BA5 Land off Yeomanry Drive

I believe the plan is not sound for the future of North Hertfordshire because:

1. The design of the road for vehicle access would endanger pedestrians crossing to go to the park.
2. Increased morning congestion would trickle into other road areas. Considering the blind corner, current narrow road and the lack of parking of Hartsfield school drops will not marry up with the development of this land for further unnecessary housing.

3. There is plenty of housing in the area on the market.

4. The land could be put to better use as a recreational ground.

5. The ratio of recreational ground to houses is lower in Clothall Common compared to other areas.

6. The infrastructure would buckle and cause disharmony amongst residents

7. This plan does not consider the promotion of sustainable transport.

8. The initial idea of choosing this land doesn't appear to consider the needs of the current residents and although it may comply with some legal requirements it may fall foul of others with regards to ratio of cars to people.

Conflicts with SP6 Transport because Yeomanry Drive is always cluttered up from Weavers Way and Downland with cars permanently parked. it will lead to yet more vehicles being left on Yeomanry Drive as won't have adequate parking. It will also disrupt dropping/collecting from Hartsfield school.

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.

The proposals fail to consider the possibility of providing additional vehicle access to Hartsfield School by suitably managing the development of this site. In principle all the Clothall Common Estate may be within walking distance of the school but in reality many children are driven to the school (often for compelling reasons), and there is no point in denying this. Driving to the main school entrance on Clothall Road causes additional congestion that could be avoided if there was vehicle access within the estate.

This site includes a green strip that links (on the opposite side of Yeomanry Drive) to a green strip that runs all the way through the middle of Clothall Common. Together this forms a green strip that runs from the other side of Clothall Common all the way to Footpath Baldock 036. This green strip and the link it provides from the footpath to the heart of Clothall Common should be acknowledged by the plan, otherwise it is likely that it will simply be built over as part of this development.

[...] 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 25 additional homes east of Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 50 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 25 additional homes east of Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 50 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock.

This development will deprive the estate of green space and trees, significantly depleting the appeal of the estate. This was planned as part of the original design for Clothall Common Estate and forms an important part of its character.

This small piece of land has been left undeveloped since the Clothall Common development was completed in 1990s.

It is situated adjacent to Hartsfield JMI school and is an area of open space that separates the school from the road and is used as a recreational space by walkers, children and dog walkers with public footpaths bounding it and in relation to the number of proposed dwellings that proposed elsewhere in Baldock it would seem appropriate that it is left as an open space particularly as open space is being lost elsewhere on the estate with the proposed 400 additional houses.

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.

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.

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.