BA4 Land east of Clothall Common

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.

Development of Site BA4 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.

The plan needs to be clear that the southern link road will not run alongside the existing boundary of Clothall Common and through the middle of site BA4, effectively cutting off the 'hill' (which is a highly utilised recreational space) from residents and placing the homes of site BA4 on a busy through route, but will instead run the road adjacent to the A505 all the way from the A507 Clothall Road (just after it crosses the A505) to the existing roundabout with the A505 slip road and Royston Road.

The Policy "Deliver, in combination with Site BA3, a southern link road connecting Wallington Road to B656 Royston Road" should be removed and replaced with "In combination with site BA4, a southern link road connecting the A507 Clothall Road to the roundabout with the A505 slip road and the B656 Royston Road will be delivered, which will not run through site BA4 or adjacent to existing boundaries or green areas".
The link road should not run through this site. To do so it would need to run from site BA3 along the eastern edge of Clothall Common - this would have a massive impact on the homes along that edge and takes no account of the existing strip of green forested land that runs along that edge between the existing homes and the ditch at the bottom of the hill to the east of Clothall Common. This strip of managed green is utilised by joggers, dog walkers and also by children in those houses - placing a (potentially very busy) link road along it would have a massive negative impact. It would also separate residents of Clothall Common and Baldock Town from the hill that rises to the east of Clothall Common, between the A505 and Royston Road. As already mentioned this hill is a highly utilised recreational space, used for a range of activities. It would also mean that the new homes at site BA4 would be built alongside a busy through route - by design - with all the noise and other environmental effects this would have on the site. Site BA4 lies adjacent to Royston Road and the relatively modest number of homes on this site can be accessed via Royston Road.
Instead the link road should run adjacent to the A505 from site BA3 (directly from the A507 Clothall Road where it passes over the top of the A505, and so avoiding Wallington Road and the roundabout with South Road, which is a very narrow road) up to the existing roundabout with the slip road for the A505 and Royston Road. This will dramatically reduce the impact this road will have on the residents of Clothall Common and the new residents of site BA4. It would maintain the quality of the green strip that runs through the eastern edge of Clothall Common and it would encourage the continued use of this 'hill' as a recreational space, contributing to the well being of residents and the sustainability of the plan.

A policy should be added to site BA4 as follows: "Incorporate alignment of the eastern edge of Clothall Common, running north through this site as a green corridor linking to the same that runs along the northern edge of site BA3 (the south-eastern edge of the existing Clothall Common)"
In addition, the plan should recognise the green forested strip that runs along the eastern edge of Clothall Common, in the same way that it recognises the green strip and footpath the runs along the southern edge (the old Walling Road footpath mentioned in Site BA3).

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.

[...] 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 95 additional homes east of Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 200 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock.

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.

The estate cannot sustain the proposed extent of building. The town's infrastructure is not adequate for health, education or transport.

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.

Proposing to build 95 homes on the end of these cul-de-sacs is preposterous. The homes would be far to crammed in and small. The land has been used as a recreational area by local residents for years and as such, would be a great loss to the estate, and wider population, as a whole.
The access to the site could not safely be taken from Aleyn Way and/or Rhee Spring, as neither road is wide enough to accomodate the additional traffic from the development.
There is also an integrated proposal for an access/link road joining B656 Royston Road and Wallington Road (currently closed to traffic). This is set to cut straight across the base of the bund created for the existing Baldock Bypass. This is completely going against the assurance that we were given, when the Bypass was built, that there would not be development of any kind behind Aleyn Way. The building of this additional road, linking into this new development and the rest of the estate as a whole, would lead to it becoming a rat run for people cutting through to the south side of Baldock from the north, to try and avoid the major congestion at the Clothall Road/Whitehorse Street/ North Road/ Royston Road crossroads. This would lead to a real danger for the children and animals who live in the road and use the route to reach the open ground to the rear of Aleyn Way or the playground in the midst of the estate.
Also, should this be built, people would again lose access to a safe area of recreational land. Run off from this road would impact on the foundations and gardens of the neighbouring houses backing onto it. There are a number of indigenous creatures and plants which would be endangered. The impact on the local environment would be huge and detrimental.

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.

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, 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.

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

with regard to the number of additional dwellings on this and other sites, BA2, BA3 and BA4

3,590 new homes have been proposed for Baldock. This will increase the size of the town by 80%. It is unfair that Baldock should be expected to take such a large number of dwellings. Baldock is a small historic coaching town. All character of the town will be lost with such a massive expansion. Why has the number of required dwellings not been equally shared throughout the district? The building of such a large number of dwellings in this small rural town has not been properly thought through. This is not democratic or sound.
Green Belt
The proposed sites of BA1, BA2, BA3, BA4 and BA10 are all on Green Belt land and therefore should not be developed unless there are "exceptional circumstances". I have been unable to find 'exceptional circumstances' in the Local Plan which justify the removal of land from the Green Belt. For this reason I consider that the Local Plan is not sound as it is not consistent with National Policy.
Grade 2 Agricultural land - BA1, BA3
This is Grade 2 Agricultural land. If this valuable land is used for dwellings the opportunity to use this as Agricultural land in the future will be gone forever. We cannot continue to build on land as agricultural land is needed to feed the expanding population. The more land we lose the greater the food miles and pollution.

Separate town
The proposed development of 2,800 dwellings at BA1 (Blackhorse farm site) would create a separate town from Baldock. This has already proved a problem for Baldock with the building of the Clothall Common estate, which has never been seen by the original Baldock town community as being part of the town and there was much opposition to its building. Such a large development just increases the urban sprawl from Hitchin and Letchworth. One of the functions in designating land as Green Belt is to check the unrestricted sprawl of built up areas. The Local Plan is therefore unsound as it is not consistent with national policy.
Review of Green Belt
Does Baldock need this number of houses for our families and future generations? Are we instead building to accommodate people from other areas?
The plan states that it is not possible to accommodate all the identified housing and employment needs in sustainable locations outside of the Green Belt. Therefore as a result of these exceptional circumstances a review of the Green Belt has taken place. However the National Planning Policy Framework states that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people "the demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries".
The Local Plan is not therefore consistent with national policy.
One of the key functions of Green Belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. By rolling back the Green Belt to accommodate dwellings NHDC is actively encroaching on the countryside and more importantly in some places on Grade 2 agricultural land.
Historic Environment
Another function of Green Belt is to check unrestricted urban sprawl. However the over development of Baldock is actually adding to the urban sprawl from Hitchin to Letchworth to Baldock. Baldock is a small historic town with links to the Romans and as far back as the Iron Age. A large Roman settlement has been discovered here. Being an historic coaching town with many old buildings and having a special character, Baldock is a tourist attraction. One of the functions of Green Belt is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns but this is now threatened by the proposed over development of Baldock and resulting increased population, traffic congestion, insufficient parking and possible increase in pollution.
Use of urban land
A function of the designation of Green Belt is to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. There appears to be very little urban land included in the plan. Why is this?
I consider that development in the area of BA1, BA2, BA3, BA4 and BA10 would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Local Plan is not sound in respect to the way in which it has considered Green Belt.
Transport
Baldock is a historic town with in places narrow streets and listed buildings. Roads in the centre of the town are already congested at peak times and have little scope for alteration to take the increase in traffic that 3,590 homes will bring. The junction of Whitehorse Street, Royston Road and Clothall Road is a busy junction. Listed buildings on both sides of the road have been damaged; one building is in a particularly vulnerable position when large HGV's are turning from Station Road into Royston Road.
The Sustainability Appraisal Framework notes "avoid exacerbating local traffic congestion". However, due to the existing congestion, with the additional vehicles provided by 3,950 homes congestion will be greatly increased.
To divert traffic away from this junction a bridge over the railway and a new link road has been proposed through site BA1. It is presumed that this will take a significant amount of traffic as it will avoid the Whitehorse Street, Royston Road, Clothall Road junction. However running through a residential development carrying HGV's as well as cars, with the associated problems of noise and air pollution, this road will have a considerable impact on the surrounding environment. I was unable to find any plans or Transport Statement in the Local Plan on which to comment. It seems unfair that I cannot make proper comment on this road as part of the Consultation, when this road and railway crossing will have such a major effect on the future residents of BA1 as well as the residents of Bygrave.
Transport - air pollution
Baldock is situated in a valley. Concentrations of pollutants can be greater in valleys than for areas of open or higher ground. Since the building of the Baldock bypass air quality which was previously a problem has been reported to have improved. However with the additional cars, often 2 per household and service vehicles that the 3,590 houses will bring there is concern that the level of air pollution will rise again.
Transport BA3
Some of the houses in the area BA3 will be built along the edge of the bypass. The Local Plan states that there will be:
Appropriate mitigation measures for noise associated with the A505 to include insulation and orientation of living spaces.
However noise will remain an issue when windows are open or residents are using their gardens. Air quality in this area also needs to be given consideration.
Access to the station from BA1, BA3
Due to the distance from the station residents living in BA1 and BA3 may use their cars to travel to the station. Additional cars will increase carbon emissions and congestion at peak times and further increase the parking difficulties. Is this sustainable?
Southern link road
The Local Plan states that site BA3 will deliver, in combination with site BA4, a southern link road connecting Wallington Road to the B656 Royston Road.
It is not clear from the Local Plan whether any traffic studies have been carried out to consider the effect of building this road. I was unable to find a plan showing the route of the proposed road or a Transport Statement and it is therefore difficult to be able to make comment on the proposed road. This seems to be an unfair situation, when the proposed road will have considerable impact on the residents of BA3 as well as the existing residents of Clothall Common, most of whom will not be aware of this proposal.
My concern is that the proposed road will:
1. Create a "short cut" for vehicles wishing to avoid the junction of Whitehorse Street, Royston Road and Clothall Road. Traffic, including HGV's, wishing to move between the south of the town and the Royston Road, or gain access to the Buntingford Road will have a quicker route through the area of proposed new housing.
2. Air quality may be affected and noise pollution created, if a significant number of vehicles use the proposed road
3. Increased traffic will be a hazard to residents of Clothall Common as well as to those living in BA3
4. The amount of traffic waiting to enter the roundabout where the Wallington Road joins the Buntingford Road is likely to increase
Slip road from A505 to the Buntingford Road
If the new southern link road is created, building a slip road from the A505 by pass to provide access to the Buntingford Road, would reduce the traffic flow through BA3 and Clothall Common.
Infrastructure
Such large developments as proposed for Baldock requires appropriate infrastructure. However we have only one GP surgery, A & E at the Lister Hospital is frequently full to capacity with long waiting times. Our community Police Station has been closed and the land converted to dwellings. Our library hours have been reduced. We have no Public Toilets. Frequently there is little parking in the town.

Despite the building of the new bypass a great deal of traffic goes through the town. This includes many large lorries travelling between the A1M and the bypass. These have to negotiate the low railway bridge and occasionally become stuck under it.

What studies have been carried out to assess the potential effect that an additional 7,180 cars might have on the town and the surrounding roads? This is assuming 3,590 new dwellings with a minimum of 2 people per household each with a car. I was unable to find this information in the documents provided for Consultation.

BA10 employment sites
Baldock is a small town. Employment opportunities are limited. Due to the railway and position near the A1M many people living in the town commute to other areas for employment.

Employment sites are to be extended at BA10 to provide jobs for occupants of the new dwellings. However there is no guarantee that these jobs will not be taken by people from out of the area. The additional vehicles used by potential employees to access the site, together with delivery vehicles, will further add to the congestion on the existing roads around the town and pollution.

A reasonable alternative would be to locate new dwellings near to areas with higher employment opportunities, such as the West of Stevenage. This would be in line with National Planning Policy Framework which states that "plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised".

Ivel Nature Reserve
The River Ivel and its Springs are a Chalk river. These are rare with about 200 globally. We therefore have a duty to take care of our river and springs. Has the effect on the river and springs of building so many dwellings on nearby land (BA1) been assessed? Any development should not have a negative effect on the river or the wildlife in this area. All Green Belt sites will result in loss of habitat. This is of particular concern for the hedgehog, which is already endangered and red listed arable farmland birds which are present on site BA1
Master plan for BA2/BA3 / BA4/ BA5
A site master plan is to be provided for BA1 as this "will be substantial new community". However with a proposal for 500 houses to be built between sites BA2/BA3/BA4/BA5 a site master plan should also be provided for these areas as together they will also be a substantial development that will have a significant impact on the local road network.

Plan with vision and imagination
North Hertfordshire is the home of the first Garden City. This was planned in 1904 with vision and imagination. Town planning should have moved on from this to provide an even better vision for future housing and yet in Baldock we have a proposal for 3,590 new homes, which will increase the size of Baldock by 80%. There seems to be no clear vision for transport, infrastructure, and the creation of a desirable place to live.
The number of houses proposed should be appropriate for the size of the town, not create a separate town as in the case of the development at BA1. The required number of houses could be built by constructing an appropriate number in Baldock and with the cooperation of South Cambridgeshire District Council, give consideration to building a new town at a site such as Odsey which already has a railway station but no obvious constraints for future development.
General comments
In view of the large scale of development proposed by NHDC in Baldock I have been disappointed that there has been no public exhibition in the town about the consultation detailing the proposals. Documents were provided for viewing in the local library but there was no large signage to indicate to people entering the library that the documents were there.
Making comment on the Local Plan is a complicated process and thank fully we have had the support of the SaveRural Baldock campaign to guide people through this.
NHDC changed their website on the final day that comments were to be submitted, which did not assist the process for those still needing to submit their comments.

See attached

I am writing this email in response to the NHDC Local Plan Consultation to express my concerns and objections on the proposed plan. My comments and concerns are as follows:

1. Spatial Strategy - On review of the proposed Local Plan, the percentage of proposed housing to and around the small historic town of Baldock is extremely high. Based on the current size of Baldock, the proposal to build 3290 new homes will double the size of this historic town. Baldock has a thriving community as it stands which would be hugely impacted on with this number of properties. Based on an average of 3 to 4 people per property, this would equate to between 9,870 to 13,160 additional residents of Baldock, which in turn has further implications as I will identify below.

2. The number of proposed residents if we use the above average (which could potentially be 4 or more depending on the number of bedroom spaces proposed for each development), will have an impact on the current town centre of Baldock.
Baldock is a small town with limited parking. The high street has a good historic feel to it with the St. Mary's church at the end of the high street.
The parking on the high street of Baldock already is insufficient, with the number of people visiting Baldock during the day and evening exceeding the number of parking spaces, which proves difficult to park when you need too.
With the proposed number of new residents, Baldock town will be choked.

3. Under Policy SP6 - Sustainable transport. The proposal is already at risk of being flawed. The current rail network company (Govia) are proposing to reduce the number of trains stopping at Baldock Station. The current Baldock station platform is at the limit, the number of passengers boarding the train during peak times is already large and virtually fills the train. As a commuter, I have noticed that as soon as the train reaches Letchworth station (being the next stop from Baldock), there is insufficient seats or space for commuters from Hitchin, Stevenage and the following stops. The proposed number of new residents in Baldock will consist of a majority of commuters moving to the countryside with good links to London. This will mean the trains will be overcrowded to a point where the trains are unable to function safely. This in turn will cause a loss in revenue for companies due to the number of people that will not arrive to work on time. It has become clear that NHDC have not been in consultation with Network Rail or Govia in relation to the proposals.
This was confirm via the Save Baldock Trains petition, when a local MP discussed the proposals with Govia, which they knew nothing about the proposed over development of Baldock.

4. The proposed new development is to include a new surgery. Currently Baldock Surgery has over 12,000 Baldock residents registered, The proposed new surgery would have to be part of the first phase to be constructed to enable the practice to be set up sufficiently to accommodate the proposed number of residents. The surgery would have to be of a substantial size similar to Baldock Surgery. One concern here is whether the surgery is able to employ the number of doctors and medical staff to accommodate the extremely high number of residents proposed. I believe our country is struggling to find the number of doctors required to run a doctors practice sufficiently.

5. SP11 - Natural Resources & Sustainability - Areas BA3, BA4 and BA5 were prone to flooding prior to the A505 Baldock Bypass being constructed. The ditch alongside the Old Wallington Road used to Flood. There was numerous remedial works that had to be carried out to area BA4 after the bypass was constructed.
The Land within Baldock is made up of chalk.

6. SP14 BA1 site North of Baldock - This is the largest area proposed to construct housing, retail and schools. The proposal for a new link road between the A1 and the A505 would not work. Has Network Rail been consulted on this proposal, has Herts County Council actually reviewed the level change to create a link road, if they have, then the proposal should be issued for public view.
From our understanding at consultation meetings, the proposed bypass is proposed as a single carriageway road. This will only shift the traffic jam onto the new road. Before any development on Baldock takes place the following needs to be constructed:
i) - The proposed new bypass from A1 to A505 needs to be a dual carriageway
ii) - The A1 to A505 bypass would need to be extended to the A10. The traffic running through Baldock not only goes to the A505, but a huge number of traffic and HGV vehicles cut through Baldock and Cottered to reach the A10. The number of potential residents and traffic that will take this route may cause the road to the A10 to be gridlocked. The road through Cottered has not even been considered during the consultation period. This will have a substantial impact on Cottered, Walkern and Buntingford. This needs to form part of the consultation, a traffic assessment needs to be carried out on the Cottered / Buntingford Road to ascertain the traffic levels now prior to any development.
iii) - We understand from media reports that the A1 is subject to being widened to 3 lanes. This is a good thing, but needs to be completed before any construction takes place in Baldock. The A1 would need to be widened from the Baldock Services all the way to Welwyn where it has already been widened to 3 lanes. As it currently stands, the A1 is gridlocked between Baldock and Welwyn on a daily basis during rush hours (6am until at least 9:30am and 3:30pm until 7pm). This would ease congestion substantially before any works take place in Baldock which may ease the level of traffic trying to go through Baldock slightly.

Infrastructure - Drainage and risk of flooding. With the number of houses proposed, the local plan mentions a provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will be required. The number of houses proposed will have a dramatic impact on SUDS. The houses would produce approximately 105 litres of water per day each (based on Code for Sustainable Homes values). This will impact on the current drainage system and potential create a higher risk of flooding over a
15 - 30 year period. The drainage infrastructure would need substantial improvements to accommodate the number of proposed properties. This needs consultation with the water authority.

If you have any queries, please let me know.

See attached

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.

I am writing this email in response to the NHDC Local Plan
Consultation to express my concerns and objections on the proposed
plan. My comments and concerns are as follows:

1. Spatial Strategy - On review of the proposed Local Plan, the
percentage of proposed housing to and around the small historic town
of Baldock is extremely high. Based on the current size of Baldock,
the proposal to build 3290 new homes will double the size of this
historic town. Baldock has a thriving community as it stands which
would be hugely impacted on with this number of properties. Based on
an average of 3 to 4 people per property, this would equate to between
9,870 to 13,160 additional residents of Baldock, which in turn has further implications as I will identify below.

2. The number of proposed residents if we use the above average (which
could potentially be 4 or more depending on the number of bedroom
spaces proposed for each development), will have an impact on the current town centre of Baldock.
Baldock is a small town with limited parking. The high street has a
good historic feel to it with the St. Mary's church at the end of the high street.
The parking on the high street of Baldock already is insufficient,
with the number of people visiting Baldock during the day and evening
exceeding the number of parking spaces, which proves difficult to park when you need too.
With the proposed number of new residents, Baldock town will be choked.

3. Under Policy SP6 - Sustainable transport. The proposal is already
at risk of being flawed. The current rail network company (Govia) are
proposing to reduce the number of trains stopping at Baldock Station.
The current Baldock station platform is at the limit, the number of
passengers boarding the train during peak times is already large and
virtually fills the train. As a commuter, I have noticed that as soon
as the train reaches Letchworth station (being the next stop from
Baldock), there is insufficient seats or space for commuters from
Hitchin, Stevenage and the following stops. The proposed number of new
residents in Baldock will consist of a majority of commuters moving to
the countryside with good links to London. This will mean the trains
will be overcrowded to a point where the trains are unable to function
safely. This in turn will cause a loss in revenue for companies due to
the number of people that will not arrive to work on time. It has become clear that NHDC have not been in consultation with Network Rail or Govia in relation to the proposals.
This was confirm via the Save Baldock Trains petition, when a local MP
discussed the proposals with Govia, which they knew nothing about the
proposed over development of Baldock.

4. The proposed new development is to include a new surgery. Currently
Baldock Surgery has over 12,000 Baldock residents registered, The
proposed new surgery would have to be part of the first phase to be
constructed to enable the practice to be set up sufficiently to
accommodate the proposed number of residents. The surgery would have
to be of a substantial size similar to Baldock Surgery. One concern
here is whether the surgery is able to employ the number of doctors
and medical staff to accommodate the extremely high number of
residents proposed. I believe our country is struggling to find the number of doctors required to run a doctors practice sufficiently.

5. SP11 - Natural Resources & Sustainability - Areas BA3, BA4 and BA5
were prone to flooding prior to the A505 Baldock Bypass being
constructed. The ditch alongside the Old Wallington Road used to
Flood. There was numerous remedial works that had to be carried out to area BA4 after the bypass was constructed.
The Land within Baldock is made up of chalk.

6. SP14 BA1 site North of Baldock - This is the largest area proposed
to construct housing, retail and schools. The proposal for a new link
road between the A1 and the A505 would not work. Has Network Rail been
consulted on this proposal, has Herts County Council actually reviewed
the level change to create a link road, if they have, then the proposal should be issued for public view.
From our understanding at consultation meetings, the proposed bypass
is proposed as a single carriageway road. This will only shift the
traffic jam onto the new road. Before any development on Baldock takes
place the following needs to be constructed:
i) - The proposed new bypass from A1 to A505 needs to be a dual
carriageway
ii) - The A1 to A505 bypass would need to be extended to the A10. The
traffic running through Baldock not only goes to the A505, but a huge
number of traffic and HGV vehicles cut through Baldock and Cottered to
reach the A10. The number of potential residents and traffic that will
take this route may cause the road to the A10 to be gridlocked. The
road through Cottered has not even been considered during the
consultation period. This will have a substantial impact on Cottered,
Walkern and Buntingford. This needs to form part of the consultation,
a traffic assessment needs to be carried out on the Cottered / Buntingford Road o ascertain the traffic levels now prior to any development.
iii) - We understand from media reports that the A1 is subject to
being widened to 3 lanes. This is a good thing, but needs to be
completed before any construction takes place in Baldock. The A1 would
need to be widened from the Baldock Services all the way to Welwyn
where it has already been widened to 3 lanes. As it currently stands,
the A1 is gridlocked between Baldock and Welwyn on a daily basis
during rush hours (6am until at least 9:30am and 3:30pm until 7pm).
This would ease congestion substantially before any works take place
in Baldock which may ease the level of traffic trying to go through Baldock slightly.

Infrastructure - Drainage and risk of flooding. With the number of
houses proposed, the local plan mentions a provision of Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems will be required. The number of houses proposed
will have a dramatic impact on SUDS. The houses would produce
approximately 105 litres of water per day each (based on Code for
Sustainable Homes values). This will impact on the current drainage
system and potential create a higher risk of flooding over a
15 - 30 year period. The drainage infrastructure would need
substantial improvements to accommodate the number of proposed
properties. This needs consultation with the water authority.

If you have any queries, please let me know.

See attachment