their immediate surroundings and the lanscape character of the area' without 'suitable mitigation' yet have not even considered the matter in regard to the proposed spoliation of some fine landscapes, particularly the very attractive valley and landscape views leading down to the town from the hills around Clothall and Quickswood which will be badly spoilt by BA2 & BA3. BA1 will also spoil an attractive piece of countryside on Bygrave Common which is an important part of the setting of the Ivel Springs Nature Reserve and of the town itself.
Infrastructure Delivery:
* Roads:
Baldock's road system in the historic town centre is already badly congested at certain times of the day with consequent severe pollution in Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street where, according to |NHDC, levels of NO2 are 'close to exceeding National Air Quality objectives'. This is despite two major bypasses carrying non-local traffic.
Most of the traffic through and in the town is local traffic which appears to be going
between Baldock and Letchworth (the industrial estate of the latter being the main local source of local employment). This congestion is severely aggravated at the times of the school run. The main traffic queues occur in Hitchin Street, Station Road/North Road and Clothall Road because of the junctions at either end of Whitehorse Street (only about 250 yards apart) which street carries the greatest volume of traffic. The proposals for all four sites will add to this problem by adding local traffic in significant volumes yet the Plan claims that it 'addresses the protection of the health of residents'.
The great size of the BA1 scheme would greatly increase the problems in North
Road/Station Road, Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street for the above reasons. The
railway line blocks any convenient alternative. The proposal to run a relief road to the eastern Baldock exit on the southern bypass is impractical because it is incovenient for most local traffic flows (ie. to Letchworth, where it would meet queues at Letchworth Gate,) and would mean a long detour to most local destinations to the west. It would also be very expensive. One might also add that if two major bypasses have not prevented traffic problems in Baldock this proposed relief road running in the wrong direction is unlikely to succeed.
The plan does not include any idea of the cost that the railway may impose for allowing a bridge to be built for the relief road, or the cost of the bridge, or who would be liable for the cost.
BA2, BA3 and BA4 would also cause further congestion at the Whitehorse Street
junctions and would cause increased traffic along South Road, a residential street not well adapted, or adaptable, to high traffic flows and already suffering as a 'rat-run'.
There is no obvious, viable means of alleviating these problems.
* The Railway:
The railway is already at capacity how will it cope with this number of extra commuters?
It is even proposed that the number of trains is to be cut which will make the situation
intolerable because many of the likely new residents will be commuting by train.
Logically large scale housing would be better sited near to the main line railway, not
this branch line, and near to the three lane section of the A1.
* Pedestrian access:
Pedestrian access to the town from BA1 is poor because of the narrow pavements under the railway bridge and the consequent risk to pedestrians and especially children, this will only add to the traffic problems as people would use cars for school runs etc. instead of walking.
* Services
The scale and speed of these changes will mean that the schools, medical services, the doctor's surgery will be unable to cope. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this? Where will the extra doctors and nurses come from?
Conclusion There seems to be no attempt in the Plan to find any alternative to this inequitable and disproportionate distribution of housing. No real attempt has been made to encourage other landowners to come forward with possible sites, not even the County Council which holds many other parcels of land in the District. Why, for instance, have the large HCC holdings north of Ickleford not been considered? They are conveniently placed for the mainline railway at Arlesey and for major employment centres at Hitchin, Bedford and Letchworth.
Like so many plans of this sort this Plan contains many fine sounding aspirations and
policies which are simply ignored when it does not suit and is therefore so much highflown verbiage. This cannot disguise the failure to follow the NPPF guidelines in many instances, or the basic dishonesty and unfairness of these proposals which threaten the future of this town, its sense of community and its quality of life as well as the natural environment.

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.