Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

Myself and family, together with relatives are long standing residents of Baldock, working locally, and using the local infastructure and services which are adequate and balanced for the existing community population. This fragile balance would be cast aside and wrecked by the proposals set out in the District Councils proposals.
This open land is designated protected Green Belt and has been carefully and productively farmed during World War 11 and ever since, there now being farms providing local produce and employment including farm shops which are much appreciated and used by the residents of Baldock and beyond.
The existing narrow winding lane leading from the Baldock Rail Bridge to Bygrave and Ashwell is difficult for existing traffic to negotiate, and would certainly not accommodate an influx of new users. The road which the Ashwell road joins here is already used at all times as a through road for traffic. The bypass originally diverted a lot of traffic from Stevenage to Royston away from Baldock Town centre but it could not address the through East to West flows along the A505 letchworth, Hitchin, nor to Buntingford, Bishops Stortford and Stanstead.
The local services which include Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools, Doctors Surgeries, Ambulance services, Lister Hospital, Rubbish Collection and Re cycling of waste, Fire Service and Police are already under servere demand and struggling to cope. Any more Development will exacerbate a critical situation and could provide a tipping point.
There are current proposals to cut the Train Services further restricting rail links to Cambridge and Kings Cross. The current overcrowding of trains would be worsened by the influx of fresh passenger numbers.
The parking provisions in Baldock are hardly adequate and could not realistically cope with more traffic generated by a new residential Development.

Main concern is heavy traffic from Radwell to Baldock at peak hours road cant cope with extra cars from development (which struggles now even without extra housing)
The railway station does not have enough parking facilities for vehicles for 3000+ houses and their vehicles.
There is nothing on the plan for a bypass to aliviate this traffic problem.
Nothing on plan for doctors,school and social facilities on new development.
A new development may be seen as separate from Baldock due to new build.
Why has the new development not evenly spread over Hertfordshire area?
Concerns over light and air pollution.

I strongly object to the current proposed plan (SP14) to build around 3,436 new homes in two main sites (BA1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 11) in Baldock.

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.

The current infrastructure plan for this site does not contain a solution for road traffic travelling in 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 estimate 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 at peak times in the morning, at lunch time and in the evening. All the current traffic along the A507 passes the Radwell and Ashwell junctions on a narrow two way road with a national speed limit of 60mph. Currently turning in or out of these junctions is difficult but when crossing the oncoming traffic to make a turn it is extremely dangerous mainly from the rear as cars do not expect the road to narrow stopping them from passing on the inside. I would suggest that the future overall traffic situation to and from the north side into and out of Baldock is critical now. With known additions this cannot be left to an adhoc plan after the submission and must be faced and dealt with as part of the plan before submission. The cost of alternative roads to the A507 may not be financially viable if at all possible and do not resolve the issue of the height restricted tunnel going under the railway line. This is the real barrier and divide between this proposed site and the town.

In addition to these points the current proposal doesn't sufficiently explain how the addition of 3,436 houses and the extra people this will bring to the already busy town will be suitably addressed, especially in the following areas:

* Extra pressure on an already extremely busy Doctors Surgery.
* Extra pressure on the already busy Dentist Surgery's.
* Parking in the Town - It is already very hard to park in the town through the week and at weekends.
* The Primary/Secondary Schools are already very busy with little space. The extra houses would almost double the amount of children in the area requiring a place in these schools.

For these reasons this site (SP14) should be removed from the plan as a reduction in its size will still require a solution to the issues raised before submission.

The road infrastructure cannot cope with the number of new houses. Norton road is already heavily congested as is Hitchin Street, the traffic flow is four way so a bypass wont eleviate the issue. There are bridge strikes in both directions the cross roads lights a number of times each year and the crossroads are prone to flooding in recent years. The 50 new dwellinsg at Icknield Way east will make the junction even busier. Safety risk for pedestrians crossing the road to get to train station esp commuters.

I object to the Local plan for Baldock Hertfordshire BA1 - Site 2 and 3
My reasons are:
1. Having been to the meetings I gained a distinct impression that this was land owned by the council that they could see generating a substantial amount of income. In my opinion these sites have been chosen simply to fulfil the government's demands for housing and enable the council to get on the money making band wagon.

2. Having been a home carer and visiting the older generation of farmers in the area, their comment was that this area would not be suitable for home building as it is susceptible to flooding due to younger farmers filling in the ditches in order to increase their land. One would not like to buy a new build that could possibly flood in the future.

3. As I am sure you are aware from the various objections, the increase in traffic would be unbearable. It was seriously suggested that a bicycle lane would be provided to enable us to get out of Bygrave road. How would this be feasible for any older person? Traffic on North Road from Bygrave Road to the traffic lights can easily take 10 minutes for 2 blocks! Car parking is already stretched to capacity as the station car park is extremely expensive and usually full.

4. At one of the meetings, RT Hon. Sir Oliver Heald QC MP, suggested the creation of a new town where all the correct infrastructure could be installed and planned prior to any building. We have not been offered any alternatives at all and his suggestion appears to be the more sensible option, bearing in mind that when a resident questioned whether the infrastructure, such as the proposed bridge at Bygrave would be built before any brick was laid for a house, Councillor Levitt refused to confirm that! We have not heard another mention of the new town.

5. The most important objection that I have is the loss of farm land leading to loss of livelihood, community, food, and diversity. The air quality will be severely impaired as Baldock is in a dip and we are already surrounded by motorways. The increase in motionless traffic with engines running will be astronomical. The predicted number of extra cars on the road in rush hour is between 3500 and 7200 in Baldock, an impossible number to accommodate.

6. Another town the size of Baldock will be tagged on to the one side with no amenities or infrastructure in place and no means of entering or leaving because of traffic jams. Does this sound like a sensible preferred option?

I would appreciate it if you would consider my concerns and give this matter the attention it deserves.

Size of development will exacerbate severe traffic problems at traffic light controlled pinch points in Baldock and residents will drive through Baldock as a short cut.
Increased traffic will adversely affect air quality.
Proposed development is on large area of higher ground that the town centre and this area acts as a large natural soak away for water. After roads have been laid and buildings have been erected this development will simply funnel rainwater to lower lying ground and increase risk of flooding in Baldock town, particularly areas such as Whitehorse Street.

I object to the development of the land north of Baldock for the following reasons - much has been made of the required infrastructure needed for the development including two link roads and a railway bridge however no work has been carried out on the impact on local schools, healthcare and other social services which already appear stretched to the limit. Including insufficent room on two of the primary schools for further development to accomodate additional pupils.

We all need to take a fair proportion of the proposed development but by almost doubling the size of Baldock is not practical.

Baldock is still gridlocked in rush hour with the bypass. The expansion does not adequately take into account that over 3000 house is another 5000 cars. At the same time there is a reduction is trains into London just exacerbating the carnage on the roads.

There are no sports provison in the new plans, local sports teams are already having to turn people.

"Cat Ditch" is the only natural water source for Bygrave, field drainage may be interrupted by the suggested link road (d) Pedestrian routes to Baldock to cross this new road may provide even more of a challenge than the present road does, which also has Heritage Verge Seed Bank.

Development is on greenbelt which was introduced to preserve the setting and character of historic towns such as Baldock, also to prevent neighbouring settlements from merging, Baldock would be joined to Bygrave.

With this development there would be a minimum of 3,000 extra vehicles in the area even with the distribution road a large proportion still would go through Baldock to get to Letchworth and Hitchin adding to already congested road networks.

The distribution road would become a shortcut from the A1 to the A505 and as the road is a single carriageway this too would become congested.

The number of houses proposed on this site is far too many for the infrastructure to support and almost doubles the size of Baldock. It would therefore change the nature of this historic and Georgian town. Road congestion is already a problem going south with long delays already occurring on the A1M to Stevenage and the South. The Plan in no way reduces the problem. The train service for Baldock is being reduced making commuting even more difficult for the existing residents let along thousands more! It is a disproportionate development for the size of the existing town.

The public transport network would not be able to cope with the increase in population that would result from development of this scale in what is an historic market town. Whilst building a bypass road from the proposed site around Baldock will result in a lot of traffic using it rather than driving through the town, all the residents of the town would be more than likely to go into the town centre for their shopping and local facilities. There are queues to the crossroads with the A507 and Whitehorse Street most times of the day. The junction is already an accident blackspot. The very nature of the town will be destroyed by such a large scale development. Knights Templar School is one of the most sought after schools in the area. It does not have the facility/room to expand any further.

Radwell, a village 2 miles north of Baldock. Baldock is where residents of Radwell and other nearby villages go shopping and catch public transport services (train or bus). Site BA1 will make this much more difficult than it is now because the plan is inadequate.

Department of Transport statistics say car ownership 2014/15 in "Rural Town and Fringe" is 1.39. This suggests that with 2800 new homes in the proposed North Baldock development it will become home to c. 3900 cars and vans.

"The River Ivel catchment is a fast responding catchment meaning it is vulnerable to flash flooding following a significant rainfall event." (Central Beds report CB/FLO/15/09003)

Currently (and for the last 60 years since my family have lived here) Radwell has NOT suffered from flooding, but in wet winters sometimes it does come close to it.

The proposed developments in Baldock plan to add c. 3200 new homes, all of which are in the River Ivel catchment. This infers the development is likely to significantly affect Radwell through increased water flows both from runoff and sewage treatment outfall.

Apparently no Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) study has been conducted despite the fact that the proposal is to nearly double the size of the Baldock urban area which by any measure must represent a massive increase in flood risk to areas downstream of the catchment.

River flow at Radwell Mill has been measured to vary between 3.5 and 16 Megalitres(Ml)/day (oct 2015 - oct 2016, Affinity Water study).

Treated water:
In the absence of any alternative proposals, it is reasonable to assume the treated water from the developments will go into the River Ivel. On the basis of 2.3 persons per houshold (2011 census), annual water consumption of 110 m3 per houshold/annum (consumer council for water) and 3200 new households this represents an increased output of treated water into the Ivel of some 352 Ml per annum, increasing flow by between 6% and 27%.

Runoff:
"Developing a green field site may result in 10 times the runoff during extreme rainfall" (Woods-Ballard et al 2007). The plan mentions "Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and other appropriate measures" but these are in large part merely a 'buffer' of limited capacity and not capable of restricting flow for extended periods of wet weather when the river Ivel is already close to capacity. It is therefore easy to envisage that a development of this size is highly likely to lead to flooding in Radwell and other villages (eg Stotfold) downstream. This happened as recently as July 2015 and again in June 2016 when extreme rain events in Letchworth (c. 25mm in 90 minutes) overwhelmed Pix Brook and flooded houses in Stotfold.

25mm (c. 1 inch) of rainfall over 91 Ha is 22 Ml of water. The 5% runoff expected from the green field site would be 1.1 Ml, the runoff from the same area as residential development could be expected to be between 30% (6.8 Ml) and 60% (13 Ml) representing a potential increase of between 5.5 and 12.5 Ml of runoff in a single event, this will increase flow by between 78% and 157% representing a very serious risk of flooding.

Pollution:
Radwell lake is already deemed an area of "Wildlife and Nature policy 14" and we work hard to keep it nice. The massively increased runoff is likely to increase temperatures in our river, harming fish and other organisms; A sudden burst of runoff from a rainstorm can cause a fish-killing shock of hot water. Salt used to melt ice and snow on pavements and roads in the new developments will further contaminate our river.

Oil and other hard-to-monitor pollutants will get into our river from the newly developed areas. This already happened when the SuDS ponds associated with runoff from the A1(M) built in 1966 silted up after only 25 years of service and we began to see an occasional oil film (on one occasion a large quantity of it) polluting our river. Eventually the ponds were dredged at considerable expense because the silt was classified as hazardous waste.

Travel to places of work:

2011 Census: "Method of travel to work England and Wales, 2011. Employed usual residents aged 16 to 74, plus passengers, is 62.6%" This equates to approximately an extra 2200 car movements from BA1 morning and evening.

So how is this traffic expected to get in and out of BA1? The plan envisages a single 'distributor road' with two exits, one to North Road, and the other over a new bridge over the railway to the A505 junction.

Going into Baldock: Whether you leave BA1 by either exit this traffic must cross the lights at the The A507/B656 Junction.

"The junction is operating close to the degree of overload where queuing could be an issue. With no land available to modify the existing arrangement to increase the capacity, it would indicate that any notable future developments would require new or amended junctions/ roads elsewhere in the local network to accommodate the additional traffic generated by them." [Feasibility report (Nov 2014)]

The "junction is currently running close to capacity and will be unable to accommodate additional development flows with its current configuration. ... Additional mitigation measures would therefore be required at this location which have not been identified or costed for." (comment letter from Paul Donovan HCC Spatial Planning and the Economy Environment Department 3 Feb 15)

Our empirical experience of taking children to the Station every morning and evening backs this up; North Rd can often be stationary back to Norton Mill Lane from where it takes more than 15 Min to get to the traffic lights. Indeed it is nearly as congested as when this was the Great North Road before the A1(M) was built in 1966, when traffic would occasionally back up as far as Radwell Lane.

Going into Letchworth or A1(M) south via Letchworth Gate:

This is no better: "Key current congestion issues in the town include the area around Letchworth Gate and the A505 / A6141 junction" (comment letter from Paul Donovan HCC Spatial Planning and the Economy Environment Department 3 Feb 15)

NHDC's own information indicates the only reasonably uncongested routes out of BA1 are likely to be the A505 to Royston or North Road to J10 of the A1(M).

Travel to shopping:

The plan envisages "A new local centre along with additional neighbourhood-level provision providing around 500m2 (net) class A1 convenience retail provision and 1,400m2 (net) of other A-class floorspace" [Policy SP14 b] but this total provision for a proposed population of c.6500 people is barely 1/3 of the size of just one existing shop in Baldock. Tesco has a Net Sales floor space of 6,340 m2 [NHDC Appendix A Study Area and Existing Retail Facilities] and is already operating somewhere near its capacity at peak times.

All the nearby shops are either in the town centre, or Tesco, or are in Letchworth (Sainsburys, Lidl Etc) and to get to them all you must go through the junctions highlighted as either 'congested' or 'close to capacity' already.

It is certain that BA1 will cause such gridlock at the A507/B656 junction as to make access to Baldock from the surrounding villages to the North difficult or at times impossible. NHDC / HCC evidence states there is very little scope to improve it thus suggesting NHDC prefers BA1 residents to work and shop in Royston or Biggleswade. This is not a 'sustainable' solution.

"The River Ivel catchment is a fast responding catchment meaning it is vulnerable to flash flooding following a significant rainfall event." (Central Beds report CB/FLO/15/09003)

Currently (and for the last 60 years since my family have lived here) Radwell has NOT suffered from flooding, but in wet winters sometimes it does come close to it.

The proposed developments in Baldock plan to add c. 3200 new homes, all of which are in the River Ivel catchment. This infers the development is likely to significantly affect Radwell through increased water flows both from runoff and sewage treatment outfall.

Apparently no Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) study has been conducted despite the fact that the proposal is to nearly double the size of the Baldock urban area which by any measure must represent a massive increase in flood risk to areas downstream of the catchment.

River flow at Radwell Mill has been measured to vary between 3.5 and 16 Megalitres(Ml)/day (oct 2015 - oct 2016, Affinity Water study).

Treated water:
In the absence of any alternative proposals, it is reasonable to assume the treated water from the developments will go into the River Ivel. On the basis of 2.3 persons per houshold (2011 census), annual water consumption of 110 m3 per houshold/annum (consumer council for water) and 3200 new households this represents an increased output of treated water into the Ivel of some 352 Ml per annum, increasing flow by between 6% and 27%.

Runoff:
"Developing a green field site may result in 10 times the runoff during extreme rainfall" (Woods-Ballard et al 2007). The plan mentions "Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and other appropriate measures" but these are in large part merely a 'buffer' of limited capacity and not capable of restricting flow for extended periods of wet weather when the river Ivel is already close to capacity. It is therefore easy to envisage that a development of this size is highly likely to lead to flooding in Radwell and other villages (eg Stotfold) downstream. This happened as recently as July 2015 and again in June 2016 when extreme rain events in Letchworth (c. 25mm in 90 minutes) overwhelmed Pix Brook and flooded houses in Stotfold.

25mm (c. 1 inch) of rainfall over 91 Ha is 22 Ml of water. The 5% runoff expected from the green field site would be 1.1 Ml, the runoff from the same area as residential development could be expected to be between 30% (6.8 Ml) and 60% (13 Ml) representing a potential increase of between 5.5 and 12.5 Ml of runoff in a single event, this will increase flow by between 78% and 157% representing a very serious risk of flooding.

Pollution:
Radwell lake is already deemed an area of "Wildlife and Nature policy 14" and we work hard to keep it nice. The massively increased runoff is likely to increase temperatures in our river, harming fish and other organisms; A sudden burst of runoff from a rainstorm can cause a fish-killing shock of hot water. Salt used to melt ice and snow on pavements and roads in the new developments will further contaminate our river.

Oil and other hard-to-monitor pollutants will get into our river from the newly developed areas. This already happened when the SuDS ponds associated with runoff from the A1(M) built in 1966 silted up after only 25 years of service and we began to see an occasional oil film (on one occasion a large quantity of it) polluting our river. Eventually the ponds were dredged at considerable expense because the silt was classified as hazardous waste.

My objections are: this will change the character of the historic market town of
Baldock, whilst destroying the enjoyment of the town to which the 10,000 (approx)
residents are entitled. The proportion of extra houses allocated to Baldock and its
environs is massively unfair, compared with houses allocated to, for instance, Hitchin and Letchworth.
The transport system of the town will become both untenable and dangerous in the event of an extra 3,500 houses being built adjacent to our town. Govia Gt Northern are planning to downgrade Baldock railway station from 2018, when a potential 1,000-1500 new commuters wish to use it. Bus services are being reduced by over 70% by the local or district council from January 2017. So public transport will have been massively cut down when these houses are being built.
Private cars: local councillors have told me that these houses will bring a further 7,000 cars INTO the town, since each of the new houses will have two garages. The centre of Baldock is already clogged up with traffic for significant parts of each day. There is serious danger of air pollution for pedestrians and those who live in the town. The plan does NOT even mention this. Air pollution is NOW ONE OF THE TOP KILLERS after Heart disease and strokes, and cancer. IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO IGNORE THIS.
There is already a lack of car-parking space in the town, and because of the compact nature of the town and its historic buildings many of which are listed, there is no room for another car park to be built or further parking spaces to be allocated.
Finally, in the plan, the NHDC committee do not give a reason for Baldock being
allocated such a massive extension to the town rather than choosing another site
for the majority with a smaller allocation being allocated to Baldock.

The proposed development is too large for the town to sustain. At present, roads such as Hitchin Street and Station Road become easily congested, even outside peak times; the town cannot cope with an increase in traffic, especially if this includes traffic from a new industrial estate.

Pollution is also a significant concern; Baldock is in a vulnerable area due to its position in a valley, and it seems certain that this would rise dangerously with this new development. Recent council meetings about the development have failed to answer the question of whether or not this factor has been taken into consideration with the local plan. Not only would this pose a danger to health but also cause significant damage to the many unique historic buildings in the town.

The character of the town is also an important consideration. Baldock is an historic market town with a unique character and a close knit community. To disregard the history of the town which dates from the Roman times and is a rare example of a preserved coaching town would be an irresponsible and irrevocable action. People who live here choose to do so because of its state as a small town with a deep relationship to the natural surrounding area. Such a large development is certain to change the town's character drastically and once changed cannot be undone.

The proposed development would inevitably result in a greatly increased number of commuters using Baldock Station. At the moment the peak services are running at near to full capacity and extremely busy, so it would be essential for any development to contain a plan to increase the service. At a recent meeting our local councillor informed us that Govia trains had not been made aware of the planned development, which shows a severe lack of attention to detail and foresight in planning. Bus services in our town have also been drastically reduced which would also be unable to support an increase in the town's population.

Affordable housing is another concern. When questioned at a recent meeting, the councillor with lead responsibility for the plan (David Levitt) responded that he did not know what the term meant. This is deeply worrying and clearly shows that there has been no thought as to how much of this housing will be affordable. As the intended purpose of the plan is to provide housing for local people in North Herts, there need to be tight guidelines on how these houses will be affordable which is clearly not in place. There also needs to be a plan in place against property developers going against agreed quotas and simply accepting a fine; this is not a sufficient deterrent.

I support building homes but 2,800 homes is too excessive.
1) Baldock has a thriving community and 2800 homes is too many to integrate into the community successfully
2)I have severe concerns that the infrastructure plans are insufficient, particularly rail, road and schooling. Eg Govia is proposing reduced train services in its current consultation
3) The infrastructure plans lack detail e.g how these plans will be funded to make sure infrastructure is in place before the homes are built
4) I'm also very concerned about air pollution in Baldock due to many more cars on the road

2,800 homes is way too many
1) Baldock has a thriving community and 2800 homes is too many to integrate into the community successfully
2)I have severe concerns that the infrastructure plans are insufficient, particularly rail, road and schooling. Eg Govia is proposing reduced train services in its current consultation
3) It is not clear how the infrastructure plans will be funded to make sure infrastructure is in place before the homes are built
4) This will result in significant air pollution due to many more cars on the road

The site BA1 North Baldock is completely unsuitable for such a massive development.
The first point I would ask for your consideration on is

POLLUTION - Baldock has been monitored over the years (especially when decisions were being considered for the A505 bypass) - The very high pollution levels were significant in the decision. Baldock is an historic market town that has been the site of a development for many thousands of years and is in fact the OLDEST Town in North Hertfordshire. It has significant archaeology in and around the town. It is situated in a natural 'bowl' which is now causing fumes and air pollution to remain in this geography and not being able to disperse naturally. With the onset of fumes from an ever growing vehicle demand. To add potentially 2,500 homes at the North end and a further 1,000 proposed to the south east (approx 2 cars per dwelling on average) to this situation, will send pollution levels beyond the current acceptable guidelines. in fact air quality standards are already close to being exceeded in Whitehorse Street/Hitchin Street now. This plan cannot be
justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives
( Priory Fields) - The Housing and Green Belt Background paper notes that former site 209E (Priory fields in Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for the same
reason! It is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.
Asthma in the young and old will again rise to an intolerable level. I do not speak lightly on this particular subject as my Brother died of Asthma, so i know only too well just how serious this can become. Peak times on North Road have already caused huge tail backs of traffic and one is almost choked by the fumes now when doing the school run with young children.

The number of houses being proposed is grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing town and housing needs within it. The houses will not be there for our children, when they grow up. The numbers proposed far out way the current need locally and will be taken up by people outside of the county.

While not apposed to some housing within the town area and towards the natural boundary of the A505 bypass road. The housing figures proposed here are grossly unfair in relation to the proposed numbers for nearby towns within the county.

GREENBELT -
Greenbelt should NEVER be built on and should be preserved and protected to avoid urban sprawl as agreed in parliament. This proposed development will be built on 'prime arable' greenbelt and will unbelievably be just the width of one road away from Ivel Springs - a local nature reserve and is designated as an 'Ancient Monument'.
In the plan, Housing and Green Belt background paper para 3.14 states
that BA1 site makes a 'significant contribution to Green Belt purposes'.
In the same document, para 5.52 justifies REMOVING BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan".

This is contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after smaller sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be
safeguarded for future needs outside of this Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026!
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the 'reasonable alternatives'. The site
West of Stevenage should be reconsidered now and not wait till after 2026.
It may also fail the criteria 4 i.e. it is not consistent with national policy
with regard to the Green Belt. Removing Greenbelt is not a solution, it is there for a reason.


RAILWAY - The rail network at peak times, is already a squeeze. Adding this huge amount of houses to the town and destination is something that will impact further on this.
It is unbelievable to note that NHDC had not consulted with Govia the train provider for Baldock to London Kings X during the course of the preparation of this local plan!
Currently Govia are planning to reduce the service to Baldock at off-peak times by half. This is yet another example of the lack of lateral thought that has been put into this most unsuitable development.
In paragraph 32 it states that
"development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development. "
The Plan is NOT effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It also fails the
consistency with national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport
improvements that would be needed for the BA1 site to work.

LOCAL WORK OPPORTUNITIES -
NHDC Local plan states
Policy SP3 describes the additional employment provision of 19.6ha of
land East of Baldock. Building this many homes is certainly no guarantee that these will generate businesses here in Baldock. It is more likely to have thousands more commuters using and filling up an already clogged Rail and Road network. The A1 corridor is completely inadequate now to take the huge volume of vehicles at peak times. How will having a huge number of developments all the way along it be a sensible solution?
The proposal also states that the council will "promote and support the expansion of the knowledge based economy in the District". Paragraph 4.23 states that "Many higher skilled residents commute out of the District for employment. "
Then Paragraph 34 states that "plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimized "
Yet another clear contradiction in policy and reality.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
West of Stevenage should be reconsidered.
It also fails the criteria 4 i.e. it is not consistent with national policy as West of Stevenage has not been properly considered.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Local plan -
SP14 states that a masterplan must be produced prior to any other detailed matters. No detailed plans have been given. There is an Infrastructure development plan included in the evidence base (added
in September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans!

Paragraph 177 states that it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.
To facilitate this, it is important that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up. For this reason, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time, in the Local Plan.
This is not consistent with national policy as it has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.

At one meeting I attended it was put to us (residents) that a generation of Baldock children would need to bused out of the town to neighbouring schools as the schools would only be built when the need is already there (IE the houses are built). This is madness and reactionary political decision making at it's worst. The schools in Baldock are all over subscribed now. Effectively doubling the size of the town is going to have a disastrous impact on the schooling in our town. Baldock has an incredibly good name when it comes to schools and the community is incredibly proud of that fact. The lack of thought behind these decisions to facilitate what seems to be planning bullying on a small historic town is outrageous.

The doctors surgery is verging on impossible to get an appointment and our doctors are working to capacity already. They can not facilitate a large increase in local population demand.

The roads in and around this town are already near capacity and to think not long ago a bypass was given the green light to alleviate this problem. Now we are just going to undo all that work. Putting another bypass in to the North East of the town, may well encourage some traffic to use this and avoid the town. But you can not ignore the massive demand on the roads there will be within the boundary of the town. Commuters, coming in from surrounding villages, lorries delivering, commuters from within the town needing to get to the overcrowded station and finding the car park not big enough, the trains not long enough, the services cut.

The sewage works (by the allotments off North Road) will need a complete new site as the current plant is inadequate for 3,500 new homes and the waste they will demand to be processed.

There is a flood risk in Baldock already, surely this number of homes is just unsuitable.

The Lister hospital - This is a general point for such a large number of housing in North Herts. How will it cope? It is a super hospital right now, but absolutely working to near capacity.

BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOMES IN BALDOCK - This is a folly and a myth. NO developer will invest millions into an area that will see its house prices drop.
affordability - There can only be a cap on the first round of selling, then after that the market will determine the price and 'all the homes for our children and our grandchildren', will be as far away as they always were.

Lastly, here is one thing I would like to add on this point, that is not easy to qualify with paragraph numbers etc. This point is 'community, pride, history, caring and a sense of belonging'. I know to many planners these are things that they have told us are not valid points. But as someone who has lived here for 25 years and has chosen to have children here. I can say confidently that should these be adopted, one day we will lament this plan and policy. Talking about how the community rallies together and to see and witness the sense of pride in our historic town will be something long gone if this disproportionate and frankly unfair development is approved. I urge you to reconsider this plan and to apply a sensible and fair number of homes that will give the town chance to grow WITH and embrace. Not be swamped by and lose everything that we hold dear about our town.

I trust you will give these points due consideration and reject the BA1 North of Baldock proposal.

The reasonable expectation is that most residents in BA1 will commute to work outside Baldock, increasing the pressure on the roads and railway. Baldock railway station would need to be extended. Govia intend to cut 'fast' trains stopping at Baldock other than at peak times, which will be massively problematic for commuters. Adding a further 2800 homes will only exacerbate the problem of overcrowding on the trains, particularly at peak times. Plan not consistent with national policy as it doesn't properly assess transport improvements needed to ensure safe access to the station.

A development of this size has be considered without adequate assessment of the impact of, conservatively another 2800 cars plus delivery vehicles on the following
1. traffic congestion in the town
Traffic travels through the town to and from A1M avoiding use of A505 bypass
A507 east to west passes through the town forming a staggered junction with the former A505 which is bounded on two sides by listed buildings both of which have be damaged due to vehicles in the last 2 years.
As a regular user of this junction both as a pedestrian and a driver I have witnessed near misses as impatient drivers jump the lights and speed once across the junction. I no longer access Ivel Spring nature reserve via the footpath under the railway bridge having been nearly hit by speeding passing lorries and car wing mirrors. As the only other accesses are on a road with no footpaths or a small unlit tunnel under the railway I seldom visit the reserve.
2. The increase in traffic idling through this point will increase the air pollution levels in the town
3. The already increasing traffic due to the housing developments around north of Letchworth and neighbouring Central Bedfordshire

Public Transport
This development is sited near the railway station and will attract people who wish to travel out of Baldock to work. It has come light that no discussion has taken place with the railway company about the increase in capacity required to support the development and the rail company has announced plans to reduce the number of trains serving Baldock
5. Link road from A505 to A507. I wonder if this is achievable as it will be required to go under or over the railway and neither of these options will be cheap particularly as they will have to be built with frieght vehicles in mind

Density of the development
If this development goes ahead with all the required infrastructure it will become a suburb of Baldock cut off from Baldock Town by the railway bridge and the people may find it easier to travel to neighbouring Central Bedfordshire towns to access shops and leisure facillities

Local environment and wildlife
It is already very difficult to access the footpaths across this area without walking along side the very busy A507 and these will be lost within the development. The loss of the habitat for the endangered Corn Bunting together with natural chalkland geography

AREA BA1
GREEN BELT
The NPPF says that green belt should be protected and only altered in exceptional circumstances. There is no justification in this plan for destroying green belt countryside.
Both Oliver Heald MP (2015) and Stephen McPartland MP (November 2016) argue for a new garden city development with planned infrastructure and transport. This Local Plan (BA1) is not the most appropriate strategy and is unjustified. It is not consistent with national policy.
NPPF Core planning principles 17 'take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it'
'support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk....encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)'.
There is nothing in this Local Plan about any of this.
Too many houses are planned, and brownfield sites should be used first. The Local Plan should clearly state this.

BALDOCK TOWN/ ROADS and TRAFFIC
NPPF 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 24 'When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.'
BA1 would not be well connected to Baldock town centre. It is an insular development which will not mix well with the rest of Baldock.

The plan has not got sufficient detail about roads to and from Baldock. It is incomplete. The plan should not be submitted without details about where exactly the new roads are to be built and also showing costings and traffic forecasts.

It is incomplete and unsustainable. There are traffic implications for Radwell where I live. Baldock is my local town. The A507 into Baldock is already insufficient to deal with present traffic. For example on November 9th it took me 25 minutes leaving at 8.00am to get from Radwell to Knights Templar School in Baldock where I teach. This is normally an 8 minute journey at other times of day.
The A507 railway bridge is very narrow and there is no mention of plans to rebuild and widen it.

At present when turning out of Radwell Lane onto the A507 one can wait for gaps in the traffic flow resulting from the traffic lights in Baldock and turn in the gaps (which can take quite some time). If there is a new road from this development onto the A507 further south there will be more traffic driving north and turning out of Radwell will become even more dangerous.

There may also be more traffic driving south from the A1(M) Junction 10 and using the proposed link road to the A505 as a northern Baldock bypass. Lorries from the north already often turn off the A1(M) and go along the A507 to Baldock before turning left at the traffic lights onto Royston Road to avoid the extra mileage of using the Baldock Bypass turn from Letchworth Gate Junction 9 A1(M). Many houses have recently been built in Central Bedfordshire which add to local congestion. This is also a cross administrative boundary issue which has not been thought out.

If BA1 were to go ahead there will be substantial construction traffic during the building of this development adding to the difficulties already suffered on approach roads to Baldock.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT
NPPF 4. Promoting sustainable transport 'Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport'

There are plans in the new Govia Thameslink Train 2018 survey to reduce the off peak trains from Baldock to London making the journey last 56 minutes instead of 40 as at present. The NHDC did not consult with them before presenting this local Plan. I understand that belatedly NHDC have been in discussions and that the Baldock fast trains may be retained but only at peak times.

Getting to Baldock station by car from Radwell is already very difficult at peak times and will be more difficult with increased traffic. The station car park is already too small for Baldock and outlying villages and fills up early in the morning. It is very difficult to find alternative parking and there seems to be nothing in this Plan to alleviate this large problem.

Hertfordshire County Council has recently cut out the bus 391 which travelled until September 30th 2016 from Stotfold in Bedfordshire to Radwell, Baldock and Weston and then on to our nearest hospital in Stevenage. The railway station in Stevenage is not close to the hospital in Stevenage. There is no direct public transport to the Lister Hospital from Baldock. This is a cross administrative boundary issue. Transport to the Lister Hospital is not mentioned, nor any discussion with Bedfordshire County Council.

WATER
There is no reference to where the water supply is to come from. There is a lack of clarity in the plan.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Schools, a doctor's surgery and a community hall are mentioned but there should be details for this sort of plan. We know from a North Herts District Councillor that some of these were promised for nearby Great Ashby near Stevenage and were not built. There seems to be no guarantee in the Plan that any developer would include proper infrastructure.

CONCLUSION
The proposed local plan is not positively prepared, justified or effective or consistent with national policy. It has a disproportionate effect on Baldock and local villages such as Radwell and should be withdrawn. A new Garden City site should be found to meet future housing needs after initial use of brownfield sites.

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED

I wish to object to the proposed development North of Baldock.

The severe traffic congestion at the intersection of the A505 and A507 make it unlikely that traffic flows from the new development will be adequately managed even if a new A1-A505 bypass link road were to be built. How are traffic flows from the site going to pass through Baldock without representing a major adverse impact? Will all traffics links be complete before development? It appears not. Thus it is not consistent with the national policy, and the small mitigations so far planned will be inadequate to limit traffic exiting the development to North Road and traversing through Whitehorse Street/Royston Road. Furthermore, the traffic flows currently experienced around parts of Baldock are unacceptable even without further development. An increase of at least 5000 vehicles to the town would be unacceptable to the ability for the town to function adequately or sustainably. The proposed plans are thus not justifiable and the mitigation measures so far suggested are not adequately effective.

Govia are currently proposing to remove semi-fast trains from the off peak timetable, and have admitted they were until recently unaware of the potential for an approximate doubling of rail passengers at Baldock, i.e. new timetables proposals have been drafted with no account for the proposed Baldock development. I see no evidence that the local plan adequately caters for the increase rail traffic at Baldock. Furthermore, increase traffic flows to Baldock train station car parking does not appear to have been adequately accounted for. The major adverse impact on the rail inks from Baldock that a proposed circa. 3200 houses would have, has not been planned for, and is not justified.

Considering the larger populations of surrounding towns such as Hitchin and Stevenage, how can it be justified to increase a relatively small town population by approximately 50%, when the cumulative impact on (e.g.) Stevenage would be far less? With inadequate planning for local facilities such as schools and local amenities, the proposal to 'sacrifice' Baldock appears heavy handed and grossly unfair. Making such a major impact on one town is not consistent with national policy, is unjustified, and the proposed plans for roads and amenities are inadequate.

It is clear that the adverse impact of the BA1 site development has not been adequately considered, and joined up thinking and consultation with the rail infrastructure has not occurred.

The plan appears a poor strategy from NHDC. It is not justified and not effective at mitigating the adverse impact of increase housing need on the North Herts area, and on Baldock in particular.

I strongly object to the proposals as presented.

See attachment

This is a disproportionately large development. The A507 , being the access road into Baldock is already over loaded with traffic with tailbacks as far as Nortonbury most days. It cannot support even a small proportion of the extra 8000 odd cars which will be on Baldock roads.
While some of the current traffic would be re-routed onto new roads, school run and rail users would still have to drive this route.
The railway bridge over the A507 is low and narrow, with foot paths only wide enough to walk single file. Lorries regularly strike this bridge and falling debris is a real hazard to pedestrians, especially children walking to school. An increase in both traffic and pedestrians would be very dangerous. People are already forced to step into the road to pass each other under the bridge.
The junction of A507 and A505 is a pinch point for traffic already. With listed buildings on either side there is no option to widen the road.
There is very little parking available for the railway station and no provision in the plan to provide more.
This is also productive farmland and green belt. It is a haven for wildlife with rare corn buntings nesting here.

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

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

I wish to object to the proposed development at the Blackhorse Farm site BA1 to the north of Baldock as it is NOT JUSTIFIED, NOT EFFECTIVE and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY in the following areas:

* Inappropriate Green Belt development
* Air quality in town centre.
* Traffic congestion in Baldock town centre
* Capacity restrictions at Baldock Station

Additional details on why I believe each of these points are an issue are provided below.

1. Inappropriate Green Belt development: The proposed Blackhorse Farm development is in direct contravention to clearly-stated government policy in relation to the Green Belt. The Department for Communities and Local Government's planning guidance states that:

"The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open ... inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."

NHDC councillors have stated that they have no other option than to propose green belt developments in order to meet government housing targets, but the ministerial guidance on Green Belt development published on 6th October 2014 makes it clear that councils are NOT required to build on the Green Belt in order to meet housing targets.

The Blackhorse Farm development is clearly urbanisation of land, and political expediency does not constitute "very special circumstances". This is exactly the kind of inappropriate development that the Green Belt is intended to stop.

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) on this basis the plan not the most appropriate strategy.

1. Air quality in town centre: Baldock sits in a valley which is well known for having poor air circulation causing air pollutants from vehicle emissions to be trapped and concentrated. With the he Eastern Baldock Bypass was built in 2003, following intervention in parliament by Sir Oliver Heald MP, to alleviate this pollution.

Since then asthma amongst 5-16 year olds has reduced from 15% (in 1994) to 6%. However traffic is on the increase and now the levels pollutants in Hitchin St and Whitehorse St are in danger of exceeding EU permitted levels. The Housing and Green Belt background paper notes that former site 209E (Priory Fields Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for exactly this reason.

The extra vehicles, domestic and service vehicles, which will arise from the building of 3,590 new homes, a significant proportion of which will travel through and around Baldock will tip the balance and affect the health of all residents especially the very young, the old, pedestrians and cyclists raising health problems such as respiratory disease, cardiac problems and even cancer. As a parent and resident of Baldock who lives just off Hitchin Street this is deeply concerning.

2. Traffic congestion in Baldock town centre: The local highways network will be severely affected by the development of this site. Primarily of concern is the junction where the A507 North Road meets the Royston Road (the old route of the A505) at the junction of Whitehorse Street, Station Road, Royston Road and Clothall Road.

All major traffic flows entering Baldock - plus all the corresponding traffic flows heading in the opposite direction - have to pass through this single junction. As a result, the junction is always congested, and congestion during the rush hour can extend back almost as far as the Baldock services.

There are listed buildings on either side of the junction so development of this junction to cope with additional traffic will be a problem. So building 2,800 houses on the Blackhorse Farm site is about the worst possible thing that could happen in this part of Baldock.

Therefore the A507 from the traffic lights to the A1 roundabout is not a suitable road to give access to a new development at BA1 as NHDC plans. It is very likely, since there are few work opportunities in Baldock that most of the residents will commute to other parts of North Herts, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire using this junction as well as the proposed new link roads.

3. Capacity restrictions at Baldock Station: In relation to the NPF, Section 4 "Promoting sustainable transport". Paragraph 32 states that "All developments the generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement ..." and goes on to state that "... development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development. "

The NHDC Local Plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. It is interesting to note that NHDC had not consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this local plan. Currently Govia are planning to reduce the service to Baldock at off-peak times.

Therefore the Plan is not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It also fails the consistency with national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the BA1 site to work.

If this proposed development goes ahead it is expected that most new Baldock residents will commute to work outside Baldock. In addition to extra pressure on the roads there will be unacceptable pressure on the already overcrowded railway service. Baldock station is small and would require significant alteration to accommodate additional passengers and the longer trains needed for them.

The train operator (Govia) is currently holding their own consultation on future rail provision for the line and intend to cut "semi-fast" trains stopping at Baldock outside of peak hours. This will not be sufficient serve the thousands of extra journeys that will be made from Baldock. More concerning is that until recently both British Rail and Goiva has not been consulted by NHDC in relation to the local plan in relation to important issues such as building a bridge over the railway from the A505 Royston road into or round the BA1 site or the potential of additional demand in the future.

There is no information on deliverability or cost of this proposed road / railway crossing which will be very expensive if it is to be delivered without visual impacts. It is quite exposed at this point. This indicates that NHDC has produced a poor plan without much forward planning and appreciation of all the related infrastructure required.

See attachment

This proposal will double the size of the town which has inadequate infrastructure to deal with the number of people who currently commute to both London and Cambridge and drive to surrounding areas. Great Northern Rail has only recently announced their intention to reduce the service to the Baldock.
Building works will cause massive disruption to the already choked Station/London Road for months, years resulting in those who have lived in the area for generations looking to relocate.
The building of the proposed number of dwellings will suffocate this town leaving it without it's historic identity and values.

See attachment