BA10 Royston Road

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.

This seems like a sensible development and I support it.

The scale of employment growth proposed for this site is excessive, given the size of Baldock and the cumulative impact that trips from the development are likely to have on the local highways network, alongside those from the proposed residential sites (see representations on Baldock as a whole).

*Increased employment on this site would increase the volume of traffic going through the pinch point traffic lights at Whitehorse St/Royston Rd
*Increased traffic would have an adverse effect on the air quality in the town
*Baldock would continue to be the easy short cut for traffic

BA10 - Royston Road [Baldock]
We previously highlighted that a Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) would be required but this has not been included

The plan does not define the type of business or employment that the proposed site will support and this opens the possibility of activities and higher private and commercial traffic volume that will be detrimental to Baldock town. Some heavy commercial traffic already uses the town, not the present bypass and there seems to be no way of regulating this. Additional traffic will adversely affect air quality in the town. Additional traffic will exacerbate jams that already occur at peak times at pinch point road junctions. This development may also increase flood risk in Baldock.

The allocation of 19.6 hectares for an 'employment area' unrealistically thinks that this is feasible as it will 'take advantage of a good location close to the junction with the by pass and reasonably close to the proximity of the station and town centre'. Firstly the junction with the bypass will have to bare not only the industrial traffic but also the traffic from the proposed Blackhorse Farm site (BA1). Having lived in Baldock for over 27 years I have witnessed the before and after of the bypass opened in 2006. The improvement in the traffic flow as a result of the bypass has been much eroded and much heavy traffic now passes through Baldock again,using it as a short cut. At peak times in the morning and evening there is often gridlock on the approach road to the A1 at junction 8 where the London Road and By pass meet. A significant rise in traffic volume can only make this situation worse. An other major area of concern will be the junction in the town where Whitehorse Road crosses Station Road, which is already a black spot. this is just adjacent to the proposed 'employment area'.
An industrial area at this site of this size will also detract from the character and appearance of this historic town at one of the major entrances to it.

See attached

This refers to the proposed Link Road joining the A507 to the A505/B656 roundabout at the northern end of the A505 bypass (across, and serving, housing development BA1).

The ideal solution would be to run the Link Road from the roundabout by Baldock Services on A507 to the bypass roundabout on A505 (red line on attached image baldock1.jpg). That would take all the traffic not heading for Baldock centre, either to A1 or to A505, leaving the narrow A507 clear for purely local traffic.

However, that involves building a new road across land presumably not already owned by the County Council. So something like attached image baldock2.jpg might be necessary.

There are two objections to this: (1) A507 from the new Link Road roundabout north to A1 would need to be widened; (2) traffic from development BA1 might be tempted to travel south on A507, negotiating the awful crossroads and traffic lights at B656/A507 junction, and Whitehorse Street and High Street/London Road to reach A1 south, or Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street to reach Letchworth. That would cause traffic chaos at the crossroads and through Baldock.

Whichever route is chosen, it is essential that the only road outlet from BA1 be to the new Link Road, not direct on to A507.

While new building is taking place (BA10), it would also be sensible to make an outlet from the Clothall Common development direct to the B656/A505 bypass roundabout. This would stop east-bound traffic from Clothall Common having to use the A507/B656 crossroads.

Site BA10 deliberately allocates more employment places than the expanded town needs (paras 4.25-6). This is likely to increase the number of journeys through Baldock undertaken each day especially at peak times. Paras 2.31, 4.27 and 13.14 stress that Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin are interconnected for movement.
An increase in traffic will increase the pollution levels in the town especially in Hitchin Street / Whitehorse Street area and could well cause damage to the historic buildings.
As with the proposed number of dwellings, this places a disproportionate burden on the smallest town.

See attachment

See attachment

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

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

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

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

Site BA10 New Employment Allocation- Royston Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment

See attached

See attachment