Policy SP7: Infrastructure Requirements and Developer Contributions

With severe restrictions as outlined in previous comments. I recognise that the Plan is vital for North Herts economy, vitality and sustainability, and fear that its weak definition of accompanying infrastructure as someone's else responsibility will result in failure, and our future in settlements like Knebworth will condemned to stagnation. But growth without improved roads and junctions, even a by-pass, will be essential. Don't defer these improvements and don't hive them off for other authorities to dismiss!

I am writing to express my concern at the proposal contained within the local plan.

It appears to me that insufficient account has been taken of green belt constraints, as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The very substantial housing numbers, almost 16,000 much of which will be scheduled for land which is currently green belt agricultural land is totally at odds with the spirit of the NPPF section 9. The long term effect of implementation of the plan in it`s current form, will be a loss of amenity for residents of North Herts together with the progressive erosion of the rural environment.

The local transport network is struggling to meet current demand, both road and rail. As a regular user of the latter, I am all to aware that delays and cancellations are a daily occurance whilst trains at all times of the day are frequently crowded. I am not aware of any planned proposals for the very large scale investment needed to meet a further substantial increase in demand.

This policy expresses good intentions but clause b is weak. New infrastructure must always be operational no later than the completion of the new development it supports.

The admission in clause 4.75 that while a small development might not itself have a major impact, cumulatively a number of developments can create additional demands on existing infrastructure which may require suitable mitigation needs to be implemented explicitly throughout the Local Plan. This will be the case for developments on sites BA2, BA3, BA4 and BA5 in Baldock.

The LEP supports this policy but considers that it needs to go further and commit to the development of partnerships to plan for, fund and deliver new infrastructure and as part of this, the putting in place of formal governance arrangements to ensure that this takes place in an ordered, fair and transparent manner

I support the requirement that builders and developers should finance infrastructure. This should include additional primary and secondary school provision; additional recreation park with play equipment; green spaces around any new development; mature trees; shops; buses; cafes; another pub or bar; facilities for teenagers; and another community space because current community halls are oversubscribed. Also: each home should have its own green space or garden in order to comply with recent initiatives to stop the concreting over of personal space.

Also require adequate broadband.

Policy SP7: Infrastructure Requirements:
The wording of Item (f) in the policy is objected to. The words 'Take a stringent approach' are considered to be too inflexible. Matters relating to the detailed viability of a scheme will depend on many interrelated factors and are complex. It is suggested that the words 'Take a stringent approach' be deleted and replaced with the words 'Take an investigative and balanced approach'.

I support the requirement that developers should make a significant financial contribution to local infrastructure.

We support this policy. While we don't consider this fundamental, the wording you used for this policy in the preferred options consultation was clearer: "the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that the Council's policies have reduced the viability of the scheme to the extent that it is unlikely to be delivered"

Infrastructure together with transport has been rushed and not planned as it will put an increased excessive burden and cost onto infrastructure services such as sewerage, water and parking, schooling and other services such as doctors, dentists etc. Developers contributions are seen as a vehicle to resolve these issues rather than a coherent considered planning policy.

An infrastructure development plan is included in the evidence base but it gives insufficient detail on how the infrastructure will be developed and who will meet the costs (the developers may not). This is not consistent with national policy: NPPF paragraph 177 states that "It is . . . important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion . . . and . . . that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up".

Great Ashby is already struggling in terms of provision of services. There are not enough school places at the junior school and no senior school within easy walking distance of the estate. Though this plan talks about land being available it is highly unlikely that this will be sufficient to cover the current need never mind the increased requirement. There is also no guarantee that this provision would actually result in a school/schools being built before or at the same time as the housing.

There is also a lack of other essential services such as a doctors and dentists surgeries and no leisure facilities close by. The road and transport network is also insufficient for more housing and the transport network in the region is already very congested. Most rush hours trains from Stevenage are standing room only and the A1 is regularly blocked with traffic at peak times.

Building more houses in this location will put more pressure on the current weak infrastructure and generally lower the quality of life for the existing residents.

I wish to make the following representations in response to the Submission Draft Local Plan.

The whole plan is "unsound" because it is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways:
* The supposedly objective assessment of housing need is based simply on projections produced by the Office of National Statistics. No attempt has been made to validate these against past trends. In fact they would require that houses are built in North Herts at a greater rate than has ever happened in the past. Since the plan is for the period from 2011 to 2031 a quarter of the plan period has already happened. During that time the rate of development has been less than half that projected for the plan period as a whole.
* The housing target has not been influenced by the need to limit or avoid building on green belt land. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the plan argues.
* The mechanism that has been used for identifying sites is flawed. The Council simply asked land owners or developers to suggest sites that they would like to develop (at least one major site has been put forward by a developer who does not own the site concerned). There has been no attempt to identify sites that would be suitable for meeting housing need whilst meeting community and sustainability requirements. The result is that housing is proposed in the locations that suit the developers rather than those that provide the best solution for the community.
* The plan includes inadequate provisions to would ensure that brown field sites will be developed first with green field and green belt sites only following later if the demand is shown to exist.
* The traffic impact assessment is totally inadequate. The plan relies on an assessment that covers Stevenage, Hitchin and most of Letchworth and Baldock, together with another that covers Royston. The largest development proposed at Baldock is beyond the edge of the area covered by the traffic model. In addition whilst the effects of Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield are considered, Central Bedfordshire and the proposed developments there are completely ignored. The supporting report sets an absurdly high threshold for congestion, only regarding junctions as congested if they will have "more than 100" vehicles queuing at the end of the peak hour. The proposed mitigation measures fail to identify the extent to which the problem will be improved and the proposals appear to take no account of traffic diversion to rural or residential roads.
The second level of objection is to the flaws in the proposals for individual sites:
1. GA2 - Tilekiln
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For most of its length if follows a footpath or a poorly defined field boundary. The strange shape of the site relates to land ownership rather than any natural feature and demonstrated that this is not a suitable boundary.
* Access to the site from Great Ashby is restricted to a narrow path through a wood land beneath powerlines.
* The site is proposed as the location for a school, but placing a school right on the edge of a settlement in this way will ensure that many children are brought by car.
* The development will clearly relate to Stevenage (despite being in North Herts) yet is remote from any of the town's facilities and will encourage longer car journeys to shops, secondary schools and leisure facilities.
2. GA1 - Roundwood
* Access to the site is unsatisfactory, requiring measures to prevent parking on roads in Great Ashby that are outside the site.
3. NS1 - North Stevenage
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For much of its length it is in the middle of a field.
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Graveley with Stevenage. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* In addition it appears that access issues may not have been adequately considered.
4. WE1 - Weston
* Access to the Hitchin Road site needs to be from Hitchin Road and not from The Snipe.
*There is no pavement along a section of Hitchin Road that residents in the new development would need to use to get to the school, the shop and other village facilities. Any development here should require this to be addressed.
5. BA1 - Baldock
* The traffic assessments do not identify what would be required to make the large site north east of Baldock achievable.
* The land is admitted to "make a significant contribution to the Green Belt purposes".
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Bygrave with Baldock. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan.
* If built the proposed road linking the A505 with the A507 north of Baldock would have inevitably see use as a Baldock eastern by pass. Its specification and construction would need to reflect this use which would require placing significant parts of the road in a cutting to avoid unacceptable impacts on both the urban area and the adjacent countryside.

I would like to object to the local plan, specifically the excessive housing target, lack of associated infrastructure that a local plan of this size requires, and further rolling back of the Green Belt (or land swaps) around the A1M towns of Stevenage, Hitchin, Baldock and Letchworth.

Instead I would support that NHDC and Stevenage Borough Council deliver a sensitively designed new Garden city, to support additional and justified housing need in the area, local employment can be generated and where the local infrastructure is adequately considered and delivered.

See attachment

See attachment

Environment Bank welcomes the opportunity to briefly respond to the Consultation for North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft. We support Policies SP12: Green infrastructure, biodiversity and landscape, SP14, SP18 and SP19, along with points 4.76, 4.185, 11.38, 11.39 and 11.48, and their requirements for No Net Loss / Net Gain of biodiversity, metric assessments of biodiversity impacts and offsetting to deliver compensation.

About us:
Environment Bank is a private company working to broker biodiversity compensation agreements - offsets - for developers and landowners. We act as impartial advisers to Local Planning Authorities and are experts in biodiversity impact assessment and No Net Loss (NNL) strategies. We have partnerships and support relationships with over 25 LPAs across 15 counties - providing advice on local policies, planning guidance and strategies, together with support in implementation and individual planning cases. We have seen biodiversity No Net Loss, Net Gain and offset policies be adopted in Local Plans across the country.

Working on individual developments on behalf of developers and planning authorities we calculate the biodiversity impacts and enhancements of development proposals using approved Government metrics, determining residual biodiversity losses, if any, and proposing offset solutions. Our ecological experts then match a developer's compensation requirement with sites put forward by landowners and conservationists who undertake biodiversity enhancements on their land to generate conservation credits available as compensation. Offset schemes must be the right type of site, of the right size, in the right place, at the right time, for the right cost. Credits are sold in exchange for the creation or enhancement of habitats, generating biodiversity gain. Thereafter, legal and fiscal systems assure planning authorities that such compensation measures have been arranged independently and delivery will be overseen and guaranteed in the long-term, providing net biodiversity gain across a district.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan. The following response is submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

Policy SP7: Infrastructure requirements and developer contributions (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Anglian Water is generally supportive of Policy SP7 as it states that planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that development proposals make provision for infrastructure that is necessary to accommodate the additional demands resulting from the development.

Policy SP9: Design and sustainability (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

It is noted that Policy SP9 includes a requirement for residential development to meet the optional water efficiency standard (110 litres per person per day). We would support the optional water efficiency standard being applied within the North Hertfordshire Local Plan area.

Policy SP11: Natural resources and sustainability (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Policy SP11 includes a requirement to optimise the potential of the site to include the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) prior to planning permission being granted. We support this requirement as it is important to maximise the potential use of the SuDS to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

Policy SP15: Site LG1 - North of Letchworth Garden City (legally compliant - yes and sound - no)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above strategic site is located within close proximity to Letchworth Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

It is therefore suggested that Policy SP15 should be include the following wording:

'Undertake a detailed odour assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact on future residents and occupants of non residential buildings. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Letchworth Garden City Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings which are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

Burymead Road (sites HE2 and HB3) (legally compliant - yes and sound no (effective)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above sites are located within close proximity to Hitchin Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

It is therefore suggested that Policy HE2 and HB3 should include the following additional wording:

'Undertake a detailed odour assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact on occupants of non residential buildings. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Hitchin Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings which are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

RY4: Land north of Lindsay Close (legally compliant - yes and sound no (effective)

Historically, sewage treatment assets have been sited at a distance from sensitive land uses, in recognition that these are an incompatible use. Our concern is to prevent the encroachment of Anglian Water's assets by sensitive development which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets.

The above strategic site is located within close proximity to Royston Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) in the ownership of Anglian Water.

Nuisance may be caused by noise, lighting and traffic movements but its most prevalent source will be odours, unavoidably generated by the treatment of sewerage. Where it is proposed to allocate sites within close proximity of the water recycling centres there is a need to consider further the odour impact and the extent to which sensitive development (that which is regularly occupied by people) could be accommodated on the site without having an adverse impact on future residents and/or employees who will be based on the site.

We note that Policy RY4 includes reference to the preparation of an odour assessment for the above site which is welcomed. However it is unclear how the findings of the odour assessment (once prepared) would be considered further as part of the planning application process.

It is therefore suggested that Policy RY4 should be include the following wording:

'Undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of the Royston Water Recycling Centre in relation to odours, lighting, noise and traffic impacts to demonstrate no adverse impact on future residents. To provide evidence to demonstrate that a suitable distance is provided from Royston City Water Recycling Centre and sensitive development (buildings that are regularly occupied) as part of the detailed masterplanning of the site.'

RY8: Land at Lumen Road, Royston (legally compliant - yes and sound no (justified and effective)

We closely monitor growth in our region and develop investment plans to reduce flow and load from the catchment or provide additional treatment capacity when appropriate. Reference is made to development of this allocation site being phased in relation to the improvements at Royston Sewage Treatment Works. It is unclear why this has been identified a specific requirement for this allocation site only and no other sites within the Royston catchment.

It is therefore suggested that the fifth bullet point of Policy RY8 should be deleted as follows:

Phasing of development to link with Sewage Treatment Works improvements;

Policy D1: Sustainable design (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

Policy D1 includes a requirement to optimise the potential of the site to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) prior to planning permission being granted. We support this requirement as it is important to maximise the potential use of the SuDS to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

It is also noted that Policy D1 includes a requirement for residential development to meet or exceed the optional water efficiency standard (110 litres per person per day). We would support the optional water efficiency standard being applied or exceeded within the North Hertfordshire Local Plan area.

Policy NE8: Sustainable drainage systems (legally compliant - yes and sound - yes)

We support the requirement that drainage solution follow the SuDs hierarchy as this will ensure that disposal of surface water to the public sewerage network will be only be considered where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives. This will help to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.

Policy NE10 : Water Framework Directive and wastewater infrastructure (legally compliant - yes and sound - (justified and effective)

Reference is made to new or improved waste infrastructure being secured under the requirements of Policy SP7.

In general, water recycling centre (previously referred to as sewage or wastewater treatment works) upgrades where required to provide for additional growth are wholly funded by Anglian Water through our Asset Management Plan. Foul network improvements are generally funded/part funded through developer contribution via the relevant sections of the Water Industry Act 1991. The foul infrastructure requirements will be dependant on the location, size and phasing of the development. All sites will require a local connection to the existing sewerage network which may include network upgrades.

As set above we seek contributions directly from developers in accordance with the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Therefore Anglian Water would not expect there to be provision within planning obligations sought by the District Council or Community Infrastructure Levy in accordance with planning legislation.

The majority of allocations sites proposed within the Anglian Water region are expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network. Please see enclosed spreadsheet for further information. It is important to note that the impact on the foul sewerage network and relevant water recycling centres have been assessed on an individual site basis.

Therefore we would suggest Policy NE10 should be amended to make it clear that applicants will be expected to demonstrate that there is capacity within foul sewerage network and at the relevant water recycling centre or that capacity can be made available in time to serve the development.

It is therefore suggested that Policy NE10 be amended as follows:

'Mechanisms for delivering any necessary new or improved water and wastewater infrastructure are secured under the requirements of Policy SP7. Adequate foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development.'

Attendance at examination

Where we have sought modifications to the wording of proposed Local Plan policies as set out above we would wish to participate at the examination.

See attachment

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attached

See attachments

See attached

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT EFFECTIVE and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Policies SP8 and SP14 - The proposed allocation of 2,800 homes at North of Baldock (site BA1).
Other policies referred to are SP1, SP4, SP5, SP6, SP7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

1. This site is acknowledged by the council as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes (Housing and Green Belt background paper para 3.14.
The Plan is UNJUSTIFIED as it is not the most appropriate strategy.

2. Table 4 sustainability appraisal notes that this site creates a high probability of adverse impacts on landscape and townscape character and Landscape Sensitivity Study of July 2013 identifies the land north of Bygrave as having moderate to high landscape sensitivity. The Bygrave Road from Baldock has environmentally protected grass verges.
The Plan is UNJUSTIFIED as it is not the most appropriate strategy.

3. Baldock sits in a valley which is well known for having poor air circulation causing air pollutants like PM2.5 from diesel emissions to be trapped and concentrated. The Eastern Baldock Bypass was finally built in 2003, following intervention in parliament by Sir Oliver Heald MP, to alleviate this pollution. Before the build asthma levels in 5-16 year olds was at 15% and the bypass brought them down to the national average of 6%.
Since then traffic has risen and now the levels of pollutants in Hitchin St and Whitehorse St are in danger of exceeding EU permitted levels (para 9.28). The Housing and Green Belt background paper notes that former site 209E (Priory Fields Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for exactly this reason.
The extra vehicles, domestic and service vehicles, which will arise from the building of 3,590 new homes and which will travel through and around Baldock will tip the balance and affect the health of all residents especially the very young, the old, pedestrians and cyclists raising health problems such as respiratory disease, cardiac problems and even cancer.
The Plan is UNJUSTIFIED as it is not the most appropriate strategy.

4. The local highways network will be severely affected by the development of this site.
Almost all of the traffic wishing to pass through Baldock travels from the A1 to Buntingford and Stanstead along the A507, and from Cambridge and Royston towards London along the A505 (now redesignated B656), and these two roads cross at traffic lights at the north of Baldock at Station Road and Whitehorse Street. The two roads are offset and the traffic lights are slow because of three way lights and now pedestrian crossing time when requested, mainly at school rush hours. The crossroad is bounded by listed buildings which makes turning difficult especially for the huge lorries on the A507, some going left to Royston at that junction, which still go that way despite recommendations that they use the A1 and new bypass. One of the listed buildings has suffered many hits by vehicles.

The proposed mini-roundabout at Whitehorse St/Station Rd crossroads, the only mitigation planned for Baldock (AECOM technical note para 5.1, Draft report of North Herts Local Plan Model Testing Table 5.1) may reduce accidents between vehicles but will not reduce time spent and congestion caused by this junction.

The A507 passes the only access road to the railway station causing extra congestion in peak travel periods. The railway access is shared by about 100 houses in a cul-de-sac, Icknield Way East, and work is currently in progress to build another 41 houses which will also have to use this access. The survey used to discuss traffic impact of these new houses at this junction refers only to Icknield Way East, not the Station Approach nor the A507 on to which they both deliver traffic. Inadequate research and modelling.

Station Road passes under the 14ft 6in railway bridge which historically has suffered frequent hits by lorries (8 or so per year). Despite the building of sacrificial metal beams at each side of the bridge and new signage the hits continue to occur. Whilst the long delay to rail traffic no longer happens, road traffic is still impacted while the mess is cleared up, the vehicle is extracted, two police vehicles are deployed. In addition to this there are numerous smaller holdups when lorries realise they will hit the bridge and manoeuvre via small residential roads damaging road furniture and grass verges as they do. See appended photo of lorry hitting bridge just before photo taken at 12.43pm on November 9th 2016 necessitating two police vehicles. Also the screen shot of ongoing congestion as a result at 1.30pm. This is a regular occurrence. Screenshots of the A507/ B656 junction and A1 at other random times show congestion.

The traffic on the A507 is constant and heavy especially in peak periods which extend over at least two hours and are worst in school term time. It also increases any time of day or night if there is a crisis on the A1. The A507 is not shown as a "key feature to transport in North Herts" IDP (para 5.4) despite being now arguably the busiest road through the town. A survey of all Baldock roads at the time of the Bypass inquiry showed that this would be the case.

In the IDP the Traffic Baseline (para 5.1) shows that for North Herts as a whole traffic volume between 2014 - 31 is expected to increase by 16.1% and the average commuting distance in 2011 was 19.4km. Rail patronage at Baldock (para 5.12) went up 61% between 2005/6 to 2014/15. Para 5.19 mentions cycle paths in North Herts including Baldock but those referred to are mainly for leisure. Traffic demand in the A1 corridor may increase by 30% by 2031.

No traffic surveys on the A507 have been carried out by NHDC for development of this Local Plan. It has not been included in any meaningful traffic modelling exercises during research and forward planning. I can report, as a resident of this road, that the traffic volume has increased substantially since the Bypass was opened in 2003 and particularly since the A1 services at Radwell were built. GPS navigation also directs traffic along this road as an alternative to the A1/ Eastern bypass.

All of this ensures that the A507 from the traffic lights to the A1 roundabout is not a suitable road to give access to a new development at BA1 as NHDC plans. It is very likely, since there are few work opportunities in Baldock, that most of the residents will commute to other parts of North Herts, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. NHDC has projected 2-3 vehicles per house so 5-7000 vehicles at least can be expected to be generated from this BA1 site and most will want to visit Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin i.e pass through the traffic lights at Station Rd /Whitehorse St.

The link roads proposed by NHDC will do nothing to solve this traffic problem. A "northern" link is proposed through the BA1 site and a "southern" link road is mentioned between BA 3 and BA4 but with even less substance. No information is provided as to route impact or viability. Indeed these roads threaten to conduct traffic of all descriptions through the new residential areas forming a real hazard to residents both by potential accidents and by air pollution. These roads are referred to in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan para 5.110 and it is stated they "have been included in the traffic modeling." But where is the evidence? Their "provision (cost and delivery) is assumed to be absorbed within the specific proposals for these areas and they are subsequently not specifically identified in this IDP." This and the fact that Baldock is listed as a separate town but in traffic terms is always grouped with Letchworth which has its own completely different transport problems is concerning, leading to the belief
that Baldock traffic problems have not been acknowledged and addressed. There is no Masterplan for BA1.

The Plan is UNJUSTIFIED and NOT EFFECTIVE. There is insufficient evidence that the development can be achieved without a huge negative impact on the local highway network. This applies also in respect of BA4 and BA10 (SP8 and SP14).
There is no adequate Transport Assessment or Transport Statement and the Plan is therefore NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

5. Baldock's railway station is on the northern edge of the town with few houses lying to the north of the railway line. A major development on this side of the railway line would result in a pinchpoint for traffic at the WhiteHorse St/ Station Road intersection. The AECOM's technical note, table 4.1, identifies this crossroad and Letchworth Gate at the southern end of Baldock as problems (above capacity, unacceptable queuing) by 2013 even without further development.

The Plan acknowledges that "not all" traffic from BA1 will have to use the Whitehorse St/Station Rd crossroads (4.179) but this also acknowledges that a good proportion of it will. The Plan makes employment provision at above modelled levels SP3, 4.26 and this could increase traffic flow between Baldock and Letchworth and Hitchin. The plan stresses how interconnected Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin are (paras 2.31, 4.27, 13.14) and that many residents commute out (4.25, 4.26). This will lead to more peak hour traffic.

Since it is expected that most new Baldock residents will commute to work outside Baldock, as well as extra pressure on the roads there will be unacceptable pressure on the railway. The station is small and would need extending to accommodate more passengers and the longer trains needed for them. Govia are currently holding their own consultation on their future rail provision and intend to cut "fast" trains stopping at Baldock other than at peak rush hours. This will not serve 7-8000 extra people well. Moreover British Rail had not till recently known of the Local Plan which includes recommendations such as building a bridge over the railway from the A505 Royston road into or round the BA1 site.
There is no information on deliverability or cost of this proposed road / railway crossing which will be very expensive if it is to be delivered without visual impacts as it is quite exposed at this point.

This indicates that NHDC has produced a poor plan without much forward planning and appreciation of all the related infrastructure required.

The link road proposed through BA1 will not relieve congestion at the Whitehorse St/ Station Rd crossroad if it is not the shortest route into Baldock. It may, however, be used by many people as a shortcut from A505/ B656 to A507 and will deliver more air pollution to the site BA1. Roundabouts through this development would increase air pollution and associated problems as brakes and gearboxes add to particulate production.

There is no modeling of the impacts from Baldock developments BA1-4 and BA10 employment area or their dependency on new infrastructure (AECOM section 7 Summary). No information is given about mitigating measures. It has not been shown that this part of the plan is deliverable.

The Local Plan Viability Assessment (update 2016) has not considered specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation concerns associated with the major sites, of which BA1 is the biggest proposed.

The Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE as it cannot be achieved without considerable negative effect on transport and local highway network.

6. The National Planning Policy Framework states in para 32 that "All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether.....the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up" but the Plan does not give information of things such as cycleways between towns for commuters, "safe and suitable access can be achieved for all people" but the increased traffic on A507 and through any link road and under the very narrow railway bridge will act against this, "improvements can be taken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused where THE RESIDUAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE SEVERE". I believe that in this case they are severe.

The full impact of the scale of development proposed for Baldock - 3590 homes BA 1/2/3/4 and BA10, industrial development, or the individual major sites,- have not been properly assessed. Nor has evidence been offered on the impact of these developments on the existing town of Baldock and its environs and its local transport network. No information has been given about proposed mitigation measures.

The Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

7. The Plan does not retain and enhance the town centre of Baldock as recommended by the NPPF (para 23). Indeed by trying to build a new development BA1 on the other side of the railway line it encourages a pinchpoint for traffic and a pulling apart of the community.

Developments should "be expected to work closely with those directly affected by the proposals to evolve designs that take account the views of the community" (NPPF 66) but NHDC have not done this. They have not sought the views of existing residents.

"By designating Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". But NHDC have decided to locate many sites including BA1 on Green Belt land, going in the face of this policy. They have not provided appropriate justification for redesignating Green Belt land as they should, showing "exceptional circumstances". Indeed the area BA1 is acknowledged by the Council as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes as shown in NPPF chapter 9. It is good quality agricultural land and of great importance for feeding the local area. "Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use poorer areas of land in preference to that of a higher quality" NPPF 112.

Water provision, at a time when water in this area is scarce and in danger of being inadequate, and the provision of sewerage over an enormous area (BA1) have not been adequately documented. The protection of the Ivel Nature reserve has been glossed over as has the mitigation measures for protection of other wildlife such as the endangered corn bunting on BA1.

"It is important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion" NPPF 177. The Council have failed to provide detailed plans, timescales or costings for the necessary infrastructure and this gives no confidence that said infrastructure will be provided at the times it is needed, of a good quality, or even at all. Other developments in the area e.g. Great Ashby have discovered this to their cost.

The Plan is neither JUSTIFIED nor EFFECTIVE nor CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

If indeed development on this scale is really needed in North Herts then I support Sir Oliver Heald in his recommendation to build a new settlement instead of tacking on large areas of development such as these in Baldock which create real problems for the future of existing communities whilst destroying their heritage.

I should like to be kept updated on the Plan's progress
I should like to be invited to the Public Hearing.

See attachment

See attached

See attached

See attachment