Policy SP6: Sustainable Transport

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 72

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 80

Received: 19/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Geoff Lawrence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object: Clearer and firmer link required between house building and transport infrastructure

Full text:

But with reservation.
The transport and road infrastructure plan needs to be firmer and clearer and linked to house building. Not to do so threatens delivery. Adding 700 houses to Knebworth is great for economic sustainability, but if Rail, Bus, transport/parking authorities are not obliged to offer their plans simultaneously to integrate safely the houses , the roads, rail services and parking, safe junctions for motor and pedestrian users, the Plan will fail.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 109

Received: 23/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Justin Richards

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The roads in Hitchin are saturated during peak hours and any roadworks on the major roads result in significant congestion through the area.
The public transport infrastructure is either insufficient (buses) or utterly saturated (trains). The railway car park is hugely expensive and full everyday.
Meanwhile area pollution is above legal limits and causing health issues.
Yet the council sees it appropriate to build more houses by just adding on to existing towns.
Be brave and build new communities rather than drowning existing communities.

Full text:

The roads in Hitchin are saturated during peak hours and any roadworks on the major roads result in significant congestion through the area.
The public transport infrastructure is either insufficient (buses) or utterly saturated (trains). The railway car park is hugely expensive and full everyday.
Meanwhile area pollution is above legal limits and causing health issues.
Yet the council sees it appropriate to build more houses by just adding on to existing towns.
Be brave and build new communities rather than drowning existing communities.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 296

Received: 11/11/2016

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Finney

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Baldock - congestion, highway safety, impact of proposed expansion, rail capacity

Full text:

Baldock already suffers from congestion due to medieval town centre; large lorries cutting through from A1 to A505 colliding on numerous ccasions with the railway bridge and causing damage to properties on the White Horse crossroads junction. Increasing the size of the town by 73% will exacerbate these problems and cse problems on all surrounding roads with increased traffic volume. Rail company is proposing to increase journey times to London by 20 minutes. Trains are often full at Letchworth during rush hour so knock on effects for other stops will be profound.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 310

Received: 13/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Prior

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Traffic flow along North Road into Baldock towards the cross roads will be untenable.

Full text:

North Road runs from the proposed site at Blackhorse Farm down into Baldock. It enters Baldock at a cross roads. It is here that we see Baldock as an hour glass shape. All major traffic flows entering Baldock - plus all the corresponding traffic flows heading in the opposite direction - have to pass through this single junction. As a result, the junction is always congested, and congestion during the rush hour can extend back almost as far as the Baldock services.
In addition to this, traffic must pass under the railway bridge. It is a regular occurrence that lorries crash into the bridge - bringing traffic to a standstill. North Road is a danger to walk down, as a mother with children, to the local school at the moment. It will become untenable if this development goes ahead.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 393

Received: 15/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mr John and Angela Warner Smith

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Inadequate bridge access linking the two sides of Knebworth.

Full text:

Knebworth has the East Coast Mainline running North-south through the village, splitting the village, with the bulk of housing to the west and the services, ships, school, doctor all on the east side. The two bridges in the village are both narrow, with narrow pavement on one side only. it is common for pedestrians to need to step out into the road to pass each other. the bridge near the station is already dangerous, badly lit and of inadequate width. The pavement is not wide enough for a double-buggy for instance. And this is before plans to increase the population of the village.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 452

Received: 22/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Carole Ann Brown

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: A507 / B656 junction not addressed, traffic impact upon historic town centre of Baldock, greater allocation for employment than the town needs will increase journeys into Baldock, breaching of air quality standards is likely, Site 209E withdrawn as unsuitable because of such considerations.

Full text:

The scale of growth proposed is likely to have a serious negative impact on the local highway network. Already the crossroads at Whitehorse Street / Royston Road is a key pinch point (acknowledged in the Plan (13.29)) with congestion and long queues in all directions at peak and non-peak times. Alteration to the crossroad is not possible because of the presence of listed buildings on both sides of the road. A large proportion of trips from site BA1 (North of Baldock) is likely to be towards Letchworth and Hitchin. The Plan stresses that these towns are interconnected (paras 2.31, 4.27, 13.14) and that many new residents will commute out of Baldock (paras 4.25-6). The employment allocation deliberately provides for more employment than the town needs (policy SP3) and this is likely to increase the peak time trips between Baldock and Letchworth and Hitchin. The proposed link road through site BA1 would involve a long trip to the other towns for most residents, and experience following the opening of the Baldock bypass shows that people tend to take the shortest route rather than the least congested.
Air traffic quality standards in Whitehorse Street / Hitchin Street areas are likely to be breached. They are already close to be exceeded (para 9.28). Former site 209E was considered unsuitable for this reason.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 490

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Gordon

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6(g): Plan should commit to review and creation of new rights of way

Full text:

SP6 point g and paragraph 4.72 should be strengthened - with the loss of so much Green Belt and with detrimental effects on access to the countryside having been highlighted by the Sustainability Assessment, then point g should commit to the review and creation of new rights of way (footpaths and bridleways) to encourage greater access to and participation with the countryside. This will have a positive effect on health and well-being and will also be a demonstrable benefit from development in the plan - i.e. it will help make the plan more sustainable, in the short and the long term.

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 495

Received: 19/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Busuttil

Representation Summary:

This policy will only be effective if the capacity, frequency and journey speed of trains to/from Baldock is increased. The effectiveness of this policy will be enhanced by providing step-free platform access at Baldock station.

Full text:

SP6 c. should include increasing total train capacity, particularly to and from Baldock at peak times, and preventing any reduction in the frequency, journey speed and capacity at other times . Para 4.26 of the proposed local plan acknowledges that, "transport infrastructure ... is already under
strain at peak periods." The proposed development of Baldock in particular will inevitably increase the number of people using the trains from Baldock. At present the train operator, Govia, is consulting on timetable amendments which would significantly reduce the frequency of fast trains to London. This should be opposed in order to help ensure the success of SP6.
Also, SP6 c. should include creating step-free access to the platforms at Baldock station. The present lack of step-free access prevents use (or convenient use) of the station by those with prams/pushchairs, wheelchair users and those with other mobility problems. Failure to provide step-free access at Baldock will force those users to either rely on transport by car (less sustainable and contributes to road congestion) or prevent access to shops and services in Letchworth, Hitchin and elsewhere.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 501

Received: 19/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Joseph Busuttil

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This policy will only be effective if the capacity, frequency and speed of trains to/from Baldock is increased. The effectiveness of this policy will be enhanced by providing step-free platform access at Baldock station.

Full text:

SP6 c. should include increasing total train capacity, particularly to and from Baldock at peak times, and preventing any reduction in the frequency, speed and capacity at other times . Para 4.26 of the proposed local plan acknowledges that, "transport infrastructure ... is already under strain at peak periods." The proposed development of Baldock in particular will inevitably increase the number of people using the trains from Baldock. At present the train operator, Govia, is consulting on timetable amendments which would significantly reduce the frequency of fast trains to London. This should be opposed in order to help ensure the success of SP6.

Also, SP6 c. should include creating step-free access to the platforms at Baldock station. The present lack of step-free access prevents use (or convenient use) of the station by those with prams/pushchairs, wheelchair users and those with other mobility problems. Failure to provide step-free access at Baldock will force those users to either rely on transport by car (less sustainable and contributes to road congestion) or prevent access to shops and services in Letchworth, Hitchin and elsewhere.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 757

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Hague-Moss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: No plan to cater for increased rail commuting

Full text:

The plan fails to say how the ever increasing rail commuters will be catered for. The trains and platforms are already overcrowded. More homes means more commuters, congestion, and misery

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 777

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Neil Brown

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Too theoretical, need to consider what can be achieved, overreliance on modal shift, does not address increase in car use from new homes, cuts to train and bus contrary to criterion c.

Full text:

This policy is too theoretical and has not been evaluated it against what might be practicable. It relies too much on encouraging alternative modes of transport and does not adequately tackle the massive increase in motor car use that housing development will bring.

The policy requires the Council to work with service providers to provide sustainable transport options (clause c). If this has been happening, it has been unsuccessful. Recently there have been cuts in already limited bus services to Baldock. There is also a proposal to reduce the rail service at Baldock.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 802

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Mark Goddard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6:
- Rail facilities at capacity
- Local and regional road links are not sustainable, and will worsen congestion

Full text:

A lack of detailed assessment of the transport needs of Baldock has not been undertaken, this should be done prior to going to the inspector. the issues are as follows:
Road Communications (local) - The current road network cannot support the level of traffic currently going through Baldock. The North Herts review, glosses over this important issue which would mean gridlock. Currently there is a queue of traffic for up to half a mile along the Great North Road every single morning trying to get into the Town. The proposed development will mean this will worsen.
The proposed link road A507-A505 will attract regional traffic so become a trunk road and further exacerbate the local transport problems. It will also affect the village of Bygrave which is less than 200 yds from its proposed site.
2. Road Communications (regional) - The A1 at Junction 9 & 10 is only a dual carriageway. This artery to the south and north is already blocked daily. It does not have the capacity for an extra 5000 cars.
3. Rail communications - Baldock is a main commuter Town. Currently the rail system is at capacity. Assuming that most of the 3000 adults will commute either by car or rail to work, as there are limited employment opportunities within the locale , this will place further strain on the rail system. Currently if you travel from Baldock station during morning or evening rush hours you are lucky to get a seat. Current levels of rail stock or Baldock station itself are insufficient for this proposal's rail needs & are unlikely to be able to be addressed.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 927

Received: 26/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Luke Callan

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6 on the grounds of:
- does not discuss sustainable transport, required by NPPF

Full text:

It is disappointing that the Local Plan does not discuss sustainable transport options but instead discusses the road network.

I refer to the NPPF where it clearly articulates the delivery of sustainable transport objectives through action and is articulated in
a document that is regularly reviewed.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 957

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership

Agent: Dan Bone

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Site specific requirements should be identified within each site policy. Unclear measures will be delivered if specifics are not outlined.

Full text:

The LEP supports this policy in principle but considers that it needs to go further and commit to sustainability and sustainable transport proposals within the site-specific policies. It is unclear how sustainable transport measures will be delivered if specifics are not outlined for each site and included within each site policy in the local plan. If this policy cannot be achieved there are questions over how development can fund and deliver new infrastructure and as part of this, the need to put institute formal governance arrangements to ensure that this takes place in an ordered, fair and transparent manner

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1058

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Tanya Gribble

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: no mention of increasing pedestrian crossings within Baldock

Full text:

There is no mention of increasing pedestrian crossings within the existing town of Baldock. In particular the roundabout at the junction of London Road, South Road, Tesco superstore & High street currently has a single crossing (on London Road) which is woefully inadequate for any pedestrian attempting to get from the town centre / school to London road. The traffic using this roundabout to access Tesco wil increase significantly and pedestrian safety (particularly due to the raised nature of the centre of the roundabout) will be very much in doubt.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1062

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Miss Hayley Ward

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This policy states: "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities;"
The site WY1 will put increased pressure on an already insufficient motorway for today's volume traffic (junction8 of the AI (M)). This junction is already grid-locked at peak hours, and the A1 (M) from junction 9 (Baldock) right into London and beyond into London, is exceptionally slow moving and almost stationary south bound. Site WY1 has no access to trains and the bus service is woeful, so the only option residents have is the car.

Full text:

This policy states: "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities;"
The site WY1 will put increased pressure on an already insufficient motorway for today's volume of traffic (junction 8 of the AI (M)). This junction is already grid-locked at peak hours, and the A1 (M) from junction 9 (Baldock) right into London and beyond into London, is exceptionally slow moving and almost stationary south bound. Site WY1 has no access to trains and the bus service is woeful, so the only option residents have is the car. How building more houses on top of this junction can be classed as "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities" is beyond the realms of common sense. Hertfordshire County Councillor Terry Douris already stated in the Mercury Newspaper October 18th 2016 that "Hertfordshire is the busiest county in the country and our roads are under incredible pressure - we have a network of more than 5,000km (3,000 miles) and very high traffic levels, with millions of car journeys and 2.5 times the national average of lorries using our roads." How can building an additional 14,000 homes, potentially another 28,000 cars using this junction, or the A1(M) in Hertfordshire possibly be a sensible thing to do? There is also a significant health risk posed in the increase in air pollution from additional slow-moving/standing traffic. The rest of the commentary in the 'plan' around transport is rather vague, stating that changes will be made, but not stating any specific plan with any details as to how sustainable traffic will be achieved. The plan passes the transport buck to Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and to the developers. This is not good enough. HCC have just launched a public consultation on the future of transport in our area, stating that they envisage travel times in the local area will increase by 25% in the next few years, and asking the public how to resolve this, so until there is a proper model for how to 'keep Hertfordshire moving', a local plan for increasing the density of population should not be made. Once a sensible expansion plan for the A1(M) is in existence and delivered, then it would make sense to review where houses might go, but a new garden city with it's own transport infrastructure might well be the best solution for the period of this plan. You cannot simply add houses and cars without having a proper plan for how all this additional traffic will move around at rush hour and cater for it, what is clear, is that our current road and rail infrastructure will not cope, and Hertfordshire will not be a great place to live at all, if commuting times are increased by 25% or more.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1131

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr John Green

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6:
- By allowing so many new houses to be developed in the District's villages, the DLP neglects that policy and also runs contrary to NPPF
- The Inspector should require the NHDC to reconsider its strategy of allowing inappropriate levels of development in District's villages

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1400

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Meredith-Hardy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

It is certain that BA1 will cause such gridlock at the A507/B656 junction as to make access to Baldock from the surrounding villages to the North difficult or at times impossible. NHDC / HCC evidence states there is very little scope to improve it thus suggesting NHDC prefers BA1 residents to work and shop in Royston or Biggleswade. This is not a 'sustainable' solution.

Full text:

Radwell, a village 2 miles north of Baldock. Baldock is where residents of Radwell and other nearby villages go shopping and catch public transport services (train or bus). Site BA1 will make this much more difficult than it is now because the plan is inadequate.

Department of Transport statistics say car ownership 2014/15 in "Rural Town and Fringe" is 1.39. This suggests that with 2800 new homes in the proposed North Baldock development it will become home to c. 3900 cars and vans.

Travel to places of work:

2011 Census: "Method of travel to work England and Wales, 2011. Employed usual residents aged 16 to 74, plus passengers, is 62.6%" This equates to approximately an extra 2200 car movements from BA1 morning and evening.

So how is this traffic expected to get in and out of BA1? The plan envisages a single 'distributor road' with two exits, one to North Road, and the other over a new bridge over the railway to the A505 junction.

Going into Baldock: Whether you leave BA1 by either exit this traffic must cross the lights at the The A507/B656 Junction.

"The junction is operating close to the degree of overload where queuing could be an issue. With no land available to modify the existing arrangement to increase the capacity, it would indicate that any notable future developments would require new or amended junctions/ roads elsewhere in the local network to accommodate the additional traffic generated by them." [Feasibility report (Nov 2014)]

The "junction is currently running close to capacity and will be unable to accommodate additional development flows with its current configuration. ... Additional mitigation measures would therefore be required at this location which have not been identified or costed for." (comment letter from Paul Donovan HCC Spatial Planning and the Economy Environment Department 3 Feb 15)

Our empirical experience of taking children to the Station every morning and evening backs this up; North Rd can often be stationary back to Norton Mill Lane from where it takes more than 15 Min to get to the traffic lights. Indeed it is nearly as congested as when this was the Great North Road before the A1(M) was built in 1966, when traffic would occasionally back up as far as Radwell Lane.

Going into Letchworth or A1(M) south via Letchworth Gate:

"Key current congestion issues in the town include the area around Letchworth Gate and the A505 / A6141 junction" (comment letter from Paul Donovan HCC Spatial Planning and the Economy Environment Department 3 Feb 15)

NHDC's own information indicates the only reasonably uncongested routes out of BA1 are likely to be the A505 to Royston or North Road to J10 of the A1(M).

Travel to shopping:

The plan envisages "A new local centre along with additional neighbourhood-level provision providing around 500m2 (net) class A1 convenience retail provision and 1,400m2 (net) of other A-class floorspace" [Policy SP14 b] but this total provision for a proposed population of c.6500 people is barely 1/3 of the size of just one existing shop in Baldock. Tesco has a Net Sales floor space of 6,340 m2 [NHDC Appendix A Study Area and Existing Retail Facilities] and is already operating somewhere near its capacity at peak times.

All the nearby shops are either in the town centre, or Tesco, or are in Letchworth (Sainsburys, Lidl Etc) and to get to them all you must go through the junctions highlighted as either 'congested' or 'close to capacity' already.

It is certain that BA1 will cause such gridlock at the A507/B656 junction as to make access to Baldock from the surrounding villages to the North difficult or at times impossible. NHDC / HCC evidence states there is very little scope to improve it thus suggesting NHDC prefers BA1 residents to work and shop in Royston or Biggleswade. This is not a 'sustainable' solution.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1561

Received: 23/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Philip Wood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: inadequate transport model validation prior to assessment of highway mitigation, lacks transparency on current and future journey times, standard model outputs presented, detailed results for other junctions needed, interface between highways and rail also needed,

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1649

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Revell

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Traffic impact of BA1

Full text:

The already congested A507 into the crossroads at Whitehorse Street/Station road which provides the only vehicular access to the station and is the favoured route by most Sat-Navs for routing traffic to/from the A1 cannot cope with the additional load, which will certainly come from the BA1 development. The proposal of a separate road through the development (13.29) does not guarantee prevention and it would be niave to assume this. To quote from the NHDC Letchworth and Baldock Urban Transport Plan (July 2007) - "Baldock is particularly unsuited to high levels of traffic, especially through the narrowest roads of the historic town centre (e.g. White Horse Street)".

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1650

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Revell

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: No evidence of consultation with rail provider at Baldock Station to increase capacity.

Full text:

2) There is no evidence of consultation with the Railway provider as to how the addition of such a large number of additional commuters can be handled. Is there scope for increasing the size of the station or improving the access & parking? Based on the current geography & location, this is doubtful and the rail company is actually proposing cuts to the services in/out of Baldock.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1675

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: ConnectedCities Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection to SP6:

Should be amended to:
We will deliver accessibility improvements and only permit development where it is served by sustainable transport modes. We will: .....
Section d
d. Require the early implementation of sustainable travel infrastructure on Strategic Housing Sites in order to influence the behaviour of occupiers or users, along with supporting Travel Plans in order that sustainable travel patterns become embedded at an early stage;

Full text:

ConnectedCities concentrates on enabling an easy shift to sustainable transport modes. See http://www.connectedcities.co.uk/vision-2050/travel

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Kendall

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection to SP6 (comments relating to BA1):
- already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction
- sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed i.e. link road and additional bridge over railway
- Transport Assessment does not consider North of Baldock, only Baldock with Letchworth

Full text:

There are already tailbacks at the Whitehorse Street junction and if BA1 contains 2800 more households, the traffic flow through this junction will increase significantly. The plan mentions that BA1 site is big enough to support a new link road, including an additional bridge over the railway, but the sustainability assessment does not assess what is needed. The Transport Assessment does not consider N of Baldock, only Baldock WITH Letchworth in traffic modelling. Local Plan Model Testing 60271338 says in para 2 Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Jane Neal

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6:
- Does not support sustainable transport
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Increased pressure on exciting services from new development

Full text:

In addition to the plan not supporting sustainable development it also does not support sustainable transport. The new road network, major junction's extensions to existing roads and the associated utilities and services required for the Blackhorse site burdens the local area adding un-controllable additional pressure on the spur roads and surrounding radial roads rather than reducing the need for major transport infrastructure.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1783

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Ramblers Association (Hertfordshire & North Middlesex Area)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Insufficient measures to mitigate extra traffic from NS1

Full text:

The B197 through Graveley becomes North Road as it approaches Stevenage. This is officially the busiest road in Stevenage at peak times. It is also a major approach to Lister Hospital serving the whole of North Herts, Stevenage and beyond.

The problem junctions are with A602, the entry into the Old Town. Improvements might ease the tailbacks but insufficiently to compensate for the extra traffic from NS1 namely traffic from hundreds of houses forced onto this road. Other or extra exit points would still problems.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1804

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jane Head

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6: Safeguarding exciting transport facilities.

Full text:

Baldock

NHDC have had no discussions with the railway companies with regard to the link road included in BA1 and the proposed development of 3500 new houses and Govia rail have announced that they are reducing the Baldock service in 2018

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1994

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Mr David Housham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to Policy SP6: evidence base is flawed - it shouldn't comply with LTP as no trip generation - from Luton local plan and airport growth. Inadequate solutions and mitigation. Incompletely calculated on flawed, partial predictions, dangers to public health and safety, mitigation proposals HM8, HM10 and HM15 should be abandoned and replaced for vital safety and environmental reasons by a plan to create enhanced road linkage between the dualled A505 west of Hitchin and the Hitchin Hill roundabout - matches Scheme 80 assessed within the "Hertfordshire Transport Vision High Level Project Appraisal of Long List of Schemes For Hertfordshire Transport Vision" produced by AECOM in February 2016.

Full text:

Policy SP6: Sustainable Transport & supporting text

OBJECTION

I object to Policy SP6 and its supporting text on the grounds that the evidence base supporting the policy is flawed.

Policy SP60's objective to comply with the misguided Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan is not desirable or properly achievable particularly on the basis that it fails to take into consideration recent and proposed development within Luton Borough and the associated increase in traffic that will flow along the A505 into North Hertfordshire via Hitchin.

NHDC's transport-related evidence base also fails to take this transport growth into consideration.The key evidence documents are:

Document A: The North Hertfordshire Local Plan Testing Technical Note prepared by AECOM dated 6th July 2016.

Document B: The Local Transport Technical Review prepared by Odyssey Markides dated 23rd September 2016.

Document A (above) addressing transport issues related to proposals in the Local Plan 2011-2031 fails to factor in trip generation - from both recent development in Luton (the expansion of Luton Airport) and development proposed within the Luton Borough Local Plan - travelling into North Hertfordshire along the A505, A602 and B656 to access the A1M.

Likewise, Document B (above) fails to take into account the same growing trip generation. It relies on various AECOM evidence reports which all fail to factor in this additional trip generation as they focus entirely on trip generation within Hertfordshire only.

As a result of this failure to factor in growing trip generation from Luton the mitigation proposals are only sufficient to address trips generated by predicted baseline growth and the development proposals in the Local Plan. The Local Plan Testing Note admits the Plan's proposals will barely address the predicted trip generation - meaning that further measures will be required to address further growth in the future. Since expanded trip generation from the expanded Luton Airport and the proposed development allocations of the Luton Borough Local Plan are not taken into account in Document A's assessments, NHDC's proposed mitigation measures will not be sufficient to cope with future demand.

NHDC's proposals include:

i) Signalisation of the Pirton Road/A505/Upper Tilehouse Street/Wratten Road junction (Scheme HM8)

ii) Signalisation of the Upper Tilehouse St/A602/Paynes Park junction (Scheme HM10)

iii) Improvement of the A505/B656 Hitchn Hill roundabout (Scheme HM15)

These schemes are recognised in the testing documents as barely accommodating the growth predicted by the assessments, and thus would not accommodate the additional growth from Luton travelling to the A1M or additional growth beyond the plan period. They are a misguided, inadequate solution to future traffic flow incompletely calculated on flawed, partial predictions.

The Local Transport Plan and the Local Plan should be proposing a transport strategy based on better founded predictions which properly accommodate the future growth of traffic levels within the term of the Local Plan and beyond. The current proposals clearly fail to do this.

These concerns are in addition to the obvious problems that any amount of increased traffic - with increased concomitant dangers to public health and safety - will bring as it travels through Hitchin via Moormead Hill and Upper Tilehouse Street. These are single lane roads with residential dwellings on either side, which run through a catchment area for Samuel Lucas JMI School.

As can be observed on a daily basis, the factors which should be raising alarm signals in relation to increased traffic flow are:

1. The roads and pavements along Upper Tilehouse Street are narrow and result in extremely close proximity of pedestrains to high volume traffic. The traffic continually through the day includes HGVs travelling mere feet away from pedestrians on the pavement - comprising in mornings and afternoons a large number of infants and children travelling to and from Samuel Lucas and other schools within Hitchin.

2. Traffic travelling into Hitchin up Moormead Hill regularly fails to slow down from the high speeds that are common on the westbound A505 - again creating hazards to children and parents trying to cross the road.

3. Upper Tilehouse Street is suffering from high levels of air pollution and the Upper Tilehouse Street/Paynes Park junction is to be designated an Air Quality Control Area as a result. The predicted increase in traffic flow - not to mention future increased traffic flow that NHDC has failed to take into account, will make this pollution problem even worse within a residential area.

The above safety and health factors demonstrate that Moormead Hill and Upper Tilehouse Street are unsuitable as strategic roads, and strategic traffic should be diverted along an alternative route. It is immediately obvious to anyone on the spot who observes it (as I do, every day) that especially at peak times the above junctions are already a problematic bottleneck - mostly comprising cars and lorries wanting to pass through Hitchin - in such a confined area that, for example, the introduction of traffic lights would not solve the problem of such heavy build-ups of traffic that clearly require a more effective, efficient, alternative route around the centre of Hitchin - such as an enhanced link between the A505 west of Hitchin and Hitchin Hill roundabout.

The policies reliance on compliance with the Local Transport Plan and other supporting documents in order to mitigate adverse impact arising from the development proposed in the Plan is flawed - these documents do not factor in all traffic growth sources. The NHDC's evidence base on transport issues should be improved and updated to factor in growth from the expansion of Luton Airport and the proposed development allocations of the Luton Borough Local Plan.

The mitigation proposals HM8, HM10 and HM15 should be abandoned and replaced for vital safety and environmental reasons by a plan to create enhanced road linkage between the dualled A505 west of Hitchin and the Hitchin Hill roundabout. This scheme matches Scheme 80 assessed within the "Hertfordshire Transport Vision High Level Project Appraisal of Long List of Schemes For Hertfordshire Transport Vision" produced by AECOM in February 2016. Unlike HM8, HM10 and HM15 in the Local Plan, a Scheme 80-style scheme will provide a better solution to current capacity issues, accommodate additional traffic generated by the Local Plan proposals, accommodate additional traffic generated by Luton Airport expansion and the proposals within the Luton Local Plan, and reduce safety and health issues on Moormead Hill and Upper Tilehouse Street.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2056

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Gloria Liddy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection to SP6:
- the bye_law which restricts traffic from Stevenage travelling along the Hertford Road should be repealed to reduce traffic along the Stevenage Road (197) and Watton Road in Knebworth.
- Stevenage Council to take responsibility for their own traffic on their service roads instead of directing it through Knebworth Village (North Herts Council).
- Redirected traffic down the Hertford Road could be restricted to cars only to prevent lorry congestion etc caused by problems occurring on the A1M.

Full text:

The bye_law which restricts traffic from Stevenage travelling along the Hertford Road should be repealed. This should help reduce traffic along the Stevenage Road (197) and Watton Road in Knebworth. Suggest that negotiations with Stevenage Planning starts immediately.
This should mean that Stevenage Council takes responsibility for their own traffic on their service roads instead of directing it through Knebworth Village (North Herts Council ).
Redirected traffic down the Hertford Road could be restricted to cars only. Those of us who live on the Stevenage Road already have to suffer lorry congestion etc caused by problems occurring on the A1M.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2067

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Dr Brendan Walkden

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6
- Does not comply with the NPPF
- Scale of development
- Town heritage
- Overwhelm the current infrastructure
- Promoting sustainable transport
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Significant number of rail commuters
- Baldock station and services
- Protecting Green Belt land
- Landscape/Village Character
- Ensuring the vitality of town centres
- Promoting healthy communities
- Impact of noise on local amenities

Full text:

As I am sure you are aware the North Herts local plan has caused a great deal of concern amongst local residents and I wanted to include my representations for consideration even though I am sure these mirror those of a great number of local residents. I believe the plan as it currently stands does not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst most people could accept some degree of development, proposals which increase the town population by 80% and increase the number of cars by as many as 5000 will destroy the town heritage and overwhelm the infrastructure

Specifically I believe these to be the main issues
1. NPPF Section 4 - promoting sustainable transport.
1. Currently the crossroads in Baldock town centre, linking Whitehorse Street to the High Street is a significant bottle neck. The plan currently has 2800 homes planned for north of Baldock. As things currently stand, a trip across Baldock in morning rush hour, starting in Bygrave takes as much as 45 minutes, with traffic streaming back towards the A1.
2. The significant number of new residents will likely be rail commuters. There appear to be no plans to accommodate extra parking at Baldock station and the rail company, Govia are currently in consultation to downgrade the Baldock service. As things stand many trains into and out of London from Baldock suffer from significant overcrowding. I have doubts as to whether the current rail service and station at Baldock could cope with the addition of additional commuters from more than 3000 new homes in the town
3. In the absence of accessible town centre parking to accommodate more cars, the additional strain on parking capacity will effectively isolate residents from both upper and lower Bygrave, who, unable to walk into town will have nowhere to park should they drive


2. NPPF Section 9 - Protecting green belt land
1. The individuality of the town will be lost by this upsurge in population. In addition the area on which the houses are planned is very scenic. There are alternative brown belt sites in the area which could be used to absorb at least some of the proposed development.
2. Bygrave is a rural community and a scenic, historical village. This identity will be lost with the number of houses proposed at the North Herts site and effectively create 3 pockets of housing


3. NPPF Section 2 - Ensuring the vitality of town centres
1. I have not seen any plans for additional parking in Baldock town centre. Even though it is only a 15 minute walk into the town from the north Baldock site, we know many people take the car even for short journeys. This will strangle the town.


4. NPPF Section 17 - Promoting healthy communities
1. I have not seen robust plans for schooling to accommodate such a drastic uplift in population. This is key. The schools in Baldock are already extremely difficult to gain entry into (the acceptance criteria to Hertsfield Primary school in 2015 was 360 metres distance to the school gates). Knights Templar secondary school is excellent, but is also heavily over-subscribed. Without adequate planning for schools existing resident's children in the rural communities such as Bygrave and Ashwell face horrific commutes. Going out in the direction of the Cambridgeshire villages then having to come back through Baldock
2. The road planned to link Bygrave Road with the A507 roundabout is planned to be above ground. This will create a great deal of noise and destroy the beautiful views. I believe if this road is to be built it should be in a cutting and go under the railway line.

I understand the need for additional development in Baldock, however I strongly believe the scale of planning is disproportionate with what can be coped with by the town. 3,290 homes are simply too many and I do not believe the local plan complies with the NPPF in several areas.


Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2204

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr David Gillborn

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP6:
- Infrastructure needed to support the growth
- Highway infrastructure and development
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield sites first

Full text:

I am writing to object to the proposals made as part of the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031. I am especially concerned that the proposals fail to guarantee sufficient infrastructure to support the very significant increase in the number of residents and the increased volume of traffic that will overwhelm existing facilities.

In addition, I believe that the proposal to remove the land from Green Belt status is premature and cannot be justified. There is a great deal of undeveloped brown field land in the North Herts/Luton area. This should rightly be the focus for the development of new homes.