Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

That the proposal does not take enough account of the availability of water, waste water disposal.

Lack of school places especially at Secondary level.

Access via new roads will just make rat runs

This does not take into account the Heritage and ancient road side verges and rare wildlife that uses the area

In response to the North Herts Development Local plan.

As long term Hertfordshire county council tenant farmers of this land we obviously do not want this development to go ahead!

Living & working the land surrounding Baldock we have been able to provide a valuable service to the surrounding towns, providing a choice of local produce & provide services & facilities for the equestrian leisure industry, on selling off these small holding these valuable businesses will be lost for good! Small holdings on Greenbelt land provides unique businesses to serve rural towns once lost you won't get them back....

In response to the development of Baldock town, this will almost double the size of a attractive & vibrant coaching town completely distorting a already congested centre. I can not see even with putting in a road link from the A507 across the railway line will you be able to ease an already congested road, unless the railway station moves out of the site its at & moves further north it will not be able to cope with the volume of people & traffic.... I can only envisage total grid lock!!!

2,800 new homes should be allocated on a site away from existing towns, this is a new town which should be positioned on its own, its own right where infrastructure can be laid out in place where it will work, example an 'Odsey Development' by Ashwell Station on A505, a town in its own right, oh but of course that's not North Herts Land you say... Drop the boundaries & plan together!!!

I have followed and considered the ideas set forward for the future of housing development in North Herts.
I feel very strongly that the vast amount suggested for the area North of Baldock will be detrimental not only for this old market town, but for the whole area around it.
Baldock will become a town of almost twice its present size and yet even now there are significant problems with traffic, especially around the station area. This will become dreadful as thousands more try to access this road. They will not use the A1 as some have tried to suggest and a possible bridge over to the 505 across the railway will still not stop people wanting to access the town centre. There has been little talk about the exact amount of infrastructure put in place. This surely needs to be fully addressed before any building work begins.
Schools are another issue. Another secondary school would most certainly be required . Knights Templar is already over subscribed and would need to expand and build. What actual thought has been given to this?
I still feel that this is an easy option for the local council as they own the land . The excellent arable farming land ,which is greatly needed , seems to be irrelevant. The five local councillors were completely outnumbered in voting against this proposal because it`s an easy option for the rest of the councillors.
This is going to be a vast new town, which will alter the landscape of Baldock. It will cause traffic problems, pollution and it will be an over development. The people living there will most likely commute as there will not be the jobs here to support them. Baldock station will not cope . In fact the train service there is already being downgraded. The houses were apparently going to be for local people and their children as well as for those coming out from London. They will not be affordable for our children. Baldock is expensive.
I notice that large trenches are already being made all over the fields in the area North of Baldock. This is probably for some preliminary investigations prior to building. Clearly the council sees this plan as one that will go ahead.
There was and still is huge opposition to this plan locally . We all accept that some building of new houses takes place for our local population and some new incomers to the area. But it is the vast scale of this proposal and the lack of thought about coping with the extra thousands of people, which will be detrimental not only to the present locals but to the newcomers as well.

I am writing to express my concerns, hopefully just like many other Baldock residents will in the consultation period, towards the proposed developments on what is currently, rich and diverse rural countryside which comes under the green belt. We, as residents who remain unconvinced about the plans are becoming rather concerned as to whether democracy will prevail in the decision and that logistics and communication appear severely lacking.

I sincerely hope you will take the time and the effort to read through my response. Being a younger individual whose 16 years old possibly 17 by the time you read this, and always lived in Baldock, the views put across may come from a different perspective from what you read on a more regular basis and above all the fact I have different concerns to the 'typical' youngster.

I fully except the fact that we need houses but is this proposal one that has been properly thought out in a logical manner?
After attending the public meeting on the 31st January in Baldock Community Centre I have been made aware of the fact that less that only about a third of land in North Hertfordshire comes under the 'Green Belt' and that green belt should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Have you really considered other options seriously?

This was the question theme among many people on the protest march which certainly helped publicise the topic.
Brownfield sites and liaising with private land owners appear to be far more viable options in the eyes of Baldock residents.
In my opinion, you should consider the idea of adding a far smaller amount of houses over a much larger area. Figures suggest that 12,100 houses are needed in the North Hertfordshire district, between 2011-2031. My theory states that you should add approximately 1500 houses to the 5 major towns, Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage but leaving green belt land alone if possible by making use of brownfields. This would leave around 4600 houses to be spread across the 33 villages and hamlets in the district. This would mean adding approximately only 130 houses to each village. On a map you wouldn't notice a difference and the population density across the district would be more proportional. It was have less of a detrimental effect in specific areas and every getting their fair share in development.

From following the proposals it appears to me that you're taking the 'easy' option and burying your heads in the sand so to speak at the expense of fairness to Baldock residents and the environment. Baldock would be no longer a closed community. Around 3400-3600 houses to be placed in one specific area just seems a little extreme especially for is currently relatively small historic market town with a current population of around 10,000 people. The population density will increase dramatically and I firmly believe that the town itself could not cope unless infrastructure is developed.

Green belt around Baldock is open countryside laden with bridleways and footpaths providing a free leisure facility to improve the health of its people and potentially cut down levels of obesity which in turn will cost the NHS less money. These bridleways will be destroyed but most of all, the views North East of Baldock of will be ruined and we'll never get them back as Hertfordshire becomes one large urban sprawl with Bygrave, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage becoming linked together as one mass of houses.

I have an allotment on the Clothall Road allotment site and with my eyes set on a future in farming, seeing the countryside and tenant farms(the only way of being able to farm in your own right due to land prices unless you have a large sum of cash) built on would be me to tears. I stand and try to visualize the urban development on site BA2 but I can't. The thought of the allotments losing their traditional appearance and increased vandalism due to the increased number of young people stuck for something to do is unbearable. This is because the government and local councils do not push for leisure facilities for young people.
From attending the meeting it sounds as though lots of pieces of paper and pencils are being used.
Have you actually put your wellies and 'high vis' vests on and walked up to your paper proposed sites and physically tried to look at how the development will look and the eye sore it will put in the landscape?

Baldock sits in a dip surrounded by rolling hills. From up on these hills, there would no longer be a view to admire.
The proposed Blackhorse Farm site currently, is home to several successful agricultural businesses producing a wide range of products from things as simple as Free Range local eggs through to large scale combinable and root crop production on what is Grade 2-3 agricultural land (some of the best found in Britain).

These businesses will lose their jobs, livelihoods and the money these farms bring into the local economy would not be any more if this unorganised development goes ahead. All things I've mentioned above are keys elements to Britain's survival and all things the government currently seem fairly keen to support.
The developments on Works Road in Letchworth are not a long term answer and the people who would occupy the houses would just be people who commute into the hubs of London and Cambridge in order to earn a decent wage. This commute business will be struggle given the ludicrous proposals to cut train services.

Less land for food and more people will mean that food miles and quantities needed, will increase due to imports, leading to greater pollution. Importing food is by far, not a long term solution in the 21st century economic situation of Britain and the rest of the world. We need to look into more long term solutions in this world which ministers fail to address. Farming shapes the countryside not houses.

I've already gone into detail about things that link to the environment but the increase in cars, concrete, waste water and electricity usage all pose problems. Waste/run off water will pose a huge problem in terms of flooding in wet years. At least crops use the water in a useful way.
Have you considered sustainability when constructing plans?
If not then here are some ideas solar powered street lights and waste water harvesting and treatment for reuse.
The number of species in our countryside is rapidly decreasing and building on such a vast acreage of land is just going to exacerbate the problem. Farmland ecosystems are vital.
If waste/run off water is left to go off into the rivers rather than being used by crops and animals then it is just go into rivers and flow into the sea where it will become expensive in future to extract. The river Ivell and Weston Hills dry up most years due to over extraction to cope with the ever growing population. This puts huge pressure on river ecosystems.
So, will there/are you going to make sure there will be enough water today, tomorrow or in 50 years' time?

I attend the Knights Templar School and am heavily involved in Sustainability in the school, hence that fact that environmental issues concern me the most as I see the importance of them as my passion lies the countryside.
From my point of view as a student I feel that the communication between schools and the council has been severely lacking and students are making decisions on the topic that are non viable because there's been no encouragement.

Views expressed by the local councillors and local MP's including Sir Oliver Heald seem to display a sense of concern towards the plans. Up to 3591 homes on green belt land doesn't appear viable in current circumstances. Some of my thoughts clearly display this having focused on many points on more of a national scale and what could be done across the whole district.

In point d. A link road between A507 London Road and A505 Baldock bypass is stated. This is confusing where this road would be.

Houses to extend Rhee Spring should not be built. This would be extremely disruptive to residents. Parking is already a problem and it needs to be clear whether access to Clothall Common would be added here or whether this would stay as a quiet cul-de-sac as it should.

Our comments relate to Baldock, in particular to proposals BA1, BE2, BA10, BA3, BA4.
[1]"... secondary rail crossing for pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of Ashwell Way."
QUESTION: how will users of such a route be able to safely join or cross B656 Royston Road? That road should become less busy after the construction of the A507 / A505 link road, but it will remain a major route into and through Baldock.
[2]SP14(e)(ii) refers to "Safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to Baldock station."
Relevant to this is the Govia/Thameslink consultation on revised train services from 2018 (see http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/12366.9/timetable-consultation/). In that consultation document, it is proposed that all off-peak semi-fast train services should not stop at Baldock. This is completely unacceptable, even with the present needs of Baldock residents, and will become even more unacceptable when the huge BA1 development is in progress and completed.
Hertfordshire County Council and North Herts District Council should make immediate submissions to Govia/Thameslink to alter this decision. If (as seems likely) one of the reasons is that 12-car trains cannot now use Baldock station, then the obvious remedy is to lengthen Baldock station's platforms to accommodate 12-car trains. The number of commuters from Baldock to Cambridge, London, and Stevenage will massively increase after the development of site BA1, and it is unacceptable that Baldock will be reduced to the same status as (say) Ashwell and Morden with the loss of semi-fast train services.
Pedestrian and vehicular access to Baldock station from the north, without using the extremely narrow railway bridge, is essential. The pavements under the bridge are so narrow that they represent a hazard to pedestrians. Baldock station appears to have a bricked-up northern entrance and a (rather steep) access way from just north of the bridge to the back of the station.
[3]We applaud the plan to provide a link road from A507 North Road to the A505 Royston Road roundabout. This will hugely reduce the incredible amount of traffic (including many heavy lorries) that still uses B656 and A507 to access the A1 northbound, despite signage directing them to use the Baldock Bypass. That traffic all has to negotiate the very awkward turn at the Royston Road / Station Road traffic lights, causing traffic jams, pollution, and many accidents.
[4]Related to [3] is the idea of downgrading A507 to a B-road. All of that road from Clothall Road to the A10 is quite unsuitable for heavy traffic. One way of achieving a reduction in lorries using that road is to put a weight restriction on the existing A507 (whether or not it is downgraded to a B-road). We have been unable to locate the revised Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan LPT4 as it applies to Baldock, but this matter should be considered as part of that plan.

[5]The proposal for a southern link road to enable development of sites BA3 and BA4 and providing connectivity to the south of Baldock to help bypass the Royston Road / Station Road crossroads is welcome, but it is not at all clear where it would run. Clarification of this (a map?) would be helpful.

I object to this proposal due to the consequences for Graveley village. Already the B197 is a route between Baldock and Stevenage used by motorists to avoid the congested A1 (a rat run to use a colloquialism) particularly in the morning and early evening. This proposal will serve only to increase the amount of traffic along this road and neighbouring roads (including A1) with the commenurate increase in noise and air pollution. It is already difficult for Graveley residents to even pull out of the side roads/ driveways onto the B197 and at times it is almost imposiible for pedestrians to cross the road safely.

See attachment


My main point regarding the local Plan is that it is based upon a good transport infrastructure within Baldock, however Govia Thameslink are reducing Baldock train service.

Increase number of homes and pressure on local transport, reduced train service...

The proposed increase in housing will decimate the character of the existing town and put undue strain on infrastructure not just in Baldock but on surrounding road and rail routes.

1. Tthe hamlet of Radwell, which is situated 11/2 miles north of Baldock on the A507, and Baldock is my main town for shopping, attending a Baldock based choir and other activities. I also go on occasional journeys to London for which I use Baldock station.
2. There are many times of day, particularly during school journey times that the queue of cars and lorries comes up as far as the turning that leads into Radwell. This means that it can take up to half an hour to reach the traffic light in Baldock at the junction of A507 and A505.
3. It is not clear to me if and where the access to the new development will be regarding the A505, but in any event traffic going into Baldock would entail going through the same traffic light.
4. Undoubtedly many of the new inhabitants will be working in London. I understand that Baldock Station is to be downgraded to two slow trains per hour. Even if this does not happen, there is a large shortage of parking at the station and no room for expansion without demolishing several houses.
5. If those who work in London prefer to use their car, it would entail going through Baldock to reach the A1M, thus causing major jams in the town and increasing the traffic on the A1M, which is already full at rush hour times of day.

Concern is raised in relation to the site allocation policy not providing any policy guidance in relation to how community sports facility infrastructure should be provided for by this development. The Council has completed up-to-date assessment and strategies relating to bot indoor and outdoor sports facilities which have identified a range of needs together with priorities about how the identified needs should be addressed. This development will generate significant additional demand for community sports facilities which the existing facilities in the Baldock area will not be suitable for accommodating. This strategic allocation also represents one of the few opportunities where it would be appropriate to secure new sports facility provision on-site as part of the development in view of the scale of the development and the opportunities that exist to co-locate facilities in a potential new secondary school. For example, the evidence base identified a need for an additional sports hall and artificial grass pitches and specifically refers to the need for the local plan strategic housing allocations to be reviewed to consider how sports facility provision should be made.

The North Herts District Council anticipates that there will be a continued increase in out-commuting from North Herts over the plan period which will lead to increased pressure on an infrastructure already under strain. We have recently heard that the rail service from Baldock is about about to be reduced particularly during off peak hours . In addition bus services have been greatly curtailed over recent years and the news from the BBC just this morning is that local government funding for bus services has been reduced. Such a large development proposed for this part of Baldock will inevitably attract a significant number of commuters who will expect to use the local rail services or road systems. it is proposed that provision will be made to increase employment opportunities within the town , but these will be grossly insufficient for the huge number of people who will be coming to the town and they will have no option but to commute out of the town particularly to London or Cambridge where salaries are sufficiently higher for people to be able to afford to buy housing in the area! Baldock is already suffering severe congestion on its roads and this development will massively impact on what is already a significant problem. This goes against the NPPF which seeks to create high quality developments that respect and improve their surroundings. Prior to the building of the Baldock bypass levels of asthma in local children were well above the national average, since the bypass was opened air quality has improved in and around the town and levels of childhood asthma have improved. The sheer scale of this proposed development will inevitably increase air pollution once again. Children walking to school will encounter heavy traffic and hence air pollution. Baldock sits in a "bowl" and as a result air pollution is inevitable with the vast increase in traffic which will result from this number of dwellings.

NPPF section 4 states that development should take opportunities to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure, and that any plan should take account of providing 'safe and suitable' access to sites. The proposed BA1 development, as currently set out, will require significant new roadworks and it will greatly increase the traffic on North Road (the A507), a road that is already congested, making it difficult for residents to leave their houses.
Further, NPPF chapter 2 is about ensuring the vitality of town centres. This development will move the centre of this historic market town, forever changing its individuality.

NPPF section 4 says that developments should take up opportunities to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure and that plans should take account of providing "safe and suitable" access. I am concerned that the BA1 development will require significant roadworks and will greatly increase traffic on North Road (A507) - which is already congested making it difficult for residents of the area to get to and from town.

Further, NPPF chapter 2 is about ensuring the vitality of town centres. This development will move the centre of this historic market town and will forever change its character.

I wish to express again my concerns about erosion of the local Green Belt
Proposed large-scale development on the local green belt will drastically change the character of our area and impact our quality of life. In focusing development almost entirely around the area's main towns and Stevenage, planners are extending urban sprawl, destroying countryside and valuable agricultural land as well as the setting and special character of several communities such as Baldock and the Conservation Area of Graveley all of which are contrary to NPPF 80.
Further development around Great Ashby, especially at Roundwood would result in unacceptable increases in traffic coming down a very narrow road (Church Lane). Part of which is single track and is also constitutes a section of the Hertfordshire Way Walking Route so putting the ramblers at much greater risk.
The NPPF also makes clear that, once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Meeting assessed housing need has been adjudged by Government not to meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

There is not enough emphasis on prioritising development on brown field sites. This should be given much greater emphasis.

Proposed large-scale development on the local green belt will drastically change the character of our area and impact my quality of life. In focusing development almost entirely around the area's main towns and Stevenage, planners are extending urban sprawl, destroying countryside and valuable agricultural land as well as the setting and special character of several communities such as Baldock and Graveley all of which are contrary to NPPF 80.
The NPPF also makes clear that, once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Meeting assessed housing need has been adjudged by Government not to meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.

There is not enough emphasis on prioritising development on brown field sites. This should be given much greater emphasis. NHDC should be pursuing a policy of Brownfield Sites First.
Further development around Great Ashby, especially at Roundwood would result in unacceptable increases in traffic coming down a very narrow road (Church Lane). Part of Church Lane is single track and it also constitutes a section of the Hertfordshire Way Walking Route so putting the ramblers at much greater risk.

I am writing to comment on the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031. In particular, I wish to object to the massive proposed development at the Blackhorse Farm site to the north of Baldock.
My comments below identify six areas in which the Local Plan clearly fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework:
1. Traffic congestion in Baldock town centre
2. Access to Baldock station
3. Capacity restrictions at Baldock Station
4. Green Belt development
5 Water
Sections 1 to 3 demonstrate that the planners have failed to consider the transport and congestion issues. There appears to be no strategy for addressing these issues. I therefore believe that the Baldock part of the Local Plan is simply not deliverable, and so fails two of the four Tests of Soundness.
Baldock is already struggling with major traffic congestion, and the Local Plan would considerably increase the size of the town. Sensitive infill development in appropriate areas of Baldock would be beneficial, but inflicting a major part of NHDC's housing requirement on one small town without any attempt to address the inadequate infrastructure will have very serious consequences.
1. Traffic congestion in Baldock town centre
Traffic access into Baldock is very congested at the junction where the A507 North Road meets the Royston Road (the old route of the A505) at the junction of Whitehorse Street, Station Road, Royston Road and Clothall Road. This junction is used by: traffic entering Baldock from the north west on the A507; traffic entering Baldock from the north on the A1; traffic entering Baldock from the north from all the surrounding villages; traffic entering Baldock from the north east on the A505; traffic entering Baldock from the south east on the A507.
All these major traffic flows entering Baldock have to pass through this single junction which cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. The junction is always congested, and congestion during the rush hour can extend back almost as far as the Baldock services.
Air pollution levels between the railway bridge and the junction are particularly high during the rush hour, and are probably higher than anywhere else in Baldock. It was stated during public meetings on the draft Local Plan that Baldock has an existing air quality problem, and that the "Baldock bowl" concentrates particulates from traffic exhausts.
Building 2,800 houses on the Blackhorse Farm site is about the worst possible thing that could happen in this part of Baldock. Planning should be about enabling the town to expand in a sustainable way, but adding approximately 5,600 cars to an area that is already massively congested will simply lead to gridlock and will further exacerbate the air pollution problem.

2. Access to Baldock Station
The entrance to Baldock Station is on the road leading to the above mentioned congested junction.
There is almost always heavy traffic entering Baldock by the station entrance and a steady flow of traffic from the traffic lights at the major junction. The station entrance is further complicated by Icknield Way, Football Close and Salisbury Road all joining at the same point. I live in Church Street and trying to drive out onto the A507 is very difficult. It is also extremely difficult for pedestrians to cross to go to the station with cars coming from 6 directions.
Inevitably many of the houses on the proposed Blackhorse Farm site will be sold to people who commute to London or Cambridge and the existing congestion problems will be made far worse.
The railway bridge on North Road is only marginally wider than two cars, so it is not possible to make a cycle path from the Blackhorse Farm site.
Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the Blackhorse Farm proposals to be supported by a Transport Assessment to show how these issues will be resolved, and Paragraph 177 of the same document requires infrastructure development policies to be included in the Local Plan. When the Transport Assessment is published, it will demonstrate that this Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and is not deliverable.
3. Capacity restrictions at Baldock Station
The National Planning Policy Framework requires a Transport Assessment that emphasises "alternatives to the car such as walking, cycling and public transport". Baldock station is very busy, both during the week and at weekends. Many rail travellers are already forced to stand all the way to and from London. It has been estimated that the Local Plan will increase the number of rail journeys for Baldock from 330,000 to 600,000 per year.
The "Draft Sustainability Appraisal of North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan" by CAG Consultants suggests that high density developments should be allowed in close proximity to town centres or railway stations. However, this pre-supposes that the railway station has the spare capacity needed to carry the additional passengers that will be generated by the development.
Under plans announced by Govia Thameslink in their 2018 timetable consultation, Baldock is set to lose semi-fast services to and from London in order to free-up capacity for services to other places further up the line with even more pressing needs. They will also be replacing the existing trains with newer models that provide air conditioning - but 30% fewer seats . Far from the integrated approach to housing and transport planning advocated by Paragraph 31 of the National Planning Policy Framework,
"Local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development"
the local authority and the transport provider in Baldock are working against each other to make the situation far, far worse.
The Local Plan proposes to increase the population of Baldock by 80%. These new residents will need employment so that they can afford to buy the proposed new houses. Whether they travel to work by road or by rail, it is clear from the arguments above that they will create unsustainable levels of congestion that cannot be mitigated by any realistic investment in new infrastructure. This Local Plan is therefore not deliverable.
4. Green Belt development
The Blackhorse Farm development, is on Green Belt land and would result in urban sprawl that the Green Belt was meant to prevent. There is space to build between the Baldock Bypass and the railway line, north of Clothall Common, without building on perfectly good arable land and extending the boundaries of the town.
I feel very strongly that we should be doing everything in our power to protect the Green Belt - particularly since there are other sites available that DO meet planning criteria and are NOT in the Green Belt.
5. Water
I am concerned about water as a resource. We live in a very dry part of the country and rely on ground water from aquifers under the chalk. We are already extracting water at a faster rate than it is being replenished and 3500 more houses will be a huge increased and unsustainable demand.

Comments: Local Plan SP14 etc. (North Baldock Development)
Following the November 2016 meeting at Knights Templar School:
1. All speakers agreed that the development north of Baldock will almost certainly produce too much traffic for the town. We heard that there is no clear understanding of how much traffic will come from the development through Baldock, and how much on to any new bypass. In particular, the Whitehorse Street/Royston Road crossroads cannot be enlarged, because of listed buildings, and cannot deal with any more traffic.
2. There is no evidence of sufficient planning for infrastructure, particularly schools and medical services. The cultural aspect of Baldock as a historic market town is important too, and there is no evidence that the possibility that this may be irrevocably damaged has been addressed. After the rescuing of Baldock's character and function in recent decades, it now risks being swamped, and its identity and contribution to North Herts being erased.
3. It is amazing that an 80% increase in Baldock's housing is not seen as totally out of proportion and unfair. There is no precedent for such a drastic increase; are we being used as a spillover for Luton? Evidence suggests that the council is doing this contrary to previous statements. What is the justification for selecting this particular area of council-owned land north of Baldock - nobody at the recent meeting could suggest a serious explanation.
4. The lack of planning is especially evident in Govia's recent announcement of intentions to cut the fast train service from Baldock. It is evident that neither the council or the train company have credible plans for dealing with the proposed increase in passengers.

See attachment

I do not believe that all aspects required to make the plan sustainable have either been considered or delivered in the proposals for the largest site in the plan, SP14 North of Baldock.
The previous largest development near Baldock, Clothall Common, has not been considered a success by local planners as it has proven to be a separate adjunct to Baldock, providing in the main, homes for commuters to go to London or Cambridge, without any real integration into Baldock town.
This proposal is over twice the size of Clothall Common, and faces almost impossible access to both the Town of Baldock and its rail services and to help sustain its shops and facilities.
The vague plan regarding roads in and around Baldock is nowhere near good enough to show sustainability. There is no actual transport plan.
A potential new road linking Radwell with the Royston Road is in effect a by-pass for the town. It will prove impossibloe to get to the railway station or the town centre except via the existing road access under the railway bridge (already hugely congested) or by using the new road to leave Baldock and try to get back in to the town centre via different roads which are also heavily congested.
The NPPF also refers to sustainability of town centres. Baldock is a historic market town. This development will not only be a standalone development (schools, doctors surgeries and shops), but traffic will prevent going to baldock even if you wanted to. Therefore this new development due to its size will actually affect Baldock detrimentally.
Finally there are no Goverment proposals to widen the A1M along its length so the 5000 plus vehicles this plan will pump onto the A1 to London will lead to even more traffic congestion, air pollution and as a buffer against people visiting the small towns on this route to help sustain them

i have outlined my traffic and town centre infrastructure and sustainability objections in the sustainability section earlier.

My additional comments are based on the huge removal of green belt on this site. Government guidance says green belt should be protected :

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;

the above guidelines are almost all broken in this site. With the exception being that you will be building effectively a new town just a few hundred metres form an existing town, and also swallowing up a historic small settlement village in Bygrave

I do not believe sufficient discussion was given to other identified and unidentified sites in North Herts which may have been much more accessible and not threatening one of our historic market towns.
This site was not selected for its sustainability or its suitability. It was selected as it was a convenient site for the benefit of Herts County Council (exclusive owner). In addition Herts CC were given rights to extend their original land offer considerably in size, when no other landowners were offered the opportunity to also make a similar offer. This would have undoubtedly have lead to other more suitable sites.

Too many houses

Upon the need for more homes in North Hertfordshire I cannot disagree with the site to the North of Baldock. What I am concerned about is the transport network. After approaching the County council about this fact and being willing to talk to them with regards to using our family farms which cover Bygrave area but also the land running from the county councils land up to the service station at J10, we have had no come back from them regarding this.
As the vice Chairman of Bygrave parish council, as a village we are very concerned about the ability to get into baldock because of the railway bridge area, also If there is a new link from the Bygrave road over the railway line to the A505 the fear is that Bygrave will become a rat run for Ashwell. For Ashwell residents to go down the A1m they either have to cross the A505 at Ashwell station or Slip end. Both places on the A505 have had fatal accidents therefore the option to run through a village to via a junction on the A505 would be a good option for them.
The other issue for Bygrave is the view from Bygrave to Baldock and we hope there will be landscaping to keep the village feel.

Please can you have a look at these major points.
Please can I be offered a place at the public hearing

The policy is totally deficient in its recognition of the impact of the new development on congestion on the Northern and Eastern access routes into Baldock (London Road, Royston Road). The proposed inclusion of the link road from the A507 to the A505, will only address traffic wishing to travel to the A1M junction to the South of the town, or Eastwards towards Royston and Cambridge. Any access from the new development into the centre of Baldock will still require to pass through the traffic lights at the junction of Station Road and Royston Road (either from the North or the East). This junction is already a bottleneck (particularly from the North) and the council in its submissions barely recognises this, and has presented no adequate traffic models based on current traffic flows and forecast increases in vehicles to demonstrate the impact on this part of the town. A site to the North of the railway station of more than 2000 dwellings will massively increase the number of cars entering Baldock from the North and East. The consequence of this will be Baldock returning to its status years ago as a congestion nightmare (before the bypass was built). As a result people will avoid the town centre and travel South or North to access facilities (e.g retail, local services), damaging the economy of the town centre. It is my clear view that the sites proposed have been put forward by the Council for reasons of expediency rather than practicality - they have been chosen because the council owns the land not because the site is the best, most practical and economically viable solution. As a minimum the council must be encouraged to properly recognise this issue and obliged to provide robust models to demonstrate the impact on the town. I do not therefore believe that the plan has been 'Positively Prepared' nor that it is 'Justified' as per the soundness tests set out in the policy documents.

Having being born in the town of Baldock I cannot understand why this historic Market Town has to take the lions share in the proposed required local plan. It will completely destroy the town causing a two way split, and NO future infrastructure will cope with the demands on the town.

I support and object to the Baldock housing project. I understand that everywhere needs more housing and we can't be immune BUT it is nonsense to create another town that is almost the same number of dwellings that are currently in Baldock! The proposed infrastructure is insufficient and considering that the majority of houses will go to commuters it is crazy that there is even thinking around reducing the current "fast" train service to London.

I'm all of sensible development but Baldock is a small town with sufficient amenities for the community and there is a real community feel which I'm sure would be lost with an influx of c3000 new homes.

Plus the roads are busy enough around here with the connections to the A505 and A1 and Baldock would suffer a real strain with additional traffic.

Far too much development of a small historic market town which already has had over development in the past (clothall common).
Infrastructure and existing traffic routes which are already under strain will only worsen under this proposed overdevelopment.
Baldock is under attack from property developers and now from the county council wanting to sell the land for profit in opposition of the people who live here.
A bypass that was built to alleviate traffic problems has made little difference as officials failed to redirect or ban heavy goods vehicles from careering through this small town that has always been plagued by high volumes of passing through traffic.
People vote for council officials to vocalise their concerns, but in reality they just get sidelined by profit and greed. That's capitalism for you.
I say no to such over development of Baldock.

Re SP14: I agree with these policies in principle, but I object because they do not go far enough to ensure that the town's infrastructure can cope with the additional residents (that is, the policies will not be effective without amendment).
i) SP14 does not mention rail transport. Para 4.26 of the proposed local plan acknowledges that, "transport infrastructure ... is already under
strain at peak periods." BA1 in particular will inevitably significantly increase the number of people using the trains from Baldock, because of the size of the development and the fact that Baldock will be the closest station. 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 SP14.
ii) SP14 e.ii is ineffective because it does not explain what "upgrades" are necessary to Baldock station. SP14. 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.
iii) SP14 d and e do not go far enough to mitigate the impact of additional traffic that will be generated by BA1. Para 13.29 of the plan acknowledges that, "The Station Road / Clothall Road / Royston Road junction is identified as a pinch point in the Council's transport modelling." and asserts that, "Provision of a new road associated with
BA1 linking the A507 with the A505 will help mitigate this issue enabling movement
from north to east without the need to use the junction." I agree that the new road should be built and that it will likely somewhat assist in mitigating the impact of additional traffic using the junction. However, that road on its own will not be sufficient and/or will not mitigate the impact enough to prevent that junction from becoming an even more problematic pinch point. SP14 fails to include any proposal to help deal with the additional traffic that will result from residents of BA1 travelling by road from BA1 to locations in Baldock such as the Baldock industrial estate (BE1, BB1), the hypermarket (Tesco), the health centre, and schools outside of BA1. Without specific proposals for managing the traffic at that junction, SP14 d and e is ineffective.
iv) SP14h is ineffective because it only mentions primary and secondary education, and fails to mention nursery and pre-school provision. Baldock will need additional nursery and pre-school places, especially to ensure that parents are able to return to work.

I agree with the policies in SP14 in principle, but I object because they do not go far enough to ensure that the town's infrastructure can cope with the additional residents (that is, the policies will not be effective without amendment).

i) SP14 does not mention rail transport. Para 4.26 of the proposed local plan acknowledges that, "transport infrastructure ... is already under strain at peak periods." BA1 in particular will inevitably increase the number of people using the trains from Baldock, because of the size of the development and the fact that Baldock will be the closest station. 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 SP14.

ii) SP14 e.ii is ineffective because it does not explain what "upgrades" are necessary to Baldock station.

Also, SP14. 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.

iii) SP14 d and e do not go far enough to mitigate the impact of additional traffic that will be generated by BA1. Para 13.29 of the plan acknowledges that, "The Station Road / Clothall Road / Royston Road junction is identified as a pinch point in the Council's transport modelling." and asserts that, "Provision of a new road associated with BA1 linking the A507 with the A505 will help mitigate this issue enabling movement from north to east without the need to use the junction." I agree that the new road should be built and that it will likely somewhat assist in mitigating the impact of additional traffic using the junction. However, I consider that the road on its own will not be sufficient and/or will not mitigate the impact enough to prevent that junction from becoming an even more problematic pinch point. SP14 fails to include any proposal to help deal with the additional traffic that will result from residents of BA1 travelling by road from BA1 to locations in Baldock such as the Baldock industrial estate (BE1, BB1), the hypermarket (Tesco), the health centre, and schools outside of BA1. Without specific proposals for managing the traffic at that junction, SP14 d and e is ineffective.

iv) SP14h is ineffective because it only mentions primary and secondary education, and fails to mention nursery and pre-school provision. Baldock will need additional nursery and pre-school places, especially to ensure that parents are able to return to work.

Policy SP14 - BA1.
The proposed development of approximately 2,800 houses in this area has not been researched thoroughly enough and there has been no master plan developed (or at least presented to the public). If the size of Baldock is to increase by 80% there will be great difficulties with school places for primary and secondary schools as the schools are currently at full capacity of oversubscribed. Children are at present travelling into Baldock from the surrounding villages to the secondary school. Will these places still be available or will they go to the new children moving into the area while the new development is being built. We understand new schools will be part of the plan but there are no details published.
Traffic considerations. Additional housing will put huge pressure on the already existing traffic issues within Baldock. The A507 London Road which is proposed to be an exit is already jammed with traffic at peak times (7-9 am and 4-7 pm). The road is very narrow under the railway bridge and the many large lorries going or trying to go under the railway bridge will increase leading to an even more dangerous situation than we have now. Several lorries have crashed into the bridge, shutting the road and stopping the trains due to safety concerns.
The crossroads at the end of the A507 which crosses with the A505 is at present a dangerous junction. It can not be widened due to the surrounding listed buildings. One of which has been badly damaged recently following one of the many crashes. Although a link road is proposed people will still drive to the railway station which at present as very little parking.
The additional development is likely to ruin the historic character, it will remove recreational and good arable farm land leading to a decrease in opportunity for a healthy lifestyle and the consumption of local produce.

I am very concerned about the future high traffic congestion through Baldock which we already have despite current bypass, especially at the traffic light junctions. I also object to the significant increase traffic which will result in higher levels of air and noise pollution.