BA3 Land south of Clothall Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment


My main point regarding the local Plan is that it is based upon a good transport infrastructure within Baldock, however Govia Thameslink are reducing Baldock train service.

Increase number of homes and pressure on local transport, reduced train service...

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.

Development of Site BA3 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. Given that the existing Clothall Common development has little infrastructure the new provision should be situated within the enlarged Clothall Common area.

A policy should be added against BA3, that any housing should be in keeping with rest of the Clothall Common, particularly the use of green strips between housing, the planting of trees, and the mix of large and small housing.
A deliberate attempt should be made to keep any housing element of this site in keeping with the rest of Clothall Common - it should have green paths, separating different closes and should be mixed in terms of housing (both large and small houses) - this will with cohesion between existing and new developments and the sense of local community.

Recognition of the hill to the east of Clothall Common, between the A505 and Royston Road, as a recreational space should be incorporated into the plan, into the site maps, or at least as a policy against sites BA3 and BA4 stating that this recreational space and its use as such will be considered when designing or assessing developments or roads, etc.
To the north-east of this site, between Royston Road, the A505 and the north-eastern edge of Clothall Common is an undeveloped hill that rises above Clothall, with footpaths leading to site BA1 and Bygrave Common, and across the A505 toward Wallington. This site is highly utilised by residents of Clothall Common and Baldock Town - it provides a route for jogging and a place for kite flying and represents the only area of open recreational space on this side of Baldock (Clothall Common is run through with green strips, but in keeping with its history as a local forested common these areas are forested - there is nowhere on this side of Baldock for people to play football or other outdoor recreational activities). As part of this Plan it would be very sensible to recognise this hill as a specific recreational space and give it a status as such - for example as a park. This would have a big impact on the available open recreational space on this side of Baldock and at relatively little overall impact/cost to the Local Plan - a 'quick win' to make the Local Plan more sustainable. Also, recognising its importance as a recreational space would help ensure this is considered when designing the link road.

The Policy "Deliver, in combination with Site BA4, a southern link road connecting Wallington Road to B656 Royston Road" should be removed and replaced with "A southern link road connecting Clothall Road to the roundabout with the A505 slip road and the B656 Royston Road will be delivered, which will not run adjacent to existing boundaries or green areas".
Also a policy should be added for site BA3 that the position of the link road and its setting (e.g. lighting) should be sensitive to the existing Clothall Common development and the rural feel of the perimeter of Baldock (for example by running adjacent to the A505 and without lighting outside of the built up areas).
The most sensible path for the link road would be to run adjacent to the A505 from the bridge over the A505 (near the eastern corder of site BA2) on the A507 Clothall Road all the way to the existing roundabout to the slip road onto the A505 and Royston Road (next to site BA10 and the furthest eastern corner of the 'hill'). Also, the road should be unlit for the part that raises along the 'hill', i.e. the part that is outside of the built up area - this is important because the hill rises above Clothall Common and is visible throughout this whole part of Baldock and across into Baldock town - leaving it unlit will minimise its impact on these areas and maintain the rural feel of the perimeter areas of Baldock. This is a small element of the plan, which if ignored could have a large negative impact on a large number of residents of Baldock, but can be easily remedied.

A policy should be added for site BA3, that in consideration of the existing lack of outdoor sporting/playing field space on this (eastern) side of Baldock, consideration must be given to the creation of new outdoor playing field or sporting facilities at this site.
The north-east corner of site BA3 is actually the bottom of a hill that rises steeply up to the pedestrian bridge that crosses the A505. The bottom edge of the hill switches from roughly flat to steeply rising along a line that runs straight along the eastern edge of the Clothall Common and continues in a straight line north splitting site BA4 in half and south cutting through the eastern edge of site BA3. This triangle is not very appropriate for housing because of the slope and the impact it would have on the surrounding area - however, it is quite small and might make a suitable site for a play park or tennis courts or some other form of open outdoor activity/sporting area. In fact, as already mentioned there are no sites for outdoor sports or playing fields anywhere near this (eastern) side of Baldock. Development of site BA3 creates an opportunity to add additional recreational space improving the sustainability of this plan. This is all the more feasible in combination with a solution for education needs at the site.

The incorporation of the former Wallington Road (footpath running north east along the north edge of this site) is a very good suggestion and I endorse it. It maintains the existing access to the countryside and will encourage continued access, it is also in keeping with the existing Clothall Common development (the area to the north-east of the roman ruins and south of Royston road), which is crisscrossed with green paths (remnants of the common previously on this site).

The inclusion of a southern link road between Royston Road and Wallington Road might well be beneficial to the traffic flow at the traffic lights but may well prove harmful to the environment of Clothall Common by enabling traffic to pass through the estate rather than the traffic lights in the town centre. It would also increase the traffic along South Road which, with its variable width, could be a bottleneck, especially in conjunction with traffic from development area BA2.

Clothall Common has limited green areas and traffic on and off the estate is already congested as it is. This extra burden of dwellings will affect the area aesthetically and the extra vehicles it will produce will impact on congestion on and off of the estate. Any extra route would allow other vehicles to use the area as a cut through causing further impact.

Is there more detail available on where the road will be located? How does this affect the Clothall Estate. Would the road be built to the East to the Wallinton Roundabout. This is not necessarily an Objection more of a clarification.

[...] 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.

[...] We moved 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.

Secondary education in Baldock is already stretched to breaking point already. To accomodate the number of proposed houses would require a new school.

Astonia House Surgery already supports over 12,000 patients. The surgery has already had to make major changes to it booking systems to enable those who need appointments can have one. To add such large numbers of patients would break the surgery

I have major concerns about the provision for education in this plan. Currently Hartsfield School can not support all the children who currently live on the Clothall Common Estate. Currently children who live near Merchants Walk have not been able to attend.

Knowing the school layout well I have concerns about how the school could be extended to enable the school to maintain its current high standards. The school currently runs one class out of a mobile unit at the rear of the school. Families and staff who have worked from this unit talk about feeling segregated from the school.

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'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.

This development would remove green space around Clothsll Common, significantly changing the nature of the estate. Rural links are an important feature of Baldock and removing these would be a terrible mistake. Residents of the town and Clothall Common alike enjoy these views and it is our duty to preserve them for future generations.

Opening the road between Wallington Road and Royston Road will cause undue excess traffic through the estate as people will use it as a short cut.
Additional housing cannot be accommodated due to lack of infrastructure.

Our comments relate to Baldock, in particular to proposals BA1, BE2, BA10, BA3, BA4.
[1]"... secondary rail crossing for pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of Ashwell Way."
QUESTION: how will users of such a route be able to safely join or cross B656 Royston Road? That road should become less busy after the construction of the A507 / A505 link road, but it will remain a major route into and through Baldock.
[2]SP14(e)(ii) refers to "Safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to Baldock station."
Relevant to this is the Govia/Thameslink consultation on revised train services from 2018 (see http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/12366.9/timetable-consultation/). In that consultation document, it is proposed that all off-peak semi-fast train services should not stop at Baldock. This is completely unacceptable, even with the present needs of Baldock residents, and will become even more unacceptable when the huge BA1 development is in progress and completed.
Hertfordshire County Council and North Herts District Council should make immediate submissions to Govia/Thameslink to alter this decision. If (as seems likely) one of the reasons is that 12-car trains cannot now use Baldock station, then the obvious remedy is to lengthen Baldock station's platforms to accommodate 12-car trains. The number of commuters from Baldock to Cambridge, London, and Stevenage will massively increase after the development of site BA1, and it is unacceptable that Baldock will be reduced to the same status as (say) Ashwell and Morden with the loss of semi-fast train services.
Pedestrian and vehicular access to Baldock station from the north, without using the extremely narrow railway bridge, is essential. The pavements under the bridge are so narrow that they represent a hazard to pedestrians. Baldock station appears to have a bricked-up northern entrance and a (rather steep) access way from just north of the bridge to the back of the station.
[3]We applaud the plan to provide a link road from A507 North Road to the A505 Royston Road roundabout. This will hugely reduce the incredible amount of traffic (including many heavy lorries) that still uses B656 and A507 to access the A1 northbound, despite signage directing them to use the Baldock Bypass. That traffic all has to negotiate the very awkward turn at the Royston Road / Station Road traffic lights, causing traffic jams, pollution, and many accidents.
[4]Related to [3] is the idea of downgrading A507 to a B-road. All of that road from Clothall Road to the A10 is quite unsuitable for heavy traffic. One way of achieving a reduction in lorries using that road is to put a weight restriction on the existing A507 (whether or not it is downgraded to a B-road). We have been unable to locate the revised Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan LPT4 as it applies to Baldock, but this matter should be considered as part of that plan.

[5]The proposal for a southern link road to enable development of sites BA3 and BA4 and providing connectivity to the south of Baldock to help bypass the Royston Road / Station Road crossroads is welcome, but it is not at all clear where it would run. Clarification of this (a map?) would be helpful.

I would like to formally register my views on the proposed plans, and in particular my opposition to certain aspects proposed in the 20 year plan relating to Baldock, which I believe are not sound.

Firstly, Baldock is a unique rural market town in Hertfordshire which has managed to retain a strong local community whilst transitioning to a modern thriving town, with local shops, restaurants, pubs, small businesses and excellent schools. Increasing the size of Baldock by 3,290 new homes would equate to a population increase of approximately 8,000 people, nearly doubling the number of Baldock residents (based upon an average 2.4 people per household, as used by the Office of National Statistics). This will undoubtedly have a major impact to the feel of the town, dramatically changing the character of the town. Baldock does not have the space or infrastructure within its Town Centre to be able to expand and provide the kind of shops comparable to the likes of Letchworth or Hitchin, which would be necessary to support the increased number of residents. Even with careful planning it is hard to imagine how the necessary broader infrastructure (roads, railways, services and schools) could be developed at the necessary pace to support the proposed housing development. As far as I am aware, there is no overall integrated plan with Network Rail and the local rail service provider to cope with likely increase in commuters using the railways. Nor am I aware of any modelling of the impact that the proposed developments would have on the volume of road traffic entering Baldock. There would likely be a significant increase in the volume of traffic passing through the town centre, unless of course the old proposed northern by-pass is also built as part of the new development, though this was considered unsound at the time of the by-pass debate which resulted in the selection and construction if the eastern by-pass. On the basis that all these things do not appear to have been fully considered, then I believe that the proposal is not sound.

The development strategy ought to be to maximise use of existing brown field sites within the boundary of Baldock; minimise the growth of Baldock and protect the countryside, open areas and Green Belt local to Baldock and rather, the planning authority ought to consider the establishment of a New Town in Hertfordshire which can be developed in a more controlled, planned way, with the local infrastructure developing at the same pace as the new town.

I have no objection to the development of Areas BA2; BA4; BA5; BA7 and BA11, but I strongly object to Areas BA3 and BA1 being developed, on the basis of my concerns outlined above. A major additional concern to the development of Areas BA1 and BA3 is that these are prime green belt land, which goes against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, and would result in the loss of the rural feel to the existing boundary of Clothall Common, adjacent to the retained Allotments. This is an important feature to the balance of the feeling of the town (modern and old) with its rural surroundings. Any such housing would be very close to the Baldock by-pass, which is not sound from an environmental perspective with the potential for high levels of air and noise pollution for those residents.

I feel strongly that we must not reduce the easy access to open fields and Green Belt land for the local community of Baldock, and rather focus more on re-using and re-claiming existing industrial or brown field sites. On that basis I would also ask the Planning Authority to consider re-using Areas BE1; BB1; BE2 and BA10 for housing and re-locating those existing businesses to other modern industrial capacity in neighbouring towns.

I wish to put forward my comments on the Local Plan 2011-2031, with particular reference to Baldock.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to develop areas BA1 and BA3 on the plan and believe the plan to be unsound for the following reasons:-

1) The scale of the development is inappropriate to Baldock, which is a small historic market town and one of the oldest settlements in the country. Development on this scale would have the effect of almost doubling the size and population of the town and would spoil its special character.

Although the plan allows for the provision of schools and shops on the BA1 area, there will still only be one Baldock town centre which will become choked by the additional traffic coming in to use its facilities. This will not be alleviated at all by the existence of the Baldock bypass - even today the town continues to suffer from congestion at peak times. Similarly there will still only be one small railway station, which is already very busy at peak times and will not be able to cope with a dramatic increase in commuters.

2) The development of areas BA1 and BA3 would be on prime Green Belt land. As such it would go against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, nor would it prevent neighbouring areas from merging into each other as BA1 would see the merger of Baldock and lower Bygrave. It would also encroach into the countryside, meaning that Baldock would lose its beautiful rural landscapes, which in turn would spoil its rural market town setting.

Development of area BA3 also goes against the original principles of preserving the landscape which were followed when the bypass was built, where the road was built into a hollow so that it could not be seen. The residents of this area, should it be developed, would suffer air and noise pollution from the bypass traffic.

It is well known that access to open spaces enhances the health and well-being of local communities. Development of these two areas would have a detrimental effect on the existing residents of Baldock as the open spaces available to them would be further away, and life in the town centre would be more inconvenient. The open areas are also wildlife habitats and development there would threaten a number of species, including at-risk farmland birds, with no guarantees that they could be successfully relocated.


I do recognise the need to provide extra housing for the area and have no objection to the proposed development of areas BA2, BA4, BA5, BA7 and BA11 on the plan. In fact I would suggest that area BA4 could actually be expanded, in a north-easterly direction parallel with the A505 towards the junction with the bypass, as long as it did not extend as far as the junction or run alongside the bypass.

I have objected to the development of area BA5 in the past, but would rather this area was developed instead of Green Belt land.

Furthermore, I would suggest that extra housing could be built on area BA10 of the plan, as an alternative to developing open land. The possibility of building a new town at a new location in Hertfordshire should also be reconsidered.

My final comment would be that the estimates for the numbers of new homes required were made before the UK voted to leave the European Union, and as such would have had to allow for unrestricted numbers of people coming to live in the UK from Europe. If the UK is to limit these numbers then the forecasts should be re-estimated both locally and nationally, in which case I would expect the estimates to be reduced, including those for North Hertfordshire. As the forecasts are probably now over-estimates I do not believe the plan is sound, based on these numbers, nor that the "exceptional circumstances" rule can be applied to sanction building on Green Belt land around Baldock.

I would be grateful if you could forward my comments to the Independent Planning Inspector and notify me when the Local Plan is submitted.

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.

See attached

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 comment on the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (Proposed Submission, October 2016). In particular;

BA3 Land south of Clothall Common (Clothall parish) 200 homes * Deliver, in combination with Site BA4, a southern link road connecting Wallington Road to B656 Royston Road;

Unfortunately what is not clear in the consultation where the proposed southern link road will be? The council produced a report in 2014 showing options for this route, which I understand is separate to this consultation. However If the proposed route is at the back of the houses on Aleyn Way (top of Clothall common) then I would be concerned for the following reasons;
1. The mound at the back of Clothall common is heavily used by the residents of Baldock as a walking route (promoting healthy living)
2. The mound was create to protect against noise from the bypass. Putting a road in the proposed route would be go against this principle.
3. The mound was created with the rubble that was dug out during the construction of the bypass and is unstable.
4. The greenway at the back of Clothall common is heavily used by the residents of Baldock and building it there would go against the principle of the plan which is to promote the use of existing green space area (SP12)

As such is the Plan a sound plan for the future of North Hertfordshire? This is not clear as no details have been provided in terms of the proposed southern link road.

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.