Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

There are acknowledged negative impacts of this site and so it is not the most appropriate site to have selected for such a large development which is disproportionate to the size and housing needs of Baldock. The railway line creates a hard border between site BA1 and the rest of Baldock which would make integration difficult. This is almost a new settlement in its own right although NHDC says it does not intend to create new settlements in this Plan.
The traffic flow and resulting pollution will add to an already difficult situation where both peak and non-peak time congestion is problematic and waiting times at the crossroads are long. It is likely that air quality standards in parts of Baldock will be breached as a result of this development.
The proposed link road for BA1 would involve long round trips to neighbouring towns and experience shows that many drivers will use the shorter more direct route through the town rather than the freer flowing road.
The timing of the new infrastructure is unclear and the town would not cope with such a large development unless most of the infrastructure comes in the earliest phase.

I am a resident of Bygrave and have lived in the local area all of my life. Due to the number of jobs in the area I commute in to London every day for work. I currently am required to be at my desk everyday by 9:00am. I however leave my house at 6:30 everyday to ensure I am able to park at the station. If I were to attempt to park my car at the station at 08:00 giving me plenty of time to catch the train I couldn't due to lack of space. The trains are also getting busier and busier every year and I fail to understand how the infrastructure of our town can cope with an the extra 5000 people and or vehicles. Our town is not fit for purpose for this expansion proposal and all solutions I have read fail to address fundamental traffic and overcrowding issues.

I object to the Local plan for Baldock Hertfordshire BA1 - Site 2 and 3

My reasons are:
1. The plan goes against the National Planning Policy for greenbelt in that it is not safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and also is affecting the nature and special character of historic Baldock.
The selling off this land that is actively used as farm land, will change the face of Hertfordshire forever. Once houses are built, the farming community will be destroyed forever and there is no going back on the decision.

We keep being told to reduce our carbon footprint-how are we meant to when your decision will mean that even more food will need to be imported? These farms employ a lot of people who are working and not claiming benefits. We enjoy these open fields on a daily basis, going for long walks. Over the last year, there has been a dramatic increase in the Red Kite population. We have heard Barn Owls at night. We watch buzzards and kestrels flying and hovering, we check the dates that the swallows return and then leave again each year. All of these experiences would be lost to future generations.

2. The second objection to the plan is the backwards looking policy with respect to the type of housing.

We are told that the housing is predominantly needed for first time buyers and they need to have a New Build house on an estate preferable 2 up and 2 down? If land is in short supply, why are the planners not insisting on apartment and high density housing which is less land grabbing. i.e. Why are multi-storey buildings not being built in brown field sites ? In Europe this is common practise at the very least to go to 5 levels to maximise land use. In Baldock there has been a number of sites that have had new builds have but they have been built as low density housing e.g the new buildings by Icknield way and Norton Road.

As there is more and more pressure on land for housing and waste surely this cannot be left to builders to manipulate . At this rate the land will continually be axed so builders can continue with their same policy of standard housing.


3.The entrance to site 2 is along a very congested small feeder road (Salisbury Road) that has only 1 side of the road available at most times as residents need to park their cars on the roads. This road will be unable to carry the load of traffic from the number of houses proposed.
This road also carry's all the sewerage drains and will probably not cope with the additional load of traffic when work is required on the drains etc.

4. The plan has no mention of how the additional thousands of houses will be able to get to the south of Baldock.
At the moment the only local way is to go under the railway bridge and we already have long queues and delays to get onto the North road and through the traffic lights. With the new housing being built at the station today this will further exasperate the situation. Otherwise you have to make a 5 mile detour around on the A1 which is already congested around Stevenage at peak times.

The additional homes will cause significant pressure on the roads in Baldock. It is inequitable that Baldock is increased by 80% when other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by 10-20%. Air quality is already poor and will be significantly reduced by the increased traffic. The construction traffic will cause severe air quality, noise and congestion issues. The site is on a slope when Baldock already has flooding problems when there is heavy rain. The site is, I believe, the habitat for some endangered species of birds and bats. Baldock has a small station with limited capacity for traffic to and from, parking at and train passenger volumes. This large site is on prime agricultural land and threatens Baldocks historic character

Allotment Provision in Baldock
In the NHDC Local Plan 2011 - 2031 it states in Paragraph 11.28 that the Council has an Allotments Action Plan (AAP), and in paragraph 11.30 that "No new allotment sites are designated in this plan. However, the Council will require appropriate contributions towards allotment provision given the demand for allotment space". The current version of the AAP does not address the demand for allotments in Baldock.
In paragraph 13.15 the population of Baldock in the 2011 Census is given as 10,280 people in 4,491 dwellings. BALGA manages the 2 largest allotment sites in Baldock for NHDC, and has currently 185 tenanted allotments, and 19 untenanted allotments. The Local Plan requires 3136 extra dwellings to be built in Baldock up to 2031. By simple mathematics Baldock currently requires 41 allotments per thousand dwellings. Hence by 2031 the 3136 new dwellings could generate a demand for some 130 extra allotments, and we have available only 19!
If the Allotment Action Plan is updated, will this be taken into account? Since the AAP is for only 5 years, is it of any help alongside The Local Plan period of 2011 to 2031? It seems unlikely if no new allotment sites are planned!
BALGA has some undeveloped allotment land at North Road site, which could provide some 15 extra plots. However, Herts County Council owns a field adjacent to the North Road allotment site, currently used as set-aside, which could provide a further 60 plots if leased to BALGA. Also Herts County Council own the land to the west of Clothall Road Allotment site, and BALGA have previously discussed with them the lease of land to add a further 30 plots. However, BALGA would need significant capital to develop these areas as allotments, as they would need to be fenced and ploughed, and supplied with water. Paragraph 11.30 suggests that CIL could be used for this, if allotment provision is included in development funding (which is not currently allowed for by NHDC in its Section 106 provision). Is it a reasonable supposition that NHDC would provide funding, and Herts County Council would be willing to lease this land to BALGA?
Can the provision of Allotments in Baldock be directly addressed in the next version of the Allotment Action Plan?

The total NHDC plan is a make shift collection of mainly in appropriate green belt additions to villages and towns targeted at meeting a new housing number which could and should be solved with the development of a new garden city. This approach will be complexed, disruptive and distructive to communities.
Specifically the proposed development plan for the BA1 site does not contain any viable outline solution for principlly car and rail or other traffic into and out of Baldock town, or north to and from the A1 Baldock services junction (A507). The volume increase of cars directly from this plan only, has a minimum estimated total of 5,000. The traffic into Baldock (A507) is referenced in the plan as having a critical pinch point at the traffic lights. This totally understates the current situation, without the additional year by year increase together with the 5000 referenced from the development. The current queue of cars into Baldock from the north (A507) is between 15 and 25 minutes morning, lunchtime, evening and bad weather. The A507 is also a run off for a fully loaded south bound A1 each morning. The A1 currently has south bound stationary traffic backed up to this junction.
All the current traffic along the A507 passes the Radwell and Ashwell junctions on a narrow two way road with unrestricted speed. Currently turning in or out of these junctions is difficult but when crossing the oncoming traffic to make a turn is extremely dangerous, mainly from the rear as cars do not expect the road to narrow, stopping them from passing on the inside. The increases in cars would make travel into and out of the villages impossible. This clearly demonstrates that the future overall traffic situation to and from the north side into and out of Baldock is critical now. With known additions from the referenced development together with all the others in Baldock means this cannot and must not be left to an adhoc plan after the submission and must be faced and dealt with as part of the submission. The cost of alternative roads to the A507 may not be financially viable or possible and do not resolve the issue of a railway line with its fixed narrow height restricted tunnel being the real barrier and divide between this proposed site and the town.
The current proposal has no plan to accommodate or in any way deal with the huge amount of additional passengers that these new homes would put on Baldock train station. Baldock train station is already extremely busy at peak travel times in the morning and evening with a large increase in annual passenger use year on year (0.497 million passengers in 2010 - 0.624 million in 2015). The station platform can currently take a maximum length train of 8 carriages. To increase the length of train that can stop at Baldock would require both sides of the platform to be significantly extended. There are no current plans to increase the amount of trains stopping at Baldock, in fact a recent time table revision is proposing a cut in the number of fast trains that will stop at Baldock station. A clear indicator that the plan has had no connection to road or rail travel infurstructure bodies.
There is no provision for sewage, drainage or water for a site positioned on one side of the river Ival. The river relies on chalk aquafers which if bored further will dry up the supply to the river.

This development proposal does not fully allow for the increase of traffic going into Baldock on a daily basis. The road into Baldock is already choked at peak times. Despite the land for new Road links I believe that the roads will become increasingly congested and dangerous for pedestrians.

Although there is a plan for additional infrastructure there is no clear plan. If the current schools are to be expanded this will not work in my opinion as they are already a capacity. Parents are already disappointed with school choices and this will get worse not better with this proposal.

The centre of Baldock is unique and the increase in housing would be detrimental to the town. Adding lots of modern housing would detract from the historic nature and individuality of the town.

This refers to the proposed Link Road joining the A507 to the A505/B656 roundabout at the northern end of the A505 bypass (across, and serving, housing development BA1).

The ideal solution would be to run the Link Road from the roundabout by Baldock Services on A507 to the bypass roundabout on A505 (red line on attached image baldock1.jpg). That would take all the traffic not heading for Baldock centre, either to A1 or to A505, leaving the narrow A507 clear for purely local traffic.

However, that involves building a new road across land presumably not already owned by the County Council. So something like attached image baldock2.jpg might be necessary.

There are two objections to this: (1) A507 from the new Link Road roundabout north to A1 would need to be widened; (2) traffic from development BA1 might be tempted to travel south on A507, negotiating the awful crossroads and traffic lights at B656/A507 junction, and Whitehorse Street and High Street/London Road to reach A1 south, or Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street to reach Letchworth. That would cause traffic chaos at the crossroads and through Baldock.

Whichever route is chosen, it is essential that the only road outlet from BA1 be to the new Link Road, not direct on to A507.

While new building is taking place (BA10), it would also be sensible to make an outlet from the Clothall Common development direct to the B656/A505 bypass roundabout. This would stop east-bound traffic from Clothall Common having to use the A507/B656 crossroads.

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.

See attachment

Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.

Section 4 - Communities

Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
*2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
*The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
*Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
*It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
*Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
*No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
*All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
*BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
*Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
*Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
*More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
*A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
*A large green space with ample parking
*Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Tree planting along every public road
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
*Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
*Funding to extend the library and community centre.
*Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
*Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.

Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
*Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
*Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
*The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
*Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
*No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
*All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
*Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.

Suggested changes to the plan:
*Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
*There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
*Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
*Require each site to include a children's play park.
*Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
*Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
*Additional railway parking
*Additional town centre parking
*Funding to extend both the library and community centre
*Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
*Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
*Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.

If Bygrave is a village in the Green Belt and only allocated limited affordable housing as a Category C Settlement, how is it that such a huge development can take place in Bygrave Parish?

Bygrave will cease to exist as the hamlet it is meant to be.
Baldock will cease to have the community it is meant to have.
Wildlife and the green belt will suffer.
The reduction in the train services will mean more problems accessing trains to London.
More congestion and Traffic passing through town even with additional road structure.

Until clear plans are made for the improvement in infrastructure, ie roads (including A1, A505, A507 and lesser roadways); rail links to London and Cambridge; schooling; Hospital provision; GP Surgeries; not to mention mains water etc are clearly spelt out, the addition of 8,000 people in and around Baldock can not be supported.

I object to this large development as I do not feel that investigation into reasonable alternatives have been fully considered or researched.
The increase in traffic specifically on Bygrave Road and the Whitehorse crossroads would be not adequately mitigated by a link road to the A505 Baldock bypass.
I also think that more detailed consideration is required of the supporting infrastructure like schools and GP surgeries. To say "provision will be made" for these is not enough.
There also needs to be significant improvements made to Baldock station and the train service which runs from it (at the current time the operating company is planning to make significant changes to the timetabling of fast trains from Baldock) - with so many more residents potentially using the service this is a big concern.

A large part of this site lies very close to Baldock train station and the direct fast (34 minutes) link to Kings Cross. This area has not previously been developed because it has until now been protected by Green Belt. Releasing land for development so close to the train station will in fact provide housing against London housing need rather than against North Hertfordshire housing need. It seems this has been missed by the Sustainability Review, presumably because they have assumed that all new development will fall under the Stevenage housing market area, which itself is based on an assumption of natural organic growth where areas of high desirability (such as those close to the train station) will already have been developed - but release of such a large section of land so close to the train station is quite exceptional and this should have been considered. Without mitigation this site will not deliver against North Hertfordshire housing need and risks increasing local house prices - exacerbating problems rather than improving them. The simplest mitigation is to maintain a strip of land (20 minutes walk from the train station) as Green Belt and so separate the new development from Baldock, the number of homes in this site should be reduced accordingly - alternatively, this policy needs to state that this strip of land will be developed only after all the rest of the site has been developed (allowing house prices to grow slowly and only the last set of homes risk being consumed solely against London housing need).
Furthermore, this is a very large site that is intended to be developed rapidly (with a dependency on other developments, like transitional school provision in Baldock Town and Clothall Common). Recent experience (for example, Great Ashby or the Church Gate development) do not show a competency within the district and county councils for successfully delivering this. It is too risky and should be scaled back. The remaining homes should be found via a more even spread across the district (for example by reconsidering sites that were in previous iterations of the plan) - this plan includes too much development around Baldock (an 80% increase in size!) too rapidly to be likely to be delivered sustainably or effectively. Especially considering that facilities and infrastructure in Baldock is already overstretched - school places are already over subscribed, GP surgery is at capacity, and road infrastructure is constrained by pinch points at narrow historic roads and junctions bounded by listed buildings hundreds of years old - these roads simply cannot be widened, and there is no guarantee the modest improvements suggested in the plan will effectively mitigate against traffic and infrastructure problems. This plan is currently planning to fail and should be scaled back at this site and housing spread more evenly among a greater number of smaller sites around North Hertfordshire.

The number of self-build plots should be increased - over the time of the plan, these will provide an affordable housing option and will be deliverable. This should be at least doubled to 56 plots.

4.177 The location of the site means it will be relatively close to the town centre and very close to the train station - the sustainability of building so close to a train station a direct fast (34 minutes) link into central London is arguable when it is likely that homes near the train station (within a 20 minute walk) will in fact go to meet London housing need instead of local housing need and will likely drive up house prices - it cannot be argued that encouraging inward migration, without supply of sufficient housing for local housing need and the driving up of house prices and making housing more unaffordable is sustainable development. The plan should accept that development close the train station is not good in terms of sustainable development, local house prices and meeting local housing need, and should indicate what mitigations will be put in place to prevent housing close to the train station simply being consumed by demand from London and the subsequent uplift in house prices. The strip of this site that lies with 20 minutes walk of the train station should be left undeveloped, or left until the rest of the site has been fully developed (i.e. until after 2031) in order that this site can maximise its benefit to the people of North Hertfordshire.

Re: point h of SP14.
It should be noted that Baldock is not very large and has an established secondary school, Knights Templar, which may be able to expand to provide the required provision. The plan should be careful not to presuppose the building of a new secondary school as the best solution, but development of this site should certainly contribute to the required provision, either by building of a new secondary school or by expansion and improvements to Knights Templar, or a combination of both.

SP14, point 4.178 states that development will not errode gaps between towns. It should be noted that the development will run right up to Bygrave Common, obliterating the character of Bygrave as a separate place from Baldock. Mitigations, such as a strip of green belt or undeveloped land between the two should be mentioned in the plan and considered as part of any development on this site.

I support the requirement for a site masterplan, for additional neighbourhood provision and for structural planing at this site. I support the construction of a road connecting the A507 London Road to the A505 Baldock bypass. I support the construction of a secondary rail crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, and safe access routes to/from Baldock station. I support integration of existing rights of way, which should be maintained as green spaces. I support the requirement of a community hall and GP surgery. I support the provision of new primary school on this site.

Baldock's roads cannot cope with the increased traffic. The station crossroad has long tailbacks and cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings.

I don't object to some more houses, but an 80% increase in the town size is unworkable and will negatively impact the character of a historic market town.

Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased
traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.

All construction traffic for the further development would need to go through the
town. As such, the additional infrastructure (specifically the link road) must be developed first.

The Local Plan and supporting documents show that Site BA1 will have many adverse impacts which have not been given adequate weight, especially as there may be alternative sites which do not suffer such impacts. (See objections to policy SP8 Housing.)

1 Development on Site BA1 will be very difficult to integrate properly with the rest of Baldock because the railway line is a physical barrier with few crossing points. In effect, the development of Site BA1, with the infrastructure that it must have, will create a separate settlement. Thus it contravenes paras. 4.100 to 4.103 of the Local Plan, it fails to conform to the vision articulated in para. 3.6 and it fails to maintain the existing settlement pattern as required by objective ENV1.

2. The scale of growth proposed for Baldock, most of it in site BA1, will have overwhelming negative effects on road traffic in and around Baldock, but these have not been assessed adequately in the Local Plan and the proposed mitigation measures are minimal and unlikely to be effective. The draft AECOM Local Transport Modelling Report of July this year only examines the existing situation, not the impact of proposed developments, and the one mitigation measure proposed for Baldock (a mini roundabout and signal optimisation at Whitehorse Street/Royston Road) is trivial.

The proposed link road between the A507 and A505, and the proposed southern link road between Wallington Road and Royston Road B656 (in the proposals for Sites BA3 and BA4), will divert some traffic away from the junction at Whitehorse Street/Royston Road which is a known problem (para. 13.29), but additional local traffic from Site BA1 and other Baldock development sites will nevertheless lead to a large net increase in traffic through this junction. NHDC implicitly accepts that a proportion of traffic from Site BA1 will pass through this junction (para. 4.179). A high proportion of trips from Site BA1 will be towards Hitchin and Letchworth both for work and other purposes (e.g. to the retail trading site east of Letchworth) and most of these will go via this junction and through the town centre conservation area. The Local Plan notes how interconnected these towns are (paras. 2.31, 4.27, 13.14) and that many residents will commute out (paras 4.25 and 4.26). Use of the link road to the A505 to go from from Site BA1 to Letchworth and Hitchin will involve a long round trip, and most residents will not do this. In any case this route includes another problem junction, at Letchworth Gate. Trips from Site BA1 to the large supermarket at the south end of Baldock High Street will add to traffic problems within the town.

Some mitigation of the traffic problems might be achieved by upgrading an alternative route through Baldock via Icknield Way and Norton Road, but this is also very difficult and highly contentious.

The deliverability and financial viability of the link road to the A505 is questionable, given the lack of detail especially about the new rail crossing that is required and especially if, as is likely, this has to be under the railway.

The increased traffic through Baldock will breach air quality standards, which the plan notes are already close to being exceeded (para. 9.28).

3. The site makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt (Housing and Green Belt Background Paper, para. 3.14). Using it, along with the other sites around the edge of Baldock, will negatively affect the character of the landscape and townscape. The land north of Bygrave Road is of particular concern because it has been assessed as having moderate to high landscape sensitivity (Land North of Baldock: Landscape Sensitivity Study, July 2013, para. 5.2).

4. 4. There is insufficient detail about the masterplan and the other site-specific requirements that will have to be met. The list of requirements is encouraging but more detail is needed about such matters as the location of infrastructure facilities and the timing of their provision, so that they are determined before developers start producing proposals.

Part of the infrastructure needed within site BA1 is additional car parking for the railway station, and land needs to be reserved for this as close as possible to the station. This is not mentioned.

I am writing to object specifically to the proposal to build 2,800 new houses on the land North of Baldock The following concerns are not in any order of importance and highlight the strength of my objections 1/ Has any one considered the impact of yet more concreting over of land with roads , car parks and houses with gardens increasingly paved for cars This land needs to be able to drain away the increasing heavy rainfall and floods climate change is continuing to cause 2/ Competition for jobs in the local area 3/ It is also my opinion more traffic will add to an already long wait at peak times at the traffic lights in Baldock and any future surrounding roundabouts needed to control a further 5,000 cars in the neighbour hood 4/ An increase of up to 8,000 people living in the area will overload existing schools , doctors ' surgeries , sewerage and take away an area of peaceful and beautiful countryside 5/ The new houses will not serve the local population because house prices will be aimed at maximum council tax rates from executive style houses These will attract better off residents living in London who can afford to pay more than the locals This will then inflate existing house prices in the wider area making it even harder for the young and also the less well off to buy their own homes If council tax charges then rise it could even push out the existing population , those who are already 'Just About Managing ' those who are the increasing number of JAMS demographically 6/ If the proposed development goes ahead there will be one ALMIGHTY JAM ..... Extra traffic , Overloaded services , Polluted air and light and noise , all in our precious countryside

Thank you for reading my comments .I have been a resident of North Herts for over 40 years . I should hate to see the loss of valuable farming which you should be preserving as such to feed future generations .
I trust the accumulated evidence from all who are against the Proposal will cause it to be abandoned and thrown out

The 2800 houses fail to meet the tests of soundness (3&4)because it does not comply with NPPF policies and is not deliverable. Transport planning alone, which has yet to have been undertaken, will show the site to be non-viable for the number of houses being built when considering the unique road system in Baldock, that bottlenecks on the Great North Road at the railway bridge. Adding another 5000 cars is not sustainable.
Rail links are inadequate.
Local amenities already in deficit.
Not enough employment to meet demand.
It is non strategic, with little to no thought around these issues

Generally support, but (from an Ashwell point of view) we are concerned about the traffic load on North Road. It is severely congested at peak times at present - so some relief road under the railway line giving access to the station will be needed if the plan is to go ahead.

The proposed new areas for housing look sound. The largest area to the North of Baldock uses countryside which is not part of an AONB and is reasonably level. It is positioned away from the High Street so should have little impact on the historic centre of the town. The other areas appear to be logical 'fill in' areas.

The plan if implemented will provide much needed new housing to North Herts and provide prosperity to all residents.

NPPF s.4 is about "Promoting sustainable transport". It states that Transport Statements and Assessments should be carried out, that developments should take up opportunities to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure and that plans should take account of whether "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people". I don't think the plan has achieved this for all areas being considered for development. In particular, I am concerned about congestion in and around Baldock train station. Further, parking space at the station is so limited that cars often park on Icknield Way East which is already hugely congested. Great Northern is currently consulting on a reduced train service from Baldock. An increasing population and a reduced train service will cause acute congestion in and around Baldock train station.

I don't believe that an additional 3,290 houses will provide a positive benefit for the town. NPPF Chapter 2 is entitled "Ensuring the vitality of town centres". It covers aspects including requirements to "retain and enhance existing markets" and "promote competitive town centres...which reflect the individuality of the town". Baldock is a small market town. The addition of 3,290 new homes will dramatically change the character of the town centre.

Finally, I am concerned about the infrastructure being provided. NPPF paragraph 177 describes that "it is...important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planed infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion...the local planning authority must understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up". Having reviewed the plans, I don't believe planned infrastructure to support 3,290 new homes is deliverable in a timely fashion.

The proposal to build 2800 houses to extend baldock is out of proportion. the town cannot cope with this amount of development. as it is there is always queues from all directions to get though baldock. lorries continues to travel through baldock instead of the existing bypass so adding another bypass wont help. no sign of a consistent plan beyond a mention of a bypass. this is not compliant with policy that suggests avoiding major infrastructure changes which this would be. the train station is overcrowded and the reality is that most of these houses will be sold to london people who will need to commute into london. currently there is a rail consultation about downgrading the service from baldock which will only make this problem worse. there is no sign that NHDC has consulted with govia about this.. the schools are at capacity and so is the doctors and other services. again no sign of a plan or costings for addressing this beyond a brief mention of new school and doctors(no costs or is it feasible, ie chronic shortage of doctors etc).
i am concerned that the airpolution will increase from all the additional traffic and see no evidence for addressing this. doubling the size of baldock and expecting to integrate this into the existing town is unrealistic. it is more likely we end of with a continuous sprawl from hitchin through to ashwell with no coherent town centers.
builiding on prime agricultural land is against national policy and hence this whole scheme should be reconsidered. overall this is poorly thought through scheme and smacks of panic and lack of vision.

I object to the proposals on the following grounds:-
destruction of green belt
traffic is already far too heavy in and around Baldock
no school places available already
air pollution
light pollution
overload on facilities in Baldock eg doctors
Baldock as a town will lose its character

I would like to make the point that the provision of car parking in all new developments is clearly way below the need. This has already shown up on the Clothal estate, Icknield Way East and Icknield Way.
The provisions detailed in Appendix 4 are woefully inadequate for current needs. More children are having to live at their parent's house beyond school age and need their own car to get to work. 4 spaces per family dwelling would be realistic. The elderly may not use their cars frequently; but find one essential on occasions. They also would expect to be able to receive visitors (hopefully often) who will need to park somewhere. Many people nowadays park their work van/lorry/trailer at their home overnight.
The preceding question is nonsense. I support the need for houses but object to the poor provision for parking, but you probably won't read this far and my efforts will score 1 on the object count.

See attachment

See attachment

This plan does not support promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses since the proposed housing is on existing farmland.

It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other
Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development suggested.
Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town .No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage.

The green belt land around Baldock Green Belt serves critical purposes:
● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and;
● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

I am concerned that the Local Plan does not regard the construction of new buildings as
inappropriate in Green Belt as clearly set out in the NPPF