Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

My major concern relates to the increased volume of traffic that will be using the A507 to and from Baldock. Exiting Radwell Lane will prove even more difficult at peak times than it is at present.

First, the plan is not justified as it does not present the most appropriate strategy for the distribution of housing, given the acknowledged negative impacts of site BA1, serious questions about its deliverability, the fact that it is not proposed for early release, and the availability of alternative sites that do not appear to have such significant drawbacks:
1. Impacts: the plan and its supporting documents acknowledge that site BA1 would have several adverse impacts:
a) Although Green Belt land will need to be released to meet North Hertfordshire's housing requirements, this site is acknowledged by the Council as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes (Housing and Green Belt background paper, para. 3.14);
b) The sustainability appraisal notes (Table 9) that this site, along with the others proposed for the edges of Baldock, creates a high probability of adverse impacts on landscape and townscape character - with the Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2013) identifying the land north of Bygrave Road having moderate to high landscape sensitivity;
c) Increased traffic arising from this scale of development is likely to breach air quality standards in the Whitehorse St/Hitchin St areas, which the plan notes are already close to being exceeded in these locations (para. 9.28). The Housing and Green Belt Background Paper notes that former site 209E (Priory Fields, Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for allocation for precisely this reason;
d) The site is highly likely to impose severe and unsustainable pressure on the local highways network, for reasons set out below;
e) Development would be difficult to integrate effectively with the rest of Baldock, due to the extent to which the railway line creates a hard barrier with limited existing or potential crossing points;
2. Deliverability: there are serious questions about whether this site is deliverable without unacceptable highways impacts, and whether it is viable. This is covered under whether the proposals are effective (below).
3. Phasing and availability of alternative sites: the proposed release of this and the other strategic sites from the Green Belt is justified by the Council partly on the basis of its ability to contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan" (Housing and Green Belt Background Paper, para. 5.52). However the plan itself is clear that other proposed sites at Baldock would be developed first. This fact also undermines the rationale for allocating site BA1 in preference to land at Stevenage West, which is proposed to be safeguarded for future development for up to 3,100 homes rather than being released during the plan period (Policy SP8). Land at Stevenage West could be allocated to meet housing needs in a way that does not have the range of adverse impacts associated with BA1, and which would be closer to main centres of employment, retail and public transport.

Second, the plan is not effective, because it is very unlikely that the scale of growth proposed for Baldock, and on this site in particular, can be achieved without an overwhelming negative effect on the local highway network, but insufficient evidence has been provided about the highways impacts and the potential effectiveness and viability of the suggested mitigation measures. As a result there can be no confidence that the plan's proposals for Baldock are deliverable:
1. Baldock is a historic town with a medieval street pattern at its core. The plan acknowledges (13.29) that the Whitehorse Street/Royston Road crossroads is a key pinch point. Both it and Station Road/North Road already suffer from congestion and long queues both peak and off-peak, with the narrow width of the railway bridge also inhibiting easy pedestrian and cycle connections from north to south. AECOM's technical note identifies the crossroads and Letchworth Gate as problem junctions (above capacity, unacceptable queuing) by 2013 even without further development (table 4.1).
2. The proposed allocations for residential and employment development in Baldock will generate a significant increase in trips through the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads due to:
a) The high proportion of trips from site BA1 (North of Baldock) that are likely to be towards Letchworth and Hitchin. The plan stresses how interconnected these towns are for movement (paras. 2.31, 4.27, 13.14), and that many new residents will commute out (paras. 4.25-6).
b) The way the employment allocation (policy SP3) deliberately 'over-provides' for the needs of the town, even on its expanded basis (paras 4.25-6), which is likely to lead to more peak hour trips between Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin.
c) The fact that the proposed link road through BA1 would involve a long round trip to Letchworth/Hitchin for most residents of the site, rather than following natural desire lines. Experience following the opening of the Baldock bypass shows that a lot of traffic follows the shortest route rather than the least congested.
3. The plan acknowledges (4.179) that "not all" traffic from site BA1 will have to use the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads - so it is clear the Council accept that at least a proportion of it will.
4. However there has not been adequate modelling of these impacts. It is only this year that AECOM's transport model has been extended to Baldock. While it identifies the crossroads and Letchworth Gate as problem junctions by 2031 even without development (table 4.1), it makes clear that it does not attempt to identify specific highways impacts of the proposed developments, or their dependency on new infrastructure (section 7 of AECOM's note); it has not modelled the effect of the proposed new highways links; it provides no assessment of post-mitigation impacts; and no information is given about the sole mitigation measure proposed within the town (mini roundabout and signal optimisation of the Whitehorse St/Royston Rd crossroads). We have seen separate modelling work undertaken for the promoters of the site - Hertfordshire County Council - by White Young Green, which appears to underestimate the extent to which trips are likely to use the crossroads, especially as it looks solely at the proposed residential developments and not the employment allocation as well.
5. It is clear, therefore, that the is a high probability that the highway network in the centre of Baldock would be unable to cope with the level of development proposed, but insufficient work has been done on behalf of the Council to assess the deliverability and impact of mitigation measures. As the plan's single largest site relies in part on this local road network functioning, there can be no confidence that this aspect of the plan is deliverable, or indeed that the overall scale of growth planned for Baldock can be accommodated in highways terms.
6. Nor does it appear that the financial viability of the proposed mitigation measures has been tested fully, especially if a new crossing of the railway is to be delivered without unacceptable visual impacts, and without prohibitive costs being imposed by Network Rail. The Local Plan Viability Assessment (Update, August 2016) has only taken an indicative approach to assessing the potential viability of the major sites, rather than looking at the specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation measures associated with each.

Third, the plan is not consistent with national policy. While the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the evidence base for plans should be proportionate, it is equally clear that plans should identify whether transport improvements can be made to limit the significant impacts of development, and that where the residual cumulative impacts are severe there may be a case for preventing development (para. 32).

The Proposed Submission Local Plan does not satisfy this test. As set out above, it's very clear that the full impact of the scale of development proposed for Baldock, or of individual major site proposals, has not been properly assessed, with no information available on the impact and viability of the proposed mitigation measures.

The Odyssey Markides technical note for the Council asserts (para. 1.5) that "there are no issues that have emerged from the transport modelling work that... would cause a significant highway issue that cannot be resolved through appropriate mitigation measures". This conclusion is fundamentally flawed, resting as it does only on the wholly inadequate transport modelling work that has been undertaken.

reasons for objection -
insufficient road infrastructure, even with proposed new roads
increased pollution levels
insufficient water utility
no connection with current town centre
building on green belt land
no proper consideration of alternatives
unfeasible impact on local train services
No option to widen/improve current roads in town
not consistent with national policy as highlighted above or justified or effective.

The LEP generally supports the designations of all 6 Strategic housing sites but considers that small scale employment related activities should be considered for the at least some of the sites, particularly the larger allocations SP14 and SP19; it should also promote the development of sustainable transport modes to serve such development

Baldock is a Town with infrastructure that will not adequately support its current population. Overlaying additional cross-infrastructure will urbanise the whole concept of a town and create a metropolis.
The identity of a town is crucial to the balance of a good neighbourly relationships.
The rail services are already over crowded and the platform is dangerous at peak times.
The proposed scheme will destroy this town socially and will advocate criminal denizens due to over crowding and a breakdown of the small town social fabric.
The building on prime aggricultral land is also a travesty of common sense.

Whilst not objecting in principle to the building of new houses in and around Baldock and fully accepting the need for this I feel that this current plan has not given sufficient thought to the fundamental need to choose the most appropriate site and the right number of dwellings. These needs are supported in the NPPF which NHDC claims it has followed with care. However, NHDC is proposing a development which will increase the number of dwellings (and therefore proportionately its population) by at least 40 per cent, whilst Hitchin and Letchworth will be increased by no more than 6 percent. NHDC seem unable to justify this. On the FAQ page of the Local Plan website they list the question, 'Why is so much housing proposed for Baldock?'. The response is marked for its total lack of reference to Baldock, it merely states that 'large sites make a significant contribution to these requirements, rather than place a burden on existing facilities....this means that some areas will take more development than others.' Obviously NHDC are relying on the detail that the Neighbourhood Plan will supply to see that the burden of the new development will not fall on the existing Baldock but that still does not explain why this is the most suitable site.
NHDC also fails adequately to explain why it is making inroads on the London Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding Baldock. It is interesting to note that the original Housing Location plan of February 2013 shows a plan of just over 1,000 to be built in a reasonably allocated way around the town, whereas the additional sites version of July 2013 shows that massive addition that we see now, independent but officially part of Baldock.
Along with the expansion of housing NHDC proposes an employment (industrial) park of 19 hectares along the Royston Road NHDC creating an extensive incursion into the Green Belt area whilst not submitting substantive reasoning for why building on this site would meet the government's requirement for this to be done solely under 'exceptional circumstances' as defined in the NPPF.
The site of BA1 is being foisted on Baldock which will have to cope with the consequences of the pressures that will be placed on its already crowded roads and its facilities. The thoughtless and careless approach of NHDC will no doubt effect Baldock's future and in spite of their wise words in Section 2 3.6 that states its intention that the 'vitality and viability of Hitchin, Letchworth, Royston and Baldock are safeguarded in a way that takes account of their distinctive role', as a long time resident this seems very unlikely.

Traffic is already a problem on the A507 (North Road), with queues building towards the traffic lights. During the day, the tailback to the lights generally reaches the junction with Icknield Way East and usually clears when the lights reach the green phase. Later in the afternoon however, the tailback gradually increases, typically reaching the area of the Salisbury Road junction by about 4 p.m. and not clearing when the traffic lights are green. Slightly later, around 5 - 6 p.m., the queue can extend back as far as Blackhorse Farm or Nortonbury Lane. This really needs addressing now, even without the additional traffic that would be generated by this very large proposed development. The proposed construction of a road linking the A507 (North Road) through the development area to the end of the A505 bypass (Royston Road) would certainly go some way to limiting the impact on the traffic flow in North Road and the traffic lights, but would not eliminate it altogether - this link road would essentially become a northern bypass for the town. This probably should have been the second bypass, rather than the A505 bypass that was actually built, but the effect now would be to encircle the town with bypasses.

The proposed development extends right up to the village of Bygrave at TL 26085 35214, which destroys Bygrave's separate identity - a bigger gap could be created by making the boundary run from the Ashwell Road at TL 25813 34990 to the location of the proposed bridge over the railway line at approximately TL 26141 34766, making the link road the boundary of the development here.

The map suggests that the existing smallholdings along the road to Bygrave will be destroyed by the new development. I suggest that some, if not all, of these could be retained to provide a green, rural pocket in the centre of the development.

The road from Baldock to Bygrave is fairly narrow and not particularly straight. Although this could be improved during the development, additional traffic will need to turn onto and off the North Road at TL 24449 34326, with the added temptation of trying to use Salisbury Road slightly to the north to avoid queues on Bygrave Road. With the proposed link road from the A507 (presumably somewhere near Blackhorse Farm), there will be 3 junctions with significant flows between the railway bridge and Nortonbury Lane. To reduce flows in and out of Bygrave Road and Salisbury Road, I suggest that access to the bulk of the development is limited by closing Ashwell Road to motorised traffic just to the north east of the existing smallholdings, thus ensuring traffic on the other side, including that from Bygrave, uses the proposed A507 - A505 link. Please refer to Schematic 1.

The other remaining problem concerns the combined effect of the A507 - A505 link together with the proposed southern link between Royston Road and Wallington Road. As described at the beginning of this representation, traffic already queues to the traffic lights at peak periods. To an impatient driver - and there are a fair number of those - the new links proposed for the developments BA1, BA4, and BA3 provide an alternative to queuing for the lights. By using the proposed A507 -A505 link, a small part of Royston Road,and the proposed link between Royston Road and Wallington Road, it is possible to bypass the traffic lights and arrive at the Clothall Road / South Road roundabout (TL 25174 33549) and vice versa, of course - please refer to Schematic 2. Although this would undoubtedly reduce congestion at the lights, it would give increased traffic flow through the BA1 estate and the existing Clothall Common, BA4 and BA3 estates. It would also significantly increase traffic along South Road. The width of this road varies along its length and is ill-suited for additional traffic.

2800 houses means over 5000 cars on an estate like this. These cars will want to travel west because their employment and shopping facilities predominantly exist that direction. This will produce traffic chaos to Baldock on a grand scale.

Baldock is a small Market Town with limited facilities in a compact town centre. Apart from the old Kayser Bondor building becoming a large supermarket, which is used by many car driving North Herts residents, there have been no other facility changes for decades.
There is no room in and around the centre to increase its size. The facilities are designed for a small sized town with very limited parking spaces. Any further major development will completely destroy the whole character of the town

This increase (80%) in size is not logical. The town is only just coping today so adding this number of houses can only lead to chaos. Too much traffic, not enough parking and even more pollution increasing the unacceptable level that it has currently reached.

The traffic flowing through the town has easily exceeded the levels experienced pre-1966 i.e. before the A1 bypass and the more recently built east bypass. These two road changes, though important for the town, have not stopped the volumes of through traffic and the poor health implications that go with it. Unless something is done about this traffic (the solution is quite simple, which I can explain if requested), any further development will lead to chaotic lifestyles for all residents.

The NHDC presenters of this plan have not given the above serious thought at all. I believe the one and only reason for the 2800 house site is AS STATED IN THE PROPOSALS, that the site will not be contested by the landowner, HCC, and therefore building can happen quickly on this site to achieve a statutory numbers' requirement. There has been very little consultation about testing alternative sites around Baldock that would make more sense. This has been a hurried submission due to the lack of input in prior years to resolve the National Housing dilemma.

Object on grounds of:
- traffic congestion within town and specifically at crossroads and mini roundabout. North Herts has failed to carry out a transport assessment prior to proposing such a large increase in housing which could more than double the number of cars using the town.
- pollution from traffic is already rising and would reach unacceptable levels again within Baldock's natural bowl.
- link road from A507 to A505 is already needed with present congestion and traffic accident levels. This needs to be built prior to any house building. Hard to see how a major trunk road to take number of cars and heavy high sided lorries can be built over the railway line.
- rail capacity is at optimum now with only 4 carriage trains able to stop at station. Rail provider has not been consulted as how it can double its capacity.
- inadequate infrastructure at present so this must be fully assessed and dealt with prior to building. Water provider already classes Baldock at a critical stress level
- lack of green spaces and sports facilities now which is below the national average therefore needs to be addressed prior to building.
- No detailed Transport Assessment has been carried out in Baldock prior to proposing an additional 3290 new homes. There is already congestion within the town centre at the mini roundabout and at the cross roads traffic lights.

Massively too many dwellings that would impact on transport links in this area and raise congestion during building with construction vehicles at time of building on an area too congested to currently cope. Too greater demand for a historic town that has limited facilities and rail connections that are already diminished. Baldock cannot offer local employment due to lack of companies so residents of new build would be adding to the already congested commute in and out of the tiny market town.

Infrastructure & Delivery Policy ID2: Masterplans

The Council will prepare masterplans for the following sites:
* Blackhorse Farm, north of Baldock (Site BA1);

Note: a. A site masterplan to be approved prior to the submission of any detailed matters.

A site masterplan should have been prepared 2 years ago to give the residents of Baldock a chance to understand how this 2800 development is going to work. If this plan is approved, it is fundamental that the Baldock Community have a big influence on how this huge estate will integrate with Baldock as it currently exists. It is the peripheral infrastructure that has fundamental implications for the existing community and not the detail within so much. HCC have already started archaeological exploration of the site, despite the fact that this land has yet to be approved by the Inspector. It would be sensible for the Inspector to delay his decision to give NHDC the opportunity to produce and gain acceptance of their masterplan.

Note: d. A new link road connecting the A507 London Road to the A505 Baldock bypass including a new bridge across the railway.

A new duel carriageway link road from Stotfold Services to the A505 Bypass roundabout would be more sensible. Then another link from the Buntingford Road to the A505 bypass roundabout would give Baldock a full Ring Road. Then all through traffic could be stopped and then maybe this development and further developments could possibly make sense.
Clearly a site of this size needs this link road which must NOT connect with the current Bygrave Road. For the residents of Lower Bygrave it needs to tunnelled under the Bygrave Road.

Note: e. Iv. "The use of Bygrave Road/Ashwell Road from the south-western edge of the allocated site to the link road as a sustainable transport corridor".

This estate must NOT have access to Bygrave Road in order to exit this estate. The existing residents of Bygrave Road, Salisbury Road and Larkins Close will not be able to move by car due to the long queues that will form at the Baldock end of this road. It will be utter chaos.

Notej. i. Ivel Springs Local Nature Reserve.

Ivel Springs has a serious water shortage issue due to the fact that the local water authority has a right to take a specified amount of water from the chalk aquifer. This has meant that the springs are dry for nearly 6 months of the year. It is fundamental that no supplies to this estate should be taken to the further detriment of this natural nature reserve. Sir Oliver Heald has some very good papers on his web site regarding the Springs.

4.178 This site enables growth to meet needs arising from the surrounding areas in such a way that does not erode the narrow gaps between the towns of Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City and Baldock.
This comment has no relevance to this proposed site.


4.180 A range of sustainable transport measures will be required. Critically, this will include measures that allow safe access to the northern side of Baldock station and the town centre as well as routes through the development to provide access to the wider countryside for all Baldock residents.

This comment is too vague which is why the masterplan should be produced and discussed/modified by Baldock residents before approval from the Inspector is given.

with regard to the number of additional dwellings on this and other sites, BA2, BA3 and BA4

I support this provided priority is given to:
1. Pedestrian and cycle access to Baldock station
2. Community facilities such as schools and medical.
3. A lot of Social and Council houses.

The suggested new road should reduce rat-running through Ashwell.

Education provision is a grave concern in the event of 3290 houses being built in BA1. SP14 makes reference to new provision but contains almost no detail in regard to where, when or how this will take place. School places are already difficult to come by (I live c. 7 minutes walk from my first choice primary school, and was declined a place 3 years ago) Additionally reference is made to the likelihood of expanding Knights Templar secondary school, but again there is no detail as to how or when. Additionally, and with a very worrying lack of detail, temporary measures are referred to - unacceptable lack of detail in this regard also.

Traffic is already a concern as SP14 refers to the pinch point on Station/Clothall/Royston road. It is unclear how the proposed link road would relieve this, given the worst times are school run and Saturday mornings as well as usual rush hours. Vague mention of improvements to the station are also unclear, and there is no reference to the fact that Great Northern is attempting to reduce the fast service to London. Baldock is well placed as a commuter town but how attractive will the new houses be if there is no longer a decent rush hour service into London, and no fast service outside rush hour?

The town centre doesn't appear to be noted for particular expansion. Will there by a new supermarket? This is not mentioned - and is one new GP really sufficient?

* Too many negative impacts of this site. *Adverse impacts on the landscape(rural) and character of the town(Medieval/Georgian).
*Increased traffic would affect air quality standards
*Increased traffic (journeys to Letchworth and Hitchin) would put immense pressure on the roads - a pinch point at the junction of Whitehorse St/North Rd-can not be altered
*Railway forms a barrier so integration would not be easy
*Not enough evidence that the plan is viable financially or practically
*Not consistent with NPPF - the full impact has not been assessed, the plan is flawed and the delivery of a sustainable development isn't possible

[...] We move to Baldock because of its Rural setting and background, we were forced to accept the building of the Baldock bypass which has made little difference now to traffic flow through the town, especially from the A507 traffic entering the town from the north -west and south-east. The prospect of building 3,290 additional homes around Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 6,500 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock.

[...] We move to Baldock because of its Rural setting and background, we were forced to accept the building of the Baldock bypass which has made little difference now to traffic flow through the town, especially from the A507 traffic entering the town from the north -west and south-east. The prospect of building 3,290 additional homes around Baldock each with at least two cars (Approx. 6,500 additional vehicles) The town cannot cope now with regular traffic jams either side of Baldock.

My objection is to the size of development in relation to the size of Baldock. In my view the development contradicts the expressed vision of having new developments that are "well integrated" into existing settlements. The road connection to the historic heart of Baldock is narrow and constricted by the current railway bridge and already struggles to cope with current traffic. The proposed development will further choke roads and parking and in my view will end up as an ugly appendage to a beautiful historic town.

BALDOCK is one of only 5 Hertfordshire towns classed as being of national importance for its historic character and contains over 100 listed buildings. We all know that new housing is needed, why should BALDOCK have to increase its population by 80% to accommodate over 3000 new homes and factory units?

Pollution within Whitehorse Street is over the governments recommendation levels at present, without the increased volume of traffic.

The town can be gridlocked at rush hours at the junction of A507/Whitehorse St/Clothall road at present.

No infrastructure has been confirmed before any homes are built, schools, GPs etc.

Baldock is one of the most ancient settlements in hertfordshire and this small towns character will be lost if the proposed development is approved. The number of houses planned to be constructed on green belt land is of great concern to local residents who already suffer form congested roads and poor air quality. The air quality of Baldock has been a particular issue for residents as it's location within a valley traps harmful emissions from vehicles. It is not acceptable to add to this issue and a large development will compound this problem. A more sensitive, well planned and ultimately smaller development would be more easily absorbed by the town and would not put Baldock's limited infrastructure under such strain.

The traffic which will be generated by the plan will make the already problematic and congested traffic lights in Whitehorse Street impossible. Clearly this is not a sustainable. The plan will almost double the number of homes in Baldock and will make the town lose it vitality as a market town and its individuality. The plan will mean that the additional homes will have to be provided with their own schools, shops, community centre etc as the present ones have no capacity for this many new people. 3290 is a disproportionate amount of housing to expect Baldock to take, in comparison to the rest of the district and County.

This Planning hasn't taken into account the extra traffic. Which will have an affect of driving out of Radwell village into Baldock. At peak times there is always delays of 20mins waiting and approach at the traffic lights heading into Baldock town. Another point there will not be enough parking spaces at Baldock Train station to cater for commuters travelling into London.
There are no plans for schools, Drs or social facilities being built. Or any mention of bypasses being built. Also the impact of light pollution and air quality.

What are the plans for reducing the impact of the Blackhorse Farm site on the severe pinch-point at the Whitehorse Street junction? Also what about the railway bridge which already suffers with the current traffic flow? There are regular tailbacks throughout the peak times which will inevitably increase with potentially an additional 7,000 vehicles passing through. Similarly the access into Baldock from Letchworth backs up considerably already without the addition of all these extra vehicles.

The section on Transport under SP6 suggests a new link road and some sustainable transport suggestions including an additional bridge over the railway so that not all traffic has to use this crossing. It would be very difficult to change the configuration at the junction due to the listed properties on both sides of the junction.

The current local plan for north of Baldock is unclear and needs to be changed to adequately mitigate the development's impact on residents of Bygrave Road, Sailsbury Road and Larkins Close. The key issues not adequately considered are as follows:

Transport Road & Rail

The proposed plan describes 'The use of Bygrave Road / Ashwell Road from the south-western edge of the allocated site to the link road as a sustainable transport corridor'. Furthermore, the plan stipulates '4.180 A range of sustainable transport measures will be required. Critically, this will include measures that allow safe access to the northern side of Baldock station'. The Northern side of Baldock station would also connect to Bygrave road.

Bygrave road currently serves the residents of Bygrave Road, Salisbury Road and Larkins Close. Residents are currently subject to daily traffic jams which prevent residents accessing Bygrave Road from Station Road (i.e. getting to/from our residents). Additionally, parking is extremely restrictive along Bygrave Road with cars having to weave in and out of parked cars. The inclusion of station access to the north of Baldock, and the use of Bygrave Road as a link road, will increase traffic along Bygrave Road to an unsustainable level. Residents of the new development and commuters driving from the A1/A505 will use Bygrave Road as a more convenient pick up/drop off point for the station and/or a rat run from the A1 to the A505. As such, it has an unacceptable impact to the residents of Bygrave Road, Salisbury Road and Larkins Close in terms of:

* Transports access to/from their residents
* Parking outside their properties
* Noise pollution
* Air pollution
* Health and Safety of those attempting to cross the road
* The local environment and wildlife

The Baldock Local Plan needs to be amended to protect residents North of Baldock (Bygrave Road, Salisbury Road and Larkins Close) so that traffic along the roads are restricted to current residents only. Additionally, the new development needs to include its own access to Station Road and access to nearby roads (i.e. Station Road and Baldock Town Centre) needs to be improved to all.


Water Supply

The Baldock Local Plan does not appear to include sufficient mitigation measures to resolve fresh water supply shortages in the local area. I recently received a letter from Affinity Water which informed me the Secretary of State has declared Bygrave Road as an area with significant water shortages. Despite the low water reserves in the area I have not seen anything in the local plan to mitigate the impact a development of this size will have on water supplies.

BA1
Greenbelt development: The proposed site at Blackhorse Farm is on Greenbelt. The fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to stop ribbon development and urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. How can a housing plan disproportionate to the size of the town and that will destroy farmland and peoples livelihoods be exceptional? In order for this suggested Local Plan to be accepted, the planners have removed Green Belt from around Baldock. This contravenes 3 of the 5 functions of the designation of the Green Belt; 1) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, 2) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and 3) To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. There is a heightened interest in maintaining Green Belt across the UK. Any proposal for new housing should adhere to the latest policies including full investigation of Brown Field sites and respect for legislation governing Green Belt land. There is no evidence that this has been done. The land that is proposed is of productive agricultural use. With an ever expanding population that needs feeding - farming and feeding the nation is essential. Surely food is more valuable than homes?

Housing and development strategy (HDS): I recognise that some housing is required in Baldock however it is the overall size and disproportionate scale of the plan that does not mean soundness test 2) justifed and 4) consistent with national policy. The 2011 census reported that Baldock had 4491 dwellings and therefore the proposed increase of 2800 new houses at the Blackhorse farm site and a total of 3590 houses in Baldock overall will result in increasing the size of Baldock by 80%. If this same ratio was applied to neighbouring towns such as Letchworth and Hitchin it would result in approx 11,000 new homes instead of the 1000 - 2000 being proposed. It is unreasonable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20%. Baldock is a historic market town - increasing the size of the town to this extent will destroy its character, individual identity, community feel and culture. Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.

Inadequate local infrastructure to support existing needs: The plans do not adequately address improvements to infrastructrure that will be required to support a development of such a large scale. The number of houses allocated to Baldock will increase the population by 80% and there has been no attempt to seek to preserve the character and heritage of this historic market town by a sensitive and carefully planned development. The scale of development around Baldock is so far out of alignment with the current size of the town that it will inevitably place massive additional pressures on local amenities that are already overstretched. Schools, doctors' surgeries and other basic amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking are already at full capacity. Even water supplies are inadequate (Affinity Water describes our area as being under "serious water stress", and there have been a number of incidents where residents of Upper Bygrave have lost water supplies completely). During a discussion about the alternative option of a new garden city (as proposed by the local MP, Sir Oliver Heald) it was pointed out that a new city would at least start from a position of no amenities, but a massive development at Blackhorse Farm would be put into an area where the amenities are already in deficit. Furthermore, we can be certain that developers will build houses before building any amenities, so the situation will have to get considerably worse before any action is taken.

Traffic Congestion:
Baldock is currently gridlocked on a daily basis at the North Road traffic lights. Traffic access into Baldock is restricted by two major barriers: the railway line and the A1 (M). As a result, a very high proportion of traffic entering or leaving Baldock is forced to cross this particular road junction in the town centre. 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 Bygrave, Ashwell, Steeple Morden, Guilden Morden and 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 pass through this single junction resulting in continuous conjection which during the rush hour can extend back almost as far as the Baldock services. This junction pre - dates the A1 and the railway and was never intended to carry anything like the current volume of traffic. The railway bridge surely constrains the road width at this point and the historical/listed buildings and pavements would surely prevent widening of roads in this area?
Air pollution levels in baldock and particularly between the railway bridge and the junction are high especially during rush hour and congestion. 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.

Baldock station and rail capacity
The location of the Blackhorse Farm development so close to Baldock Station inevitably means that many of the houses will be sold to people who commute to London or Cambridge. The National Planning Policy Framework requires a Transport Assessment that emphasises "alternatives to the car such as walking, cycling and public transport". The railway is a major component of the public transport provision in Baldock and it does not have the spare capacity to carry the additional passengers as a result of this development. Baldock station is small and many travellers are already forced to stand all the way to 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 and under the current plans announced by Govia Thameslink in their 2018 timetable consultation, Baldock is set to lose semifast services to and from London and they will be replacing the existing trains with newer models that provide air conditioning -but 30% fewer seats. Therefore there is no realistic expectation of any new capacity becoming available.

Proposed new road connecting A507 and A505:
Although the NHDC planners have not produced a Traffic Assessment for the Blackhorse Farm development, they have proposed a road linking the A507 north of Baldock to the A505 east of Baldock

The road would allow some traffic to avoid the north road crossroads already discussed but it is not explained how this link road will address the needs of the Blackhorse Farm development.
It is unlikely that people living on the new development will drive across to the other side of the railway line so they can enter Baldock via the same gridlocked junction from the east instead of from the north. For the residents of the new development and the existing residents of Lower Bygrave, the design of this road and the associated railway crossing is a critical issue.

Natural Environment (NE) The housing site is on a slope. Baldock town already has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building on this site will reduce or possibly even remove the natural drainage that currently exists, resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings. There is no mention of how the developers plan to resolve the drainage issues caused by building on this site and it is often found in recent years that housing developments rarely provide sufficient drainage given the lack of green space, lack of gardens and high density of housing.

The proposed site for building is also the habitat for a number of endangered species (corn buntings and bats). The size of the development is likely to destroy their habitats and/or prevent co-existing, which will result in damage to the species.

Greenbelt development: The proposed site at Blackhorse Farm is on Greenbelt. The fundamental aim of Greenbelt is to stop ribbon development and urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green belt and should not be approved except in exceptional circumstances. How can a housing plan disproportionate to the size of the town and that will destroy farmland and peoples livelihoods be exceptional? In order for this suggested Local Plan to be accepted, the planners have removed Green Belt from around Baldock. This contravenes 3 of the 5 functions of the designation of the Green Belt; 1) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, 2) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and 3) To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. There is a heightened interest in maintaining Green Belt across the UK. Any proposal for new housing should adhere to the latest policies including full investigation of Brown Field sites and respect for legislation governing Green Belt land. There is no evidence that this has been done. The land that is proposed is of productive agricultural use. With an ever expanding population that needs feeding - farming and feeding the nation is essential. Surely food is more valuable than homes?

Housing and development strategy (HDS): I recognise that some housing is required in Baldock however it is the overall size and disproportionate scale of the plan that does not mean soundness test 2) justifed and 4) consistent with national policy. The 2011 census reported that Baldock had 4491 dwellings and therefore the proposed increase of 2800 new houses at the Blackhorse farm site and a total of 3590 houses in Baldock overall will result in increasing the size of Baldock by 80%. If this same ratio was applied to neighbouring towns such as Letchworth and Hitchin it would result in approx 11,000 new homes instead of the 1000 - 2000 being proposed. It is unreasonable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20%. Baldock is a historic market town - increasing the size of the town to this extent will destroy its character, individual identity, community feel and culture. Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.

Inadequate local infrastructure to support existing needs: The plans do not adequately address improvements to infrastructrure that will be required to support a development of such a large scale. The number of houses allocated to Baldock will increase the population by 80% and there has been no attempt to seek to preserve the character and heritage of this historic market town by a sensitive and carefully planned development. The scale of development around Baldock is so far out of alignment with the current size of the town that it will inevitably place massive additional pressures on local amenities that are already overstretched. Schools, doctors' surgeries and other basic amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking are already at full capacity. Even water supplies are inadequate (Affinity Water describes our area as being under "serious water stress", and there have been a number of incidents where residents of Upper Bygrave have lost water supplies completely). During a discussion about the alternative option of a new garden city (as proposed by the local MP, Sir Oliver Heald) it was pointed out that a new city would at least start from a position of no amenities, but a massive development at Blackhorse Farm would be put into an area where the amenities are already in deficit. Furthermore, we can be certain that developers will build houses before building any amenities, so the situation will have to get considerably worse before any action is taken.

Traffic Congestion:
Baldock is currently gridlocked on a daily basis at the North Road traffic lights. Traffic access into Baldock is restricted by two major barriers: the railway line and the A1 (M). As a result, a very high proportion of traffic entering or leaving Baldock is forced to cross this particular road junction in the town centre. 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 Bygrave, Ashwell, Steeple Morden, Guilden Morden and 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 pass through this single junction resulting in continuous conjection which during the rush hour can extend back almost as far as the Baldock services. This junction pre - dates the A1 and the railway and was never intended to carry anything like the current volume of traffic. The railway bridge surely constrains the road width at this point and the historical/listed buildings and pavements would surely prevent widening of roads in this area?
Air pollution levels in baldock and particularly between the railway bridge and the junction are high especially during rush hour and congestion. 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.

Baldock station and rail capacity
The location of the Blackhorse Farm development so close to Baldock Station inevitably means that many of the houses will be sold to people who commute to London or Cambridge. The National Planning Policy Framework requires a Transport Assessment that emphasises "alternatives to the car such as walking, cycling and public transport". The railway is a major component of the public transport provision in Baldock and it does not have the spare capacity to carry the additional passengers as a result of this development. Baldock station is small and many travellers are already forced to stand all the way to 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 and under the current plans announced by Govia Thameslink in their 2018 timetable consultation, Baldock is set to lose semifast services to and from London and they will be replacing the existing trains with newer models that provide air conditioning -but 30% fewer seats. Therefore there is no realistic expectation of any new capacity becoming available.

Proposed new road connecting A507 and A505:
Although the NHDC planners have not produced a Traffic Assessment for the Blackhorse Farm development, they have proposed a road linking the A507 north of Baldock to the A505 east of Baldock

The road would allow some traffic to avoid the north road crossroads already discussed but it is not explained how this link road will address the needs of the Blackhorse Farm development.
It is unlikely that people living on the new development will drive across to the other side of the railway line so they can enter Baldock via the same gridlocked junction from the east instead of from the north. For the residents of the new development and the existing residents of Lower Bygrave, the design of this road and the associated railway crossing is a critical issue.

Natural Environment (NE) The housing site is on a slope. Baldock town already has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building on this site will reduce or possibly even remove the natural drainage that currently exists, resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings. There is no mention of how the developers plan to resolve the drainage issues caused by building on this site and it is often found in recent years that housing developments rarely provide sufficient drainage given the lack of green space, lack of gardens and high density of housing.

The proposed site for building is also the habitat for a number of endangered species (corn buntings and bats). The size of the development is likely to destroy their habitats and/or prevent co-existing, which will result in damage to the species.

SP14 states that a master plan must be provided prior to any other detailed matters. No such plans were ever given except for an infrastructure development plan which was added in September 2016 but gives no detailed plans.

Paragraph 177 states that it is important that the infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion.

I have lived in Baldock knowing and enjoying the market town feel of a close-knit community. This expansion will destroy the cosy and special place that Baldock is. I am so disappointed that all will be destroyed. It will be another individual town merged into the mediocre. I despair of this plan.

We do not support the proposed development because although it would promote the vitality of Baldock town centre (National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] Section 2, Policy 23), it does not do so in a practicable way in particular in relation to sustainable transport within the town (NPPF Section 4, Policy 4). We object to the proposed development because of problems with the following site specific requirements:

Policy SP14 (b)
Baldock has a historic High Street with market space and many commercial units, but the number and diversity of retail businesses has declined over the last few decades. Retail is now dominated by the Tesco superstore at the southern end of the High Street. The increase in population resulting from the proposed development could attract a greater diversity of retail and service businesses along the High Street. This has the potential to reinvigorate this traditional market town. However, existing infrastructure for pedestrian and vehicular access from the north side of Baldock to the town centre already has inadequate capacity and in our experience is frequently hazardous. Further detail is provided below. The development plan for site BA1 will greatly exacerbate these issues because of increased traffic to the town centre, in particular to the Tesco superstore which is the only large supermarket in Baldock and which shoppers mainly visit by car.

Policy SP14 (d) and (e)
Our major objection to the proposed development north of Baldock is that the transport infrastructure proposals outlined in the local plan under Policy SP14 sections d and e are inadequate and do not meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 4.
1. (NPPF Sect 4, Policy 31) Many residents of the proposed development are likely to be commuters using the rail services into London and Cambridge. The local authority is not working with the train company Govia Thameslink which is currently proposing to reduce services into London (http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation).
2. (NPPF Sect 4, Policy 37) The development will undoubtedly lead to a large increase in traffic movement between the development site and Baldock town centre. In particular, new residents will be travelling to the Tesco superstore at the southern end of the High Street because the proposed retail units within BA1 will not offer the same range of products and services (e.g., pharmacy, telecommunications franchise, coffee shop, petrol station, currency exchange).
3. (NPPF Sect 4, Policy 35) The most severe impact of this increase in traffic movement will be on the A507 North Road around the railway bridge. The existing transport infrastructure here is already inadequate for the following reasons:
a. Traffic travelling into and through Baldock frequently backs up on the southbound carriageway of the North Road from the Station Road/Royston Road crossroads to well beyond the junction with Salisbury Road (Photo 1).
b. Pedestrian movement along North Road/Station Road is hazardous because of the very narrow pavements under the railway bridge. Pedestrians are frequently forced to step into the stop-start vehicular traffic on the narrow carriageway (Photo 2).
c. The only designated pedestrian crossing point is at the Station Road/Royston Road crossroads where the traffic light sequence gives pedestrians a very long wait time. Pedestrians therefore prefer to cross at the two road islands to the south and north of the railway bridge. This is hazardous because of the stop-start traffic on the southbound carriageway, and traffic on the northbound carriageway which often exceeds the 30 mph speed limit. These hazards are even more severe for pedestrians with pushchairs, and those with disabilities who rely on wheelchairs or mobility scooters.
d. The traffic and carriageway issues on the North Road/Station Road (detailed above) deter cycling to and from the station and town centre. There is no cycle lane and the narrow carriageway and pavement prohibit creation of a cycle lane on either the road or the footpath.
e. The traffic movement and hazards along the North Road/Station Road are regularly made worse by incidents of lorries striking the low railway bridge, or turning round to avoid doing so. The local MP is concerned that the bridge is a notorious accident spot - see The Comet article at (http://www.thecomet.net/motoring/this_has_to_stop_says_great_northern_train_operator_as_investigation_reveals_750_000_bill_from_baldock_bridge_strikes_1_4477133).

Policy SP14 makes no concrete provision for safe access to and from Baldock town centre and train station as required by NPPF Section 4, policy 35. Given that there are already dangerous conflicts between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, and the proposed development to the north of Baldock would significantly increase the traffic to and from Baldock town centre, this is a very serious shortcoming of the proposals. It is hard to see how the infrastructure here can be improved to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements as required by NPPF policy 35.

The proposed new link road between the A507 and A505 will not solve the traffic issues and hazards because: 1. Freight traffic heading down the A507 towards Buntingford will still have to go via North Road/Station Road and Baldock town centre, 2. The new link road does not provide a sensible route for cars from the western end of development site BA1 to access shopping and services in Baldock and Letchworth.

Policy SP14 (e.i.)
The proposed pedestrian rail crossing in the vicinity of Ashville Way will bring pedestrian and cycle traffic out onto the B656 Royston Road. The onward route into Baldock town centre along the Royston Road is hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists because there is only one footpath on the south side of the road which is narrow, in a state of disrepair and has a dangerous camber into the road (Photo 3). The road carriageway is also narrow and has a speed limit of 40 mph, deterring cycling. These hazards will be made worse by the increased volume of car traffic entering Baldock along this route from the eastern end of development site BA1.
To allow people to use rail services as a sustainable transport option requires improvements in: 1. Access both around and at the station; 2. Parking provision and enforcement; 3. Effective working with Network Rail and Govia Thameslink who hold the franchise for rail services from Baldock to and from London and Cambridge. The only existing access to Baldock train station is off Icknield Way East at a dangerous box junction with Station Road, Icknield Way and Football Close (Photo 4). Sustainable transport would be promoted by the creation of direct pedestrian and cycle access to the northbound platform from north of the railway bridge over Station Road. Necessary access improvements also include additional station parking and parking restrictions in the neighbouring roads. Additionally, both station platforms are currently inaccessible to those passengers with disabilities who require step-free access. Without detailed plans and guarantees that these access improvements can be achieved, the proposals do not meet the requirements of NPPF Section 4, policies 29, 30, 31 and 35.

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

My reasons are:
1. Easy Option
We were told it was the best option. It felt as if we were being fobbed off by the councillors. They seemed so pleased to find an easy option and dealt with the issues as late as possible, about 11:30pm at the council meeting!! They seem to have decided and we were treated as being "NIMBY" for objecting. There are very good reasons to object and they have not considered any of them.
They kept telling us that this is the preferred option but we have never been offered any alternatives. It has always been presented as a fait accompli.
They have made us write 3 different letters and I doubt that they have read any of them thus showing the total lack of regard for their constituents and wasting our time. They are public servants who are not serving the public or representing us! Counsellor Levitt used bully boy tactics on us at the public meeting, basically telling us that he would discuss it at a closed meeting if the public did not remain silent, we were not allowed to voice our concerns.

2. Unfair weighting
Baldock has been allocated about 4000 houses with 2800 in one block compared to Hitchin having 1332 dwellings and Letchworth only being allocated 1000 dwellings. Baldock is significantly smaller than both Hitchin and Letchworth.
We were always told that the land around Clothall Common would be filled in, this by comparison has been allocated about 500 houses and it is close to the motorway with easy access to the Baldock bypass.

3. Affordable housing???
We keep getting told that we need affordable housing. The plans do not reflect affordable housing at all. If you need affordable housing build flats that are OWNED. Price them at a price that people can afford to buy them as a starter homes. If this happens the flats will retain their value and not become ghettos. Have communal gardens linked to them and make them attractive. This will be good starter homes or retirement homes from where you can upsize if necessary or return to if you are downsizing. These flats should be built on brown field sites close to the railway station for the commuters that they seem to be serving. There is not a great deal of employment locally so there is no reason to site the development here for any other reason than greed, the council wants to sell off the green belt land (the family silver) and realise a very substantial amount of money that will be used all over Hertfordshire and Baldock will be left with inadequate facilities and a logjam with the traffic. Why can they not take advice from places like Singapore where they have dealt with a shortage of land for a number of years. On the local news tonight, there were questions being asked as to why there are so many empty properties that are not being used. Has this option been dealt with sufficiently.
4. Traffic
The access to the new development is totally inadequate. Salisbury Road is a very narrow road that serves the local homes. The proposed development will lead to an increase in cars by 3500 to 7200 per rush hour. Baldock is in a dip and pollution will increase significantly. We will never be able to get out of Salisbury Rd, into Bygrave Road. Councillor Levitt suggested that a bicycle lane be built so that we could get into town.
5. The greenbelt is there for a reason. It keeps the various towns distinct and gives each their own specific characteristics. This specific greenbelt is the habitat of the corn bunting which is on the red list. The planners are fully aware that the development would destroy this habitat and suggested providing alternative habitat. How will this information be imparted to the corn bunting and its success or failure will only be monitored once the bird is extinct.