Royston

Given the desperate need for housing in the region, I think the plan represents a manageable expansion of Royston, in appropriate areas of available land, without excessive development.
Provided the plans are supported by provision of amenities including schools and doctors, there is no sound argument to oppose them, and indeed it is my view that investment in new housing and town centre regeneration will be a boost to the town and help to revistalise an ailing town centre.

There has been too many houses already built in the town, there are not the facilities to cover such growth. There is not enough energy available for the houses, so ugly solar farms are erected such as the one alongside Royston by pass taking land which would be better used for agriculture. The Town Hall should be left as it is one of the few building which is Royston. The trees on this site were carefully selected and add a great deal to the site and should, therefore, left exactly where they are. The car park should be left as it is, we need more parking not less especially with all the extra houses already built. You already get cars parking every available space all across Royston. When will the real problem be looked and that is there are too many people in the country.

After wading through the planning document, I was concerned to see that the small town of Royston is expected top absorb over 1000 homes, without much additional spending on it's infrastructure, or consideration of transport.

The Govia Thameslink plan for timetable alteration, is working on the figures of nearly 800,000 journeys in to London per year, this seems considerably higher the 500, 000 that the planning documentation cites. The semi fast half hourly services in to London from Royston have become noticeably busier, to the point of over crowded. Can I ask if you have been in recent contact with rail providers to discuss the impact of your planned housing increase?

I would argue that increased rail provision needs to take place, otherwise the quality will diminish further (if possible).

In addition, I would also disagree that healthcare provision is adequate. We have no A&E (nearest Cambridge) and it is one area of concern for the all areas,and ages of the community.

I also have great concern for leisure provision. As someone who commutes daily to London, it feels that while I'm expected to contribute fiscally, no thought is given to those like for using the facilities. The swimming pool is incredibly busy in the evenings (7 pm on wards) and not open early enough in the morning for commuters. In addition, Gym provision is minimal, and the space tiny.

While I appreciate housing needs to be provided, the figures used for transport look badly out of date. Commuting in to London seems to have increased rapidly, but the plan seems to assume that we all work locally.

I hope that drainage will also be addressed as a matter of urgency, After any heavy rainfall, Royston has several black spots which flood immediately. I fail to see how adding a huge number of houses will do anything but exacerbate the situation.

Royston does not have the infrastructure for the proposed housing expansion as it currently stands.
Trying to get a doctors, dentist or school place in Royston is hard enough at the moment and trying to drive anywhere at 5 pm is increasingly slow.
Any new development should include new schools and doctors facilities as well as resurrecting the long forgotten Royston south bypass that was proposed a long time ago.

We wish to object to the justification to alter the road layout at the junction of newmarket road with its junction with the a505 at the eastern side of royston. Is it intended to impose a weight limit on vehicles entering the town from this junction, and will two way traffic be able to gain access? Where exactly is it proposed to build to the south of newmarket road? And from which access point? Where will the access be sited to accomodate the proposed new developement to the north of Newmarket road? Is it anticipated that the occupants of these new developements will choose to shop in royston? if so there fitness levels will surely be tested as taking a car into town will be difficult due to a lack of affordable parking spaces! we do trust that you may review the current practise of some shoppers in the town parking in any side roads that do not have some form of restriction operating. This making life in these affected roads especially difficult, and in one in particular a cul de sac with no hammerhead or turning point.

I support all the allocations for numbers of new houses in Royston as there is a significant shortfall of supply of housing compared with demand. Many who don't own a house such as myself are unable to afford rapidly rising prices, and rents are also increasingly unaffordable. Additional housing should help to alleviate these problems to a degree and support a thriving town which I hope will grow further over time.

I understand the ever increasing need for more homes in this area, but as a Royston resident, I would like to say that the traffic around the town is often near gridlock at peak times and I cannot see how the current infrastructure will be able to cope with the increased number of Royston residents. There is then the question of added pressure on our GP surgeries, schools etc.

I live off the A10 and in the past 16 years, the traffic has increased tremendously and I guess, will only get worse as time moves on.

Royston is a pleasant market town which is at risk of being completely spoiled by over development and losing the basic character of the town and surrounding area. Perhaps our local authorities should consider creating a completely new town rather than spoiling existing ones?

I am sure this is all a done deal, a relentless juggernaut of house building that cannot be stopped whatever the views of the people living in the area may be, but I wanted to put my four penny worth into the mix as a lifetime resident of Hertfordshire, however futile it may prove.

As I commute to work or go about my business on Fridays or over the weekend, I am always amazed and dismayed by the fact that wherever I wish to travel to, the roads are always clogged with cars, the towns always crowded out with people and parking places hard to find - the temptation is often to give up, go home and pull up the drawbridge.

The proposal to add 25% to the housing stock in Royston, where I live can only add to the problems that are already existing in the town, some of which can be enumerated as follows:

Traffic gridlock - try driving through Royston at 5pm any day of the week - just don't make any appointments to keep.

Infrastructure inadequacy - try finding doctor, dentist, schools etc with any available space in Royston .

Development causing damage to the historic market town we once had - thanks for the tasteful Tesco Express in the market square, by the way!

In the time I have lived in Royston I have witnessed the increase of traffic and the overcrowding of all the above mentioned infrastructure, together with a gradual migration of the retail offer in the town towards coffee and charity shops - the Market is almost dead also.

Where are we going with all this, what is the ultimate Utopia all the development is leading to - I must admit it is hard for me to visualise - are we just peasants whose "local democracy" seems to have no say in how our towns are modified at the whim of unelected bureaucrats?

If we do need to keep building more and more housing, surely we should build new towns as was done in the past, complete with all the support systems needed to accommodate people in their thousands?

As I said earlier, I wanted to say my piece and I have done - I am not looking forward to living in this area as I get older - who knows what our local environment will have changed into by then?

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

With reference to 4.60, 13.298 & NH Sheet 2 Side B Royston Area

Royston Town Council objects to this land being designated as Urban Open Space.

Should the Gateway project go ahead giving access to RY9 site, such designation would preclude expansion of any commercial area to the west of this site. This limitation might also detract from the justification for the Gateway access.

Royston welcomes the opportunity for more commercial and/ or leisure development.

It is presumed that this designation is as a result of the recommendation made in 4.16 of the report by BSG ecology commissioned by NHDC "Allocation Site RY1: Land west of Ivy Farm, Baldock Road Recreational impacts on Therfield Heath Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)" June 2016.

Para 4.16 "Incorporation of alternative areas of land of a suitable size for informal recreation purposes to include habitat creation to generate biodiversity and landscape interest. For example the two fields to the north of the allocation site could, for example, be used to create a country park. The layout and design of this alternative greenspace needs to be designed to ensure the park is sufficiently attractive to people and will provide an attractive alternative recreation resource to Therfield SSSI."

Royston Town Council does not agree with this recommendation.

See attachment

See attached