Policy SP8: Housing

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I'm submitting the following points on the above mentioned plan, but in introduction I would like to say that I have lived in Baldock since 2001. I came here from London because it is an historic, small market town that I grew to love over a number of years as my Dad and his family were from Steeple Morden.
1. Disproportionate

Baldock is proposed to get 23% of the districts new homes, despite being a small town, this will mean an increase of 80% over 15 years. That is far too rapid a growth that it surely not sustainable. It will destroy a community and put pressure on all our local services. It is an unreasonable amount of building work to expect a small town to cope with and endure.

2. Traffic

This has always been an issue in Baldock because we are en route to London, via the A1, A507 to the A10, and A505, but a bypass was opened in 2006 to elivatate the problem. However, it was proposed some 70 years previously, so I don't have much hope that the roads will be sorted to sufficient standard for the additional housing before the end of the century. Despite the bypass we still get a huge amount of traffic through our town and I can't imagine how bad it will be when we add between 5,000 - 8,000 more cars from the new housing, along with visitors and delivery vehicles.

3. Air/noise pollution
I live on a corner with the London Road. I frequently worry about the quality of the air. When the weather is still I can smell the traffic fumes in my house, even though all the windows are closed. It doesn't have to be a busy time of the day either, that pollution is lying there all the time as Baldock is in a 'bowl'. I can't open my windows because of this and of course, noise pollution. The London Road leading to the A1 is very busy not just with cars, but a lot of articulated lorries and frequent diversions.

4. Historic town

Baldock is currently a beautiful, historic town, but it is, and I'm aware I'm repeating myself, already struggling under the onslaught of heavy traffic. These historic buildings make our town special. There is so much history here, dating back to Roman times. The crossroads at Whitehorse Steet, near the station, have listed buildings on them, so the roads can't be altered, the traffic there is already jammed up. It's worse trying to get across the road at Baldock Station than it is in London from King's Cross Station.

5. Destruction of wildlife habitat

The land around Baldock is the habitat for rare birds and bats, but rare or not, why are we going to destroy wildlife habitat in such large measures. What plans have been made for them.

6. Infrastucture

As I sat through various meetings I wondered if the train company had been approached to increase services. Why was I not surprised that, not only did Govia have no knowledge of this until very recently, they are planning to reduce services at Baldock from 2018, a consultation is currently underway.

7. Employment

There's very little work in this area, most people commute, so again infrastructure is lacking and what there is will be heavily over-used. When I worked in London I would never have considered living in Baldock under the current plans for both housing and transport. Like many people who work in London, I didn't work 9-5, so slow trains would not have been an option.

8. Amenities

I'm very concerned about local services and how much pressure will be put on them by this massive, rapid growth: doctor's surgeries, schools, open spaces like parks and leisure facilities like swimming pools. I don't trust that we will get an increase in these facilities.

In conclusion, I feel that this plan has not been thought through well and does not meet the NPPF soundness criteria. It's not positively prepared, more a knee jerk reaction to having to put in a plan of any sort. It isn't justfied as it is disproportionate given the current size of Baldock. There's no vision and it will have consequences, not only for the people who live here now, but for those who come in the future.

See attached

See attached

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 attached

See attached

Please note that this representation has been made by email as the software provided by NHDC is unworkable. Queries raised about how it should be used (on 6th November) have not been answered.

This representation comments on SP8 and SP14

We do not wish to comment on whether the plan is legally compliant
We do consider that this plan is UNSOUND.
IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT EFFECTIVE and is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

We are not against housing as such and welcome house building in the area if it can be properly planned to enable the existing town to thrive. We endorse all the comments that have been made in the SRB representation. We would also like to use our own representation to reinforce the issues that affect BA1. We urge the inspector to make a site visit to BA1, preferably during the morning peak period to see the current challenges of accessing the town from the North.

As residents of North Road we witness the daily queues that form Southbound on North Road, morning and evening, the hazardous route that pedestrians have to take under the railway bridge to reach the town centre and the regular hits by lorries on the bridge. Clearly site BA1 cannot be developed without significant highway and infrastructure being developed in advance of any housing. Given the, as yet, unknown costs for obtaining rights to cross the railway line, developing the new road bridge (or tunnel?) and pedestrian route under the railway and the lack of proper traffic assessment for North Road, it is by no means certain that this site can be delivered in the local plan period. THIS PLAN IS THEREFORE NOT EFFECTIVE AS IT IS NOT DELIVERABLE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD.
This view is evidenced by...
1. WYG Appraisal, Land North and South of Baldock November 2014
2. Local Plan Model Testing 60271338 says in para 2 Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date.
3. Section 7 of AECOM's transport model

There are significant disadvantages to development of this magnitude in Baldock. Air quality will deteriorate to below acceptable standards. Integration with rest of Baldock will be extremely difficult - there are no proposals to create any direct routes from BA1 to the town centre thus causing most pedestrians and cars to opt for the most direct route, which will remain the existing North Road, narrow bridge and awkward junction at Whitehorse Street, in spite of the two new link roads that are proposed. The roads in the centre of the town will not cope with the additional traffic and will become gridlocked, ruining the functioning and character of the town itself. This site is no better than the area earmarked for future development West of Stevenage. In fact the West of Stevenage site has the advantage of being closer to the centres of employment, with easier access to high quality railway services for residents to commute out of the area, to London and putting less pressure on the already problematic A1M. THIS PLAN IS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE STRATEGY, WHEN CONSIDERED AGAINST THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES, BASED ON PROPORTIONAL EVIDENCE
These points evidenced by...
1. Local plan policy D4 Air quality policy,
2. Local Plan paragraph 9.28, air quality standards in Whitehorse St/Hitchin St
3. Housing and Green Belt Background Paper states that Priory fields was considered unsuitable for air quality reasons
4. WYG Appraisal, Land North and South of Baldock November 2014 marks the Whitehorse junction as restricting development

There is insufficient evidence to verify that development of BA1 will not cause a significant highway issues which cannot be resolved. THIS PLAN IS THEREFORE NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY.
This is evidenced by
1. The comments made above
2. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF which states that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development."
3. Paragraph 177 of the NPPF which states that it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.

The Change we would like to see in the Local Plan is the significant reduction in the number of houses planned for BA1 and for the West of Stevenage site to be reconsidered as the more appropriate location for the whole allocation being made to BA1. Evidence as above.

We do not wish to participate at the oral examination but urge the Inspector to call on SRB to give a resident's view of the Proposals.

We do wish to be notified when the local plan is submitted

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I wish to object to the NHDC local plan.
Firstly, in relation to the removal of land from Green Belt status, east of Luton for development of housing, to meet Luton's Unmet Need, this is not an exceptional circumstance because there is evidence that there is sufficient Brown Field Land to build the 2,100 dwellings, at the same density, within Luton's existing boundaries. An Unmet need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very Special Circumstances (National Planning Policy Framework).
Secondly, the proposal is completely out of proportion. Currently there are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Tea Green and Mangrove Green; an additional 2,100 dwellings will be an increase of 1025%. This increase represents over 14% of the total for the whole of NHDC Local Plan. These villages will cease to exist and their integrity will be lost.
Thirdly, there is no planned improvement to infrastructure in the NHDC Local Plan, neither into Luton nor to the two country lanes from Luton into North Hertfordshire. Potentially 2,100 houses will create 4,000-5,000 additional vehicle movements.
Fourthly, this is likely to be compounded by a massive increase in traffic owing to Luton Airport expansion, with regard to both projected passenger numbers of 22 million by 2030 and 7,000 new jobs. Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: This transport modelling includes the alignment of the proposed spine road through that development site and Luton Borough Council have also assumed by 2031 that will be extended at its northern end to join the A505 near its junction with the road into Lilley. Bloor Homes @Access and Masterplan slides see www.wanden park.co.uk (Newly constructed Relief Road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill...). This suggests they expect a spine road to be built despite NHDC having no plans for this road development; however, NHDC state on page 72 of the NHDC Local Plan, para 4.222 - 'our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider networks of Luton and Hertfordshire. The views of North Herts and Luton are contradictory.
Lastly, Luton Borough Council have also proposed locating a new Airport Business Park and Century Park at Wandon End. This is a rural area near the airport accessed at present by narrow country lanes. Is the proposed spine road that is referred to above to service this new facility despite no provision by NHDC for a road. The NHDC Local Plan, Section Two: Spacial Strategy and Strategic Policies -c,iii states we will: provide the necessary infrastructure required to support an increasing population and c.iv states protect key elements of North Hertfordshire's environment including important landscapes, heritage assets and green infrastructure. The area of the proposed development is close to a designated AONB and if a spine road is built it will impact on this area as such a road would be likely to cut through it if it is to join to the A505 at the junction of Lilley. The loss of wildlife habitat and an amenity resource for both Luton residents, North Hertfordshire residents and from elsewhere is also a consequence of this plan.

I wish to object to the NHDC local plan.
Firstly, in relation to the removal of land from Green Belt status, east of Luton for development of housing, to meet Luton's Unmet Need, this is not an exceptional circumstance because there is evidence that there is sufficient Brown Field Land to build the 2,100 dwellings, at the same density, within Luton's existing boundaries. An Unmet need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very Special Circumstances (National Planning Policy Framework).
Secondly, the proposal is completely out of proportion. Currently there are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Tea Green and Mangrove Green; an additional 2,100 dwellings will be an increase of 1025%. This increase represents over 14% of the total for the whole of NHDC Local Plan. These villages will cease to exist and their integrity will be lost.
Thirdly, there is no planned improvement to infrastructure in the NHDC Local Plan, neither into Luton nor to the two country lanes from Luton into North Hertfordshire. Potentially 2,100 houses will create 4,000-5,000 additional vehicle movements.
Fourthly, this is likely to be compounded by a massive increase in traffic owing to Luton Airport expansion, with regard to both projected passenger numbers of 22 million by 2030 and 7,000 new jobs. Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: This transport modelling includes the alignment of the proposed spine road through that development site and Luton Borough Council have also assumed by 2031 that will be extended at its northern end to join the A505 near its junction with the road into Lilley. Bloor Homes @Access and Masterplan slides see www.wanden park.co.uk (Newly constructed Relief Road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill...). This suggests they expect a spine road to be built despite NHDC having no plans for this road development; however, NHDC state on page 72 of the NHDC Local Plan, para 4.222 - 'our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider networks of Luton and Hertfordshire. The views of North Herts and Luton are contradictory.
Lastly, Luton Borough Council have also proposed locating a new Airport Business Park and Century Park at Wandon End. This is a rural area near the airport accessed at present by narrow country lanes. Is the proposed spine road that is referred to above to service this new facility despite no provision by NHDC for a road. The NHDC Local Plan, Section Two: Spacial Strategy and Strategic Policies -c,iii states we will: provide the necessary infrastructure required to support an increasing population and c.iv states protect key elements of North Hertfordshire's environment including important landscapes, heritage assets and green infrastructure. The area of the proposed development is close to a designated AONB and if a spine road is built it will impact on this area as such a road would be likely to cut through it if it is to join to the A505 at the junction of Lilley. The loss of wildlife habitat and an amenity resource for both Luton residents, North Hertfordshire residents and from elsewhere is also a consequence of this plan.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Any development to the east would never provide the infrastructure necessary. Traffic from any new development would try to find ways out through the dangerous and narrow lanes of rural North Herts.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached