Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

I would like to express my objection to the above plans. In particular I have strong objection about the plans for new housing in Baldock.

Whilst I accept that there needs to be some new housing in Baldock I object to:

1) The huge and out of proportion amount of new houses proposed for Baldock town. The plans propose that 34% of North Herts load is to be in Baldock. This will dramatically alter the nature of this small market town and have a magnified impact on a small town. The proposed plans, almost doubling the size of the town are too big a change. They need to be scaled down considerably.

2) The current infrastructure in Baldock would not be able to cope with the proposed increase.

The plan does appear to address this except in woolly terms.

In particular:

a. Education

- Baldock primary schools are already full. In fact children living in Baldock are already having to travel to schools in Ashwell, Letchworth, Norton and surrounding areas as there is no room in Baldock schools currently. Adding 3000+ homes will not help.

Before any new houses are built - new primary schools need to be built.
The Secondary School is full. Again, a new school needs to be built before new houses can be built.

b. Roads - the traffic going into Baldock is already bad, in particular North Road. Adding several thousand more cars to the town's traffic will create gridlock.

c. Trains - there are already problems with parking.

Carriage space is very limited during peak times. This will be exacerbated by the proposed plans to reduce the Baldock train service.

d. There will need to be increased health, police, and fire service infrastructure.

3. Usage of brownfield sites - in Baldock and Letchworth there are areas of brownfield that have been derelict or underutilised for many years.

In my opinion the plans for 3000+ new homes in Baldock are flawed.

I accept new homes are required in North Herts, it is one of the side effects of such a great area to live and work. I accept some houses should be built in Baldock. I cannot accept increasing the size of Baldock as this proposal outlines.

Alternatives would be to look to:

a) Spread the proposed housing far more proportionately across North Herts.

b) Create a whole new, small Garden City within the North Herts area - like Cambourne in Cambridgeshire.

c) Where ever more than a few hundred houses are to be built, schools and infrastructure needs to be addressed, planned and paid for before the house building starts. With punitive damages for not doing so. Referring back to Cambourne the town existed for 10 years before a site for a secondary school was even looked for - and the school then took a further 5 years to open. 15 years to provide the fundamental infrastructure of schooling is too long. North Herts needs to learn from this and ensure the education of our young people - of our future - is not compromised to meet context free targets. The schools, the GP surgeries, the roads, the parks all need to be planned before the builders start building houses and punitive damages applied if and when the planning constraints are breached.

d) There should be a concerted effort to enable development of brownfield sites for housing. That drive must come from our local government. It is not enough for our elected representatives to throw up their hands and say they can't affect brownfield proposals.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

See attachment

I have tried to navigate your online form unsuccessfully.

Please take my objection into account.
I do not believe we should lose our green belt under these circumstances. Green belt is green belt for a reason.

I also do not believe that the forecasted quantity of housing is correct. If this is being thrust upon us from government and is wrong (North /South divide not being addressed - overflowing SE and deserted N) then it is incumbent on NHDC to stand up for local needs only, not absorb the problems of failed national policy.

I am unwell so unable to fully articulate all the reasons I am against this but please register that I passionately oppose construction of housing on all greenfield sites, and in particular Sp14 and 15.

The thing I love about Letchworth, and the reason I chose to return here to live, is its character and distinct town limits - i.e. NOT merging with anywhere else. I have previously lived in endless suburbia and it was depressing.

Please do the right thing NHDC and protect our wildlife, for it is priceless and irreplaceable.

My son has recently started plying football and all I can see are the positives in him joining his local Baldock team. He has grown in confidence, developed team player skills and is keeping fit. My time watching him thrive has, however, left me wondering where his future in Baldock sports lies. The sessions are incredibly popular and I can see that it will be a struggle to accommodate the needs of the current players. The imminent expansion of Baldock will put an additional strain on our already stretched sports facilities. I am incredibly concerned that the positives experienced by my son in this time will be short lived due to the lack of facilities needed to enable him to develop his love of sports and fitness.

We all know about the obesity crisis that is a high priority on the governmental agenda. Encouraging a love of sport is a major step forward. However, we can only do so much as parents when there is a lack of facilities available to our youth.

BALDOCK (3,290 new houses) including 2,800 north of the town in BYGRAVE PARISH (the Blackhorse Farm site)

We are both very concerned about the effects of this development on the village of Bygrave and the town of Baldock. We would like to make the following representations:

A comprehensive history of Bygrave & Bygrave Common:
We think this needs to be explained so that the issues can be put in the correct context.

Bygrave is a hamlet divided geographically into two parts: the "lower village" is nearer to Baldock; the "top village" is based around Manor Farm, the parish church and the medieval settlement.
In the lower village, many of the houses were built in the early1930s. The reason these houses were built was to form a community of self-sufficient households with large gardens to grow vegetables/fruit and to encourage animal husbandry. The Second World War and animal disease put an end to this ideal.
A property company purchased the houses and a majority were sold to the public in 1956.
So the statement in NHDC's submission, that the houses were built "in mid-century", is wrong and proves that the lower village does have an interesting history, even though dating back less than 100 years. The 1930s houses were designed in the style used in Letchworth Garden City in the early 1900s. Even though changes have been made to dwellings , one can see the underlying bones of these original structures today.

It is the lower part of Bygrave that will be affected by this planned development, especially that part along lower Ashwell Road.

We would also add that the Blackhorse Farm development is situated in Bygrave parish, not Baldock, on what was Bygrave Common. In 1919, the Common and some nearby land in North Herts, was purchased from the landowner by Hertfordshire County Council. This happened at a time when there were disputes over land use on the Common and, we think, to provide "Land for Heroes" returning from the First World War. The land was partitioned into leased small holdings.
These exist today, although probably fewer than in the beginning. Two of the families working these small holdings have been in situ for about 50 years. Now they are to be uprooted, lose their land and their livelihood, including their business contacts and a future for their sons or daughters. Once this land is gone, it is gone forever!! The Count Council's policy to lease out agricultural land to small farmers, especially those who supply locally grown food and farm animals, as here, seems now to have been abandoned, in favour of a quick profit.

The hamlet has a Heritage Verge that is visited by nature enthusiasts every summer. This is marked by signs on the east side of Bygrave/Ashwell Road near Halfway Farm and was recognised two to three decades ago. The farmers agreed not to disturb this area too much. The road is an ancient trackway and the verge contains many unusual plants. This verge will be desecrated by housing and road construction, unless plans are made to protect it.

Fairness to Baldock and Bygrave:
Baldock is a small, market town, with both historical and architectural importance. It has 15th century almshouses, many Georgian houses, lots of listed buildings and a magnificent 17th century church, which is being restored. Several of the town's roads have existed for hundreds of years; they are narrow and easily become congested.

It does not seem fair that Baldock, the smallest town in North Herts, (30% smaller than any other town in North Herts) should have 35% of these new dwellings, as proposed for the whole area in NHDC's Local Plan.
The proposed number of houses would result in a 80% increase in the size of Baldock. The town's population is estimated to have been 10,600 people in 2015.
No other town in North Herts has had to face such a large increase in population over past decades. The only reason for this seems to be that HCC owns the land on the Blackhorse Farm site and is determined to sell it to developers.

Bygrave is a small village. In its lower part, there are over 50 houses. This housing development would, when finished, merge with this part of Bygrave. This would not comply with the need to keep settlements (villages and towns) separate, as set out in a recent decision on a proposed solar farm near Sawston in Cambridgeshire.
In this case, the Secretary of State confirmed "The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England"s view that the longstanding Green Belt purpose of preventing neighbouring "towns" from merging, applies equally to towns and villages. (CPRE Winter 2016 Newsletter for Hertfordshire.)

The Green Belt
It seems that the whole area of the housing development on the Blackhorse Farm site IS/WAS Green Belt. We were informed by North Herts District Councillor David Levitt at a public meeting, that Green Belt was not a legally enforceable space and that the area in question would stop being Green Belt to enable the building of houses. The acreage of the Green Belt removed from Bygrave, will bring about urban sprawl which was originally the Green Belt's raison d'être. This extensive change of use of land does not comply with the NPPF&S new guidelines.

NHDC states that 200 metres of HCC land to the north east of the development, along the line of the new housing would be allocated as playing fields and green space. If this is so, where then is the new road going to go? Does that mean that new residents would have to cross this road to reach the playing fields?


Transport: Roads
We know that a link road between the roundabout on the Royston Road and Redwell will be needed. Yet a Traffic Assessment has not been done to define where and how large this road should be or its effect on Baldock. There is, also,no indication in the Local Plan of how the Blackhorse Farm development would use this new road link.

Air, noise and light pollution from the new road is of increasing concern to us as is the visibility of the road to residents.
So, wherever this road goes, in a cutting, below the level of the development and the existing houses in Ashwell Road.To the east of Ashwell Road, the road should go through a tunnel, under the railway line.

Note: at the moment, Bygrave has no street lighting.

The current road through the village is heavily used by resident's cars, Ashwell traffic and lorries delivering to Manor Farm. It is a narrow road and is should not be available to be used by the developments' residents. Several serious accidents and a fatality have occurred on this road in the last two months.

As for Baldock, the Great North Road out of Baldock and the A1M to which it connects are already very congested. The railway bridge on the Great North Road near Baldock station is hit by high lorries frequently, causing delays and repairs. Only two weeks ago, a lorry piled high with pallets, hit the bridge. Major delays result from this hazard and Network Rail is forced to do numerous checks on the viability of the bridge.

Within Baldock, the streets are very narrow, especially after HCC's work to further narrow them, a few years ago. Coaches and lorries are forced up onto the pavements or have no choice but to restrict the flow of traffic in turning at the junction of Station Road, Clothall Road, Whitehorse Street and the Royston Road, past the railway bridge.

At the three way junction, further along to the right, at Whitehorse Street, Hitchin Road and the High Street, the space is very limited for turning and large vehicles have a problem traversing the intersection.

In both cases, the buildings surrounding the intersections are ancient and cannot be moved or altered. They are also suffering damage from this heavy traffic.

The 3,290 houses planned for Baldock over the next 15 years will introduce between 5000 to 7,000 extra cars to the area.The street parking in Baldock is very restricted and is fully utilised.
The new northern bypass near Bygrave will encourage new residents to drive elsewhere, if they want to visit a larger stores. Their need to come into Baldock, will be thwarted by long queues to the south and north of the town, the lack of parking within the town and the prospect of visiting stores elsewhere, for instance Biggleswade's new large Retail Centre.

Thus, the new development at the Blackhorse Farm site will become a distinct community with its own shops, schools, surgeries etc. Its residents will not contribute to the vibrant, community life existing in Baldock today. So, two towns will exist next to each other, neither improving the other.
This does not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework that proposes housing developments should promote the vitality of associated town centres.

Transport: Train Service:
Recently, Great Northern/Thames Link/Govia have expressed a need to reduce the number of high speed trains stopping at Baldock railway station. If this come to be, then the owners of the new houses in and around Baldock will have big problems getting to surrounding towns and to London or Cambridge. Since NHDC only spoke to Network Rail in the past few weeks, we have no idea of the changes, we can expect here.

As for parking at the station, three or four years ago, Network Rail sold off all the spare land around Baldock Station for apartment housing. As a consequence, we assume, more Green Belt land will be used for additional car parking at Baldock railway station.
What a lost opportunity! If only NHDC or HCC could have talked of their housing plans to Network Rail earlier. This was done only three weeks ago. The problem could have been avoided with some afore thought.




Need for Housing:
Baldock and Bygrave residents need new housing for their elderly people (low-rise), singles, young couples and families and people moving to Baldock for work. We know several couples in Bygrave and Baldock, who have had to move away from their core family, due to the lack of affordable housing in Baldock.

It is encouraging that 40% of the housing in the development is designated "affordable". We hope this becomes a reality. "Affordable" house prices in this area of Hertfordshire will, we expect, be in excess of £250,000, ten times the average national salary. Disappointingly, this amount is beyond the budgets of many local families.
The HCC and the developers involved should be looking to put something back into the communities they are planning and into the existing town and village. Local needs should be addressed, rather than looking to profit as the superior motive.
The number of self-build homes in the Local Plan is very few, considering the total number of houses proposed. We should be encouraging this type of building today. To plan for more would encourage variety and, hopefully, some interesting house designs.

Stress on Local Amenities:
In the short term, local schools, doctors' and dentist surgeries will be put under stress; they are already full to capacity. In the case of our doctor at Astonia House in Baldock, a regular appointment means a wait of two weeks. A more immediate health problem usually involves a trip into the town at 7:45 am to stand in a queue, for an appointment that day. We know this is not unusual for the North Herts area. New residents will have to look outside the town for these services until they are built within the development.


Conclusion:
We are not opposed to new houses being built in and around Baldock and Bygrave. However, we want a vision for the future for the area, not a Local Plan that is the best of the worst, as inferred by NHD Councillor David Levitt at a public meeting in 2014.

We need the Local Plan to be sustainable, ensuring better lives for ourselves and not making worse the lives of future generations. We do not believe this to be so of the Local Plan now proposed.

We wish to be invited to attend any Public Hearing and to be informed of any developments in this matter.

I would like to comment on the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (Proposed Submission, October 2016). Particularly, I wish to object to the massive proposed development at the Blackhorse Farm site to the north of Baldock.
Our family moved to the small hamlet of Bygrave as it is rural and offers a quiet and peaceful lifestyle. This proposal would mean that our quiet hamlet would become engulfed by a larger town and this is certainly not fair. Please do not ruin Bygrave!!!!!!

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

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

2. Traffic

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

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

4. Historic town

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

5. Destruction of wildlife habitat

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

6. Infrastucture

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

7. Employment

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

8. Amenities

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

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

I'm writing this email to object to the proposed district council plans for North Hertfordshire, more specifically the Proposed site north of Baldock towards Bygrave! Having lived and grown up in the area all my life, I have seen in just my lifetime how the local infrastructure, more specifically roads has suffered with the increase of vehicular use and people traffic. While I would like houses to be built as is necessary with the ever increasing population, I feel the 2800 houses is clearly too many for Baldock to cope with whether it be overwhelmed or ruined by a competing site.
The proposed roads planned to cope with this increased demand are to be honest a complete poorly thought out joke! They will be an eye saw for miles around, they will increase sound and light pollution to Baldock and the surrounding countryside and effectively ruin what is and always will be my home and favourite place in the world!
Currently I don't use the train or public transport much, but when I do I cannot see in any plans how an increase in use of these will be effective in making them less crowded and easily usable as they already are! Parking at the station will increase but I cannot see any proposed plans to increase that, not that there is any space to anyway! Using the A1 will be a complete nightmare as it cannot cope now, traffic is already a nightmare even in off peak hours!
It seems the proposed plans seem an EASY WAY OUT for the district council to build, without actually looking at how it affects the surrounding area!
To finalise these plans have been poorly thought out with disastrous consequences inevitable. Questioning the decision making for this site!
I hope you make the right decision for this area I and many others call home!

As a resident of Baldock with two primary school age children, I feel it is imperative that sporting facilities are not overlooked when planning for the future of North Herts. Providing facilities and activities for the younger generations I feel is a really useful way in involving them in the local community. Sport provides children with vital life skills such as team work, self-pride as well as promoting a healthy lifestyle.

In contrast, a lack of activities and facilities can lead to a sense of boredom which in turn will result in the younger generations finding their own "entertainment" which can have a negative effect on the local community.

Our local population is only going to increase in the coming years, so please ensure that as part of the local infrastructure, suitable and sufficient sporting facilities are provided.

I am writing to express my concern at the lack of sporting facilities in Baldock, despite the planned increase in housing in the area. Increasing sports and associated social facilities, especially football grounds, is vital for the future growth and sustainability of Baldock as a town.

My 11 year old son has played football for Baldock Town for more than 6 years now, and during that time the home pitches he has played on have been very inadequate to say the least. Other neighbouring towns have grounds which include decent playing surfaces and a clubhouse which is very important for young players in particular.

Parents who continually support their children pitch-side strive to do so in very poor conditions. Increasing facilities to cater for the existing teams is vital, but with the proposed growth in population in Baldock it is even more crucial. Investing in better sporting facilities now will surely future-proof the town and residents who live here, and will certainly encourage a more thriving, healthier, fitter and active community.

Please consider this issue seriously when progressing the development plans for the sake of current and future generations in Baldock.

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

This representation comments on SP8 and SP14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am writing to you to object the Hertfordshire District Councils Local Plans 2011-2031. I am focusing on the development of Baldock and the surrounding village of Bygrave.

I am University Graduate and progressing my career in Business Tourism Management at a Niche Tour Operator in Welwyn Garden City. I have lived in baldock for 23 years and been travelling to/from Baldock to/from Hatfield and Welwyn for 6 years. In the couple of years, the a1m has become increasingly congested at peak hours; making my 25 minute journey into a 60 minute journey. The over development of Baldock will result in the a1m struggling to cope with the vast amount of cars on both peak and off peak travel periods. Furthermore, the Baldock high street will inevitably be overwhelmed by the increase of cars, making parking and local services struggle under the rise in uncontrollable demand.

After studying Sustainable and Strategic Development of Local Towns at University, I am completely aware of the importance of building more houses and developing local areas for the ever growing population. However, I fail to understand how these plans for Baldock and Bygrave are sustainable. Local services and schools will be under ever increasing demand and pressure from the rise in population from the over development of Baldock. The beauty of the surrounding landscape will be tarnished and inevitably lost. This in no way will assist the sustainability of the environment.

I find the plans additional houses in Clothall common to be important, however the number planned is disastrous to Baldock and the Clothall common. The roads planned for access behind Aleyn Way and Merchants Walk in Clothall Common are disruptive for the local community and environment. This will affect areas that children play in and where families walk their dogs. I live in this area and find this extremely upsetting as the lanes I walk and the countryside I see every day will be damaging. There will be visual, atmospheric and noise pollution. A road is not necessary.

I understand the development is required, however please evaluate the destruction that will be caused to the town and surrounding area.

My husband and I, as residents of Bygrave, would like to express our concerns about the proposed development on Bygrave Common, Baldock.

We are strongly opposed to the use of green belt land being used for urban development. This land is at present valuable farming land, and therefore it would be more sensible to use other sites where the land is not farmed and that would not lead loss of livelihood and homes.

We are also concerned about there being insufficient water supply to cater for this large number of new homes. At the moment,there is just enough water for the North Herts area. As it is, since the new recycling plant has been installed on the A505, some homes in Bygrave have found their water supply diminished.

The increase in homes to this area would inevitably lead to increased use of the railway, and I am concerned about traffic congestion that would arise from this.

On a personal level, I am concerned about the erosion of wildlife habitat if this development is to go ahead. The land provides a suitable habitat for many varieties of hedgerow plants, some of which are protected, as well as for small animals and birds.

We also question, on a more general note, the reality of being able to provide 'affordable' homes, unless realistically, some sort of shared home ownership project is put in place. If the houses are to be made available to 1st time buyers, I would be concerned at the quality and aesthetic appeal of low quality housing.

I am sending this email from abroad as we are out of the country at the moment, so have not got more information at hand to refer to, but realised that the deadline to put forward our views was today, so I apologise for this hastily written email.

It would be a shame if the development were to go ahead, as what at present is a charming village would be swamped and the nature of Baldock as a country market town would be altered for ever.

I am writing to comment on the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (Proposed Submission, October 2016). In particular, I wish to object to the massive proposed development at the Blackhorse Farm site to the north of Baldock. My objections are based primarily on two of the "Tests of Soundness" that Local Plans are required to meet

Several issues need clarifying and many do clearly not satisfy many people's questions.

As a young person i am supportive of more houses being made available , but they should be the right amount in the right places. The North of Baldock site of 2800 houses is clearly not so.
Baldock will either be overwhelmed by this add on development or be ruined by a competing site. The plan strives to cover all angles, by indicating that Baldock can cope with the influx of housing (an 80% increase), yet outlining new roads that bypass Baldock and new infrastructure that will compete and possibly kill the old market town.
The proposed road will be seen for miles around and the impact of it running across a considerable area of natural beauty at a height that will affect light and sound quality for thousands of people. In addition the recent commitments to better air quality will be completely reversed by this road and the number of new cars added to the immediate area.

It appears the ONLY reason this site was selected was for an easy option. Provided by the Herts County Council, it meant NHDC did not have to search to find alternative more appropriate sites, (some of which were previously identified, and for reasons unknown, discarded).

Transport links will just add to an already overcrowded Baldock, acces and parking to the railway station are not addressed. Further traffic on the A1M will lead to it standing still for large parts of the day.

A smaller number of houses on this site (as was originally proposed in the first version of the plan) I could understand. This increase of 80% of the smallest market town in North Herts should not be imposed because it is 'easy' to deal with County Council land. The local plan should have looked more carefully at more appropriate sites when first considered and not just grabbed this site because County offered it.
Poor forward thinking, poor planning, disastrous outcomes inevitable, questionable decision making on this site!

1. Sections I am commenting upon are at the back on page. This is the context of the plan for Baldock and particular the plan for some 2,800 homes in the Bygrave area. I remain of the view that the overall development is far too large for town the size and character of Baldock and that to concentrate so many new homes in one location are as is still proposed creates dead and challenges that the plan does not and cannot give any assurance will be addressed eg in health and transport.

2. I wish to comment on the linkage between the transport aspects of the Plan and air quality and wider non road transport. In 9.28 the plan recognises the issue in central Baldock . The Baldock Surgery Patent Participation group drew attention to this in its previous comments on the plan in 2015 and to its impact on the incidence of childhood asthma.

3. I also wish to comment on general planning and delivery issues.

4. It may well be that the measures proposed for new road links from and around the Bygrave Rd development (in 13.29 and 13.30 ) with help to mitigate the road traffic impact especially in the peak travel to work periods but that will not be sufficient . The new development will contain many private cars. If Clothall common is anything to go by an average (probably in all three sense of the term especially the " mode" ) of 2 per household. So upwards of 5,000 cars. In the evenings and at weekends these will cluster in the town centre, whether at the "pinchpoint" referred to in the plan or not. This will be much more so than at peak times even if the new roads are successful with traffic queues and congestion as people go to local shops Tescos, etc .

5. When weather conditions are poor the lower lying parts of Baldock will be more saturated than normally with exhaust fumes. ( This has even been visible in the last few days of the cold spell even with modest traffic.)Walking into Baldock from Bygrave may not be a real choice especially for families given this. Modelling and surveying existing traffic patterns from Clothall Common and from the areas towards the A1M in Baldock the will give you some clues as to the likely traffic streams from within the town at these times itself not just transiting or in travel to work periods. The increased population will itself generate new external traffic as demand in Tescos etc also increases - more customers, more goods, more deliveries, more vehicles.

6. Something radical will need to be done to separate cars from people in the centre of the town and it cannot wait until the later part of the planning period. This will not be easy with so many residents living in the centre who also have cars and will be controversial requiring some really high quality design to enable "normal" local neighbourhood road traffic still to happen.

7. The other area of concern is rail services. It is not clear whether the strategic transport section covers them. Many (most?) of those moving to Baldock will be expecting to use the fast services to London and Cambridge on or off-peak as well as the links to other stations in Hertfordshire. It is one of the factors that will draw them here as well as the quality of life in the town. The rail Franchisees , who will change over time, need to be involved with NHDC over the whole planning period to ensure that their plans respond to increased demand. Some form of joint strategic working or joint machinery would seem to be in order to ensure consistency in assumptions , plans projections and timeliness of delivery. The recent proposal to cut all fast off peak services to and from Baldock suggests this is urgent. This runs quite counter to the needs of the plan and is ill-judged.

8. Some joint machinery and project specific liaison with the NHS is also called for specifically to ensure that primary and community health service planning is joined up and consistent. Is the existing machinery adequate and sufficiently local focused and does it have the right people on it for this task?

9. As the largest single housing development in the plan is in Baldock, 2,800 in the Bygrave Rd area this needs to have the best and most joined up process and project and programme management if it is to be delivered. It is far less incremental than the others in its own terms and relative to the size of the Town. While I still consider the proposed development in the Bygrave Rd area to be too big, unwieldy and risky "if you are going to do this damned silly thing.." do please go about it in a thorough and sensible manner to make it work and not in a " damned silly way". I assume you do want to deliver it?

10. So the outline trajectories shown in Figure 6 need to be deconstructed and made more locally specific and integral to the plan . There need to be clear demographic assumptions about the population of people who are expected to move into Baldock as those will drive health ,education, transport and other service planning and design. "Wait and see" guarantees you get it wrong . Even if the assumptions are not absolutely correct ( they won't be) if you have an intelligent researched set of baseline assumptions you at least have some benchmarks to monitor so plans can be made and adjusted as you go.

11. There needs to be a named Baldock Town Project Manager or Director with the experience and skills to bring it all together and to gain the confidence of the people in Baldock- present and future. They need to feel that the plan will be sound and responsive to their evolving needs and concerns. If a local person with those qualities could be found so much the better. Retention of corporate memory over this time will be important as organisational change can lead to a planning hiatus leaving projects like this hanging in the air part delivered and poorly so.

Sections referred to are:

13.29 The Station Road / Clothall Road / Royston Road junction is identified as pinch point in the Council's transport modelling. Provision of a new road associated with BA1 linking the A507 with the A505 will help mitigate this issue enabling movement from north to east without the need to use the junction.
13.30 Additionally a southern link road is also proposed to enable the development of BA3 and BA4 but also improving connectivity to the south of the town providing the ability to bypass this junction.

*Strategic Transport - The scale of growth within the District will result in a significant number of new trips on a transport network that is already under stress in certain areas. Congestion issues are particularly focused within Hitchin and junctions relating to the A1(M). Not only as a result of growth in North Hertfordshire, but also in relation to existing issues and development in nearby authorities. There is a clear need to focus on promoting sustainable travel modes to limit the impacts of growth whilst delivering significant physical mitigation measures. Our transport modelling has helped to identify 11 specific schemes that will be required in the District over the period to 2031 as well as other schemes in neighbouring Stevenage which are influenced by this Plan's proposals[151].

* The health authorities will need to ensure there are the right medical facilities at the right time;

* 9.28 The policy addresses the protection of the health of the residents of proposed developments, as well as the protection of the residents of existing properties particularly, although not exclusively, those that live in close proximity to the District's roads. In addition to the air quality problems identified in Hitchin that are associated with elevated nitrogen dioxide (NO2), levels of NO2 are close to exceeding a national air quality objective around the A505 in the Hitchin Street / Whitehorse Street area of Baldock. Furthermore, particulate matter air pollution is a public health concern, which is reflected by the presence of a national air quality objective and a public health outcome indicator.
 

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed development north of Baldock on the land currently known as Bygrave Common. I understand that this land is owned by NHDC and it was for that reason that it was selected as a suitable site for approx. 2800 houses.

My greatest concern relates to the infrastructure arrangements, and in particular to the road transport links to the site. Currently this land is accessed from the A507 via Bygrave Road, which is a narrow country lane passing through Bygrave village and on to the south side of Ashwell. It was obviously recognised that this road was unsuitable for both construction traffic as well as the additional cars associated with the new housing. It has therefore been proposed to build a new road passing over the railway line from the A505 and passing north and west to meet the A507 at some point north of Baldock. This road would therefore enclose most of the site on the east side. It is unclear how it would traverse the Bygrave Road but I assume there would be a junction at that point giving access to the A505 east of Baldock for both existing Bygrave and Ashwell residents as well as all of the new estate. Unfortunately this would mean that the traffic would increase through Bygrave by virtue of Ashwell residents accessing the A505 and the new housing residents accessing the village of Ashwell and beyond. It would also serve as an easterly ring road round Baldock for traffic wishing to go east towards Royston, and vice versa. Unfortunately it would not relieve the pressure on the Baldock crossroads to any great extent because the southern bypass has no connection onto the A507 south of Baldock. Any north/south traffic would therefore need to continue through the Baldock crossroads.

As I am sure the council is aware, the main point of congestion in Baldock is at the crossroads between the A507 and the B656, and it was for this reason that the new southern bypass was built some years ago now. Failure to provide a link to the A507 seems to me to be a grave omission. This junction is already seriously congested in all directions at some part of the day, with the northern leg being particularly difficult for most of the day, not just during rush hours. Those of us who have to travel this route into Baldock on a regular basis have found this to our cost, and have to set out earlier than necessary to allow for the congestion delay, whilst relying on the good auspices of the A507 users to allow us out onto the main road.

At first glance the new link road to the A505 would offer an alternative route into Baldock and on to Letchworth for both existing residents and the new housing. However they would now be forced to approach Baldock from the east side of the bottleneck junction which would therefore become even more congested than it is presently. Those wishing to go south on the A507 would be similarly affected with only Stevenage bound travellers getting any benefit, assuming the Letchworth Gate roundabout or the B197 would cope with the additional numbers.

I therefore fail to see how the new access road will resolve any of the problems which already exist let alone coping with the additional cars associated with the new housing, and I therefore respectfully ask that no planning approval be given until a satisfactory road system can be put in place to manage existing and expected future traffic flows.

I would like to voice my objections to the NHDC local plan, for 2011 - 2031.
Particularly the enormous northern plan (BA1) where the majority of houses are to be built does not meet meets "tests of soundness" set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

I object to the current plan.

I object to the high number of houses proposed.
The poor planning piecemeal strategy.
The intolerable stress on Baldock's existing infrastructure.
The strain on the town centres capacity to contain the increase in traffic and people.

* There is no clear plan for development of the small local roads which will service the Northern site.
* There is no provision for the large increase in families with children using the already establishes local schools.
* The roads and parking around Knights Templar are inadequately prepared for such high numbers of cars and people. Morning and evening traffic will be problematic, even dangerous.
* The plan relies on the use of current utilities such as doctors surgery and public places such as community centres, libraries and halls.
* Current town centre parking is already at capacity. The increase in traffic and people will overwhelm the town.
* The plan does not offer sufficient school accommodation within the new site BA1 beyond a couple of token infant schools.
* The geographic placement of Baldock, it is in the middle of a 'bowl', which means the increased pollution within the area will not be effectively evacuated, possibly causing long term problems for the town population both young and old.
* Baldock is an historic town with a developing arts culture. The large increase in homes and peoples will turn the towns personality from personable to impersonal, halting its unique development.
* Surrounding natural areas will be reduced effecting local wildlife. No accommodation for this has been made in the plan.
* The plan allows the building of enough homes to create a whole new town. Baldock cannot sustain this without losing its unique historic nature.
* The flow of traffic into the new site has not been properly considered and Baldock Traffic lights will be an intolerable bottleneck.
* The new houses on the Northern site are on a hillside, making drainage and storm water a massive problem to the small Old London Road road running along the base of the development.
* No allocation has been made for trees and open spaces, leaving the site to be developed piecemeal into a sprawling housing estate.
*No considerate planning has been made for crossing the railway and the plan does not explain how it can be implemented if houses are developed slowly by different builders. Leaving the possibility of more local funding needed at a later date to rectify this and a disorganised development of the site.
* Baldock station will not be able to cope with the large influx of new home owners commuting to and from London.

Surely, with the amount of houses we are considering, would it not be better in the long term, to develop a new town? Close enough to create community ties and yet separate enough so as not to exasperate the Baldock infrastructure. This would offer more work to local people with its own shops, community services etc and the fresh need for shops and supermarkets.
NHDC's own plan states that the vast majority of land in Herts is rural. So why are we just squeezing more people into a small space?
Please come to Baldock and see what a fine town we have. Don't take the short term easy route to just add-to and make-good later on. Once the uniqueness of Baldock is gone it is gone forever.

My representation relates to site BA1 whereby it is proposed to build 2,800 houses North of Baldock on land including Blackhorse Farm.

I refer particularly to the existence of nesting Corn Buntings on the proposed site. The Corn Bunting is a farmland bird species that has declined by up to 90% in recent years. Recent survey work by Herts Bird Club (published 2014) identified at least 11 breeding pairs of Corn Buntings in the area on which you are proposing to build. The site is a 'local hotspot' for this bird and is of County Level Importance.

Corn Bunting is a Priority Species and the proposed site a Priority Habitat and, as such, I strongly object to housing being built in this area.

I understand, however, from your proposed submission, that you have a number of provisions that will 'increase, protect and enhance
biodiversity', 'protect the environment', 'secure any necessary mitigation measures that reduce the effect of the development' etc.

In particular, you have specified in SP14 (page 61) that 'planning permission for residential-led development will be granted where the following site specific requirements are met'...(in point j iii) 'appropriate mitigation, compensation and/or enhancement of key features of biodiversity measures will be taken....including...... identified protected species and priority habitats'....of which the Corn Bunting must be a part.

You state that you have a policy of habitat compensation i.e. finding a suitable site where the Corn Buntings will wish to breed. In order to go ahead with your plans for BA1, it will be necessary to find, construct or implement in some way, the appropriate compensatory habitat and ensure that sufficient Corn Buntings are breeding there before starting to implement your proposed building plan.

You have stated your policy in this respect as Policy NE6 (page 117) and I support this policy with the aforementioned proviso that sufficient Corn Buntings are breeding on the alternative site in advance of the start of any building works.

I believe these to be the only circumstances in which BA1 building should go ahead.

I have lived in the small hamlet of Bygrave, just outside Baldock for the last 30 years and I wish to object to site BA1 on the Local Plan for the following reasons. Baldock is a medieval town with significant archaeological remains buried. There is currently a dig taking place on the site BA1 which I understand has made a significant discovery.

Whilst I appreciate that more housing is needed in North Hertfordshire I believe that locating this on site BA1 and the effect that a doubling of Baldock will have on the town is ill thought out. The fields that it is planned to build on have crops grown every year as well as sheep grazed on them. This will be lost to the detriment of the local area. The development will also join Baldock with the hamlet of Bygrave as the site goes up to the boundary of 1 Ashwell Road, Bygrave. The entire site is Green Belt land which should be protected.

I agree with the three local MPs for this area, Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC, Rt Hon Peter Lilley and Stephen McPartland that a two stage plan is preferable. This would deal initially with the first 10 years looking at planning for the 3450 new homes which have not yet been identified to be found throughout the district before 2021. This period could then be used to identify and plan a new garden village development. With exiting the EU now in process the demand for housing in the future is not known.

The roads situation around Baldock is already very busy. Bygrave Road is a narrow country lane which leads in to the North Road. Traffic queues a long way back up this road due to the Clothall Road/Whitehorse Street/North Road/Royston Road traffic lights and the sheer volume of traffic trying to get through Baldock. This junction cannot be altered as there are listed buildings on two sides of this road (including Raban Court which was built in the 1500's). So, some of the traffic from the BA1 development will come out on to this road. A railway bridge goes over this road and is one lane each way with a very narrow pavement on both sides. The height of this bridge is 14'6" and there are regular bridge strikes. Some of these cause damage and Network Rail are involved in the repair. The trains are also disrupted. There are also frequent occasions where lorries realise they cannot get through and then cause traffic disruption whilst they make dangerous manoeuvres as they try and turn round. The A1 is already at a standstill during the rush hour period and the extra vehicles that will come from this development will make a dreadful situation worse. The Gresley Park proposals in Stevenage where 600 houses are planned. Traffic from this development will also add to the large number of vehicles travelling on the A1.

Govia Thameslink Railway are currently undertaking a timetable consultation for 2018 and are planning to reduce the number of trains stopping at Baldock. Until Sir Oliver Heald and the Baldock Councillors met GTR they were totally unaware of the Local Plan and the number of homes being built, with the resultant requirement of train travel. There is not enough possible local employment for these residents and they will need to travel to London and Cambridge for work.

NHDC intend to build a link road and bridge over the railway line. This will undoubtedly be in the view of a large part of Baldock and the new development. The traffic noise will be heard far and wide and ruin the local environment.

Air quality is also a concern. Baldock is located in a valley and prior to the Baldock bypass being built the levels of asthma in local children was well above the national average. After the opening of the bypass, air quality and other environmental factors improved in and around the town. The large number of homes proposed for Baldock will increase damaging air pollution.

The site BA1 is the home of several red listed birds. In particular the corn bunting which had massively declined in numbers up until 2010. It also provides the habitat for yellow wagtail, grey partridge and linnet. Other birds of interest to the RSPB which have a farmland habitat are the skylark, lapwing, yellowhammer and reed bunting and these have been seen here. There is a designated 'Heritage Verge' on the road between Baldock and Bygrave with examples of flora and fauna indigenous to the area which would be compromised by the development.

The proposals are ill conceived and badly thought out and I implore you to re-consider the Plan.

Baldock is a small historic Market town it sits in a valley.
There is a significant pinch point on the crossroads linking four roads. HGV's and extensive traffic use this along with young families with children going to school and commuters.

NPPF states that pollution is a material consideration and that more specifically that planning policies should sustain compliance, NHDC has not delivered on this policy.
Baldock is or already has close to exceeding elevated nitrogen dioxide on the pinch points around the A505 Hitchin St and Whitehorse St into the town.

NHDC propose that a bridge across the railway would eleviate the 7,000 extra cars plus lorries from using the crossroads but agreed at the consultation meeting that they couldn't know for sure how many would come into the town or railway or thoroughfare the bridge will be near the town.

When there is a high level of pollution already residents will be subjected to this oversized development North of Baldock which should be reduced to accommodate and integrate the infrastructure needed and confidence in our planning Authority thus enabling the existing residents and the new residents to integrate successfully.

Baldock has a good community spirit which has embraced new builds already one of which is already being built on the pinch point Raban Court 50 units. A further 586 is proposed on the local plan, adding once again to the high pollution.

We are objecting to the NHDC local plan 2011-2031 on the basis that it is not effective, not justified and not in line with national policy.

Our concerns relate mainly to the vast proposed development on the Blackhorse Farm site situated to the north of Baldock (BA1).
These include:
- Inappropriate scale
- Inadequate local infrastructure (schools and doctors surgeries)
- De-designation of green belt
- Loss of valuable fertile, food-producing farmland
- Traffic congestion in Baldock town centre
- Lack of access, capacity and parking at Baldock station
- Proposed new road linking A507 to A505
- Flooding
- Reduced quality of life for current residents

We will address these concerns in more detail below.

The scale of the proposed development in Baldock would increase its size by around 80%, whereas other Hertfordshire towns are only expanding by 10-20% - this seems unfair. Furthermore, the proposed development on the Blackhorse Farm site far exceeds anything that the small town of Baldock could realistically accommodate and would put massive pressure on amenities which are already overstretched. There is only one doctor's surgery in Baldock which also serves the surrounding villages (Weston and Sandon). Over the last 2 years, children from Bygrave have been unable to get places in the primary schools in Baldock due to them being oversubscribed, and I know that this has also resulted in children from Baldock being allocated places in surrounding village schools instead (Sandon, Ashwell and Weston). As the only secondary school in Baldock, Knights Templar already services the surrounding villages of Sandon, Weston and Ashwell too. The current plan does not mention the provision of additional educational and medical services, which would be essential from the outset. These factors deem the current plan ineffective and therefore not justified.

Regarding the proposed de-designation of the green belt, we should be doing everything in our power to prevent this. Greenbelt land is supposed to protect against urban sprawl, and the Blackhorse Farm green belt area has further served its purpose by maintaining an area for agriculture and providing a habitat for wildlife. Farmers in Bygrave have worked this land for generations, what will happen to them if it is developed? With an ever increasing population, surely we need to preserve established fertile farmland for food production. How can we have any faith in a planning system which allows councils to overrule long-established environmental protections as soon as they become inconvenient? There are other sites available that meet the planning criteria that are not in the greenbelt (such as that to the west of Stevenage); has enough consideration been given to their use? This plan is not the most appropriate strategy and is therefore not justified.

Further justification for maintaining this rural greenbelt area includes the lane from Bygrave to Baldock having environmentally protected grass verges. Eight of the RSPB's top ten declining farmland birds have been spotted in our area. These include the grey partridge (numbers down 56% in the last 17 years), skylark (down 24 %), corn bunting (down 39%), lapwing, yellow wagtail, linnet, yellow hammer and reed bunting. We often see turtle doves in Bygrave and the tree sparrow is starting to appear more frequently now.

Baldock town centre is already congested. Every time we try to leave Bygrave and access the A507 into Baldock (which is also the route past the station), we are stuck in traffic for ages, whatever the time of day. The tailbacks often extend much further back than this junction and increase significantly during peak periods. The crossroads creating this congestion have been there for hundreds of years and were never designed to carry anything like the current volume of traffic. They cannot be widened because they are surrounded by listed buildings. Most people living in Baldock, work south of the town (e.g. Stevenage/Luton/London). Development of the Blackhorse Farm site would worsen the congestion problem considerably, with more traffic having to enter the town through this already struggling junction. Baldock currently has a lack of parking, which would also be made much worse by this degree of new development. Air pollution appears to be an issue in Baldock, because it lies in a valley, and the sheer scale of the development planned for the Blackhorse Farm site would simply exacerbate this. These issues deem the current plan ineffective and therefore not justified.

Regarding access to Baldock station, this is already a problem, with commuters using the currently very limited on-site parking, having to negotiate their way through the congestion caused by the aforementioned crossroads. Regarding capacity, Baldock Station is very small, with limited undercover areas. Many commuters already have to stand for most of their journey. There is very limited on-site parking with most commuters having to park in surrounding roads. Have you thought about employment for all the people of working age who will be buying properties in the proposed Blackhorse Farm development; where are they all going to work? A small town like Baldock will not be able to accommodate so many new workers. Mostly they will have to commute by road to areas south of the town, resulting in the traffic issues described above, or by rail into the big cities like London or Cambridge, and this would only worsen both the traffic congestion around the station and the problems with station access, capacity and parking. Would such a development not be better off closer to centres of employment such as Stevenage? The local plan is not compliant with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework and is therefore not deliverable.

Although a transport assessment has not yet been published regarding the Blackhorse Farm development, the NHDC planners have proposed a road linking the A507 north of Baldock to the A505 east of Baldock. This may allow some traffic to avoid entering Baldock and the congested crossroads via the A507 (North Road). However, if people from the new development wanted to get into the town, they would be unlikely to drive a longer distance to enter the town via the A505 from Royston and the same congested crossroads, so would end up using the A507 but having to join the queue of traffic trying to access the town much further back than the people of Bygrave currently have to. Such a link road would however, benefit people travelling between places such as Ampthill and Royston, resulting in it becoming a very busy trunk road; which is not a desirable feature for the development. Furthermore, in bypassing Baldock, the design of this link road effectively separates the Blackhorse Farm development from the town, aligning it more closely with places like Norton and Stotfold, which would be more easily accessed. This contravenes section 2 of the National Planning Policy which advocates development of 'accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre'.

If the development does go ahead, it would be critical for us and the other residents of lower Bygrave, that any road crossing the railway line goes beneath it (in a tunnel) rather than over it (as a bridge), to reduce the noise and visual impact.

Have you considered the impact of road and house building on the risk of flooding? There is already frequent flooding in the town of Baldock. The Blackhorse farm site is on a hill which could exacerbate this. The surface water runoff currently soaks into the greenfields - If these are developed, it will also flow into the river Ivel which will become polluted. This deems the plan ineffective and therefore not justified.

There is no mention in the plan of what green space would be provided, what tree planting would happen to improve air quality and what parks would be provided for children.

Ultimately, people should have a choice of whether they want to live in a big town or city, or a small rural town or hamlet. Many of the residents of Baldock chose to live there because it is a small, rural market town. The residents of Bygrave chose to live there because it is a small rural hamlet surrounded by greenfields but within easy reach of Baldock. Development on this sort of scale would totally transform both Baldock and Bygrave, and reduce the quality of life for many of their residents.

In conclusion, we fully understand that more housing is needed, but Baldock is a small, historic market town containing over 100 listed buildings, surrounded by beautiful rural greenbelt. Surely it is better to infill carefully and sympathetically at an appropriate scale for the town, and relocate the bigger development to a more appropriate alternative site, or create a whole new town elsewhere to satisfy the requirement for larger development, with the necessary infrastructure put in place from the outset.

I wish to register my objection to the massive expansion being planned on the outskirts of Baldock.

The town cannot support such an increase in numbers on many fronts. The school places, the roads, the doctors, the trains and the general amenities cannot cope with such a large influx. Getting an appointment at the doctors - sometimes leading to the Hospital - will be almost impossible anywhere near the time needed. Waiting lists are increasing in Hospitals and all departments. Doctors are complaining now about overwork and long hours, how will it be when they have twice as many to fit in.

The train, packed now in the rush hours, will be overflowing. Our son, travelling to London each day at times has to stand and does without fail on the way home after a hard day's work. He is a constituent and has a vote but a lot of good it does him; councils of all colours don't listen to their voters.

We have lived in Baldock for 30 years and settled here for the small town life, the ambiance, the surrounding countryside which we walk (part of which will be concreted over with this plan), the friendliness of its people and much more. All these I feel will be affected by the extra numbers.

The Baldock we know and love will disappear beyond sight with this huge influx of people.

I am writing to object to the proposed massive increase in housing contemplated by the Local and County Councils.

I agree that more housing is needed all over the country though now with Brexit on the horizon I doubt we'll need so many extra dwellings. But the watchword I feel is proportionality. The numbers proposed for Baldock are way above what would be wise and common-sensical.

For a Market Town like Baldock to be doubled in size at the stroke of a pen is going against common sense. Over many years and after resident's pleas we have had two by-passes. Now with this expansion we shall need a third. But....where shall we put it. We've run out of ways to go.

I have just returned from Plymouth where pleas from residents of a suburb were overridden and now, as predicted there is absolute traffic chaos. And who suffers - the people, the Tax Payers those who have worked hard and done their duty and then are failed by their appointed representatives. Those elected, who have made all sorts of promises to make their lives better.

If this development goes ahead we will be subjected to even worse traffic queues of proportions we have not yet seen. We already have huge hold ups in exactly the area where the traffic from this site would need to travel.

Sadly, profit is at the heart of this plan, many will become rich by the end of this exercise. All bow down to the God Mammon.

I am writing in response to your communication of 17 October 2016 and the proposed Local Plan for North Hertfordshire. I have read through and digested the large amount of information contained in the plan as well as the National Planning Policy Framework, and, having done so, wish to make representations based on the following aspects of the plan and in particular, the considerable development which has been planned for the site to the north of the market town of Baldock.

Sustainable Transport Issues (SP6)
Firstly, with regard to the BA1 North of Baldock site, traffic congestion on the A507 has always been an enormous problem and it has been exacerbated since the opening of the Baldock by-pass in 2006. Access into the town of Baldock from the east/west A507 has always been inadequate and the north/south A1(M) consistently over-congested. Increased traffic on to the A507 from the BA1 site would encourage vehicles to use secondary unsuitable routes such as the single track Nortonbury Lane to access the town which would severely compromise the safety and nature of this lane. A further concern is the dangerous double bend on the A507 at Mill Valley which would put at risk traffic and pedestrians using any proposed access road onto the BA1 site. The town has been described as an hourglass, with the crossroads of A505 and A507 at the pinch point, its centre. The listed buildings (dating back to the 1500s) at the junction make finding a solution virtually impossible. There are already tailbacks from this junction back along the A507, bordering the site where the BA1 North of Baldock site is planned. This occurs at most times of the day and particularly during morning and evening peak times. This has also been exacerbated by Sat Nav companies guiding lorries and other traffic along the A507 and through this junction. It is probable that approximately 7,000 more vehicles will be generated from the new housing development as well as additional associated commercial traffic. Many of the town's amenities are on the other side of the town to the BA1 development and this will mean that cars will have to cross the very congested A505/A507 junction and add to the already heavy congestion to get to the town centre. NPPF Section 4 'Promoting Sustainable Transport' paragraph 32, states that 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment'. There are no detailed plans for reducing the impact of traffic from the North of Baldock site (BA1) on the A507/A505 Junction, except for a mini-roundabout and phased lights. The Station Road/North Road Railway bridge on the busy A507 is already being regularly damaged by the volume of heavy goods traffic, and the impact of more cars/pedestrians has not been fully assessed. The road under the bridge cannot be widened to accommodate the increase in traffic. There are two very narrow pedestrian ways under the bridge that cannot be widened to accommodate the increase in pedestrians walking to the station from the BA1 site. Pedestrians would be put at risk when using the two narrow footpaths under the bridge, indeed there have been pedestrians injured (including children) trying to use these footpaths in recent years.
The A1 is becoming significantly more congested due to a large number of houses that are being built in Biggleswade (which is just 8 miles north of Baldock on the AI). The addition of the proposed 7,000 vehicles from Baldock would add to this congestion causing North Herts to become even more gridlocked during peak times. At least a second rail crossing and a link road would have to be an essential part of a local plan. The plan mentions that the proposed site will need a new link road, including an additional bridge over the railway so that not all traffic has to use the Station Road/North Road bridge and A505/A507 Junction with its vulnerable historic buildings. However, the local sustainability transport assessment does not consider North Baldock in the traffic modelling, and local Plan Model Testing 60271338 states that Baldock and Letchworth have not been tested to date. Local Plan SP14 4.180 says safe access will be needed to the north of Baldock but doesn't say how it will be achieved. There is also mention of Southern link road in B3 and B4 but no details are given. The Plan is not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It also fails consistency with national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the BA1 site to work. Road links to the east and west are wholly inadequate and links north and south are already severely congested particularly at peak times. The local plan makes no mention of improvements to these road links. The mini-roundabout is the only cost included in the plan for Baldock despite the clear need for major transport projects, such as a new crossing with the railway and major roadways that would be required to divert at least some of the extra 7000 vehicles away from the A505/A507 junction.
In addition to my concerns over the road congestion, I also have doubts over the capacity for the railway to take a potential doubling of passengers (from new housing development) at Baldock train station. Commuters from the new development BA1 will require quick, safe and efficient access to the station. NPPF Paragraph 32 states that safe and suitable access to the site should be provided for all transport users. The railway station itself will need to be enhanced with additional services and facilities. Govia, the train service provider, is conducting its own consultation about changes to timetabling and new services starting in 2018 but there had been no communication up until November 2016 between NHDC and Govia relating to the proposed Local plan. The plan makes no significant mention of any proposed expansion of the railway station nor any mention of it other than the convenience of location near to a station. To my knowledge, NHDC has not consulted with Govia during the course of the preparation of this local plan. Moreover, Govia is currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock at off-peak times. NPPF Paragraph 32 goes on to state that development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the existing transport network. NPPF paragraph 32 states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. The Local Plan is therefore not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It also fails the national policy test as it does not properly assess the required transport improvements.

Housing Infrastructure (SP14)
I have further doubts over the provision of schools, health and recreational facilities and when and how they will be provided. Baldock already struggles to cope with sewage waste; the impact of a further 3,500 dwellings will create a sewage problem that will be insurmountable. SP14 states that a masterplan must be produced prior to any other detailed matters, however no detailed plans have been given. There is an Infrastructure development plan included in the evidence base (added September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans. NPPF paragraph 177 states that it is equally important that planned infrastructure be delivered 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. The local plan 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.

Air Pollution (D4)
Baldock is located in a bowl in the lee of the low lying Chiltern chalk hills, where pollution nests and which can lead to health problems such as asthma and other breathing problems. It is essential that assessment of the pollution impact of the extra 7,000 vehicles through the town be undertaken. Also, particulates from tyres and brakes cause pollution making roundabouts particularly bad. Notably, in paragraph 9.28, the plan notes that air quality standards are already close to being exceeded in Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street in Baldock. The Housing and Green Belt Background paper notes that former site 209E (Priory Fields in Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for building on for the same reason. NPPF Paragraph 124 states that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants. This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives and fails the criteria in that it is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

Town and Local Centres (SP4)
Baldock is the oldest and most historic town in North Hertfordshire. The historic town centre and the cultural aspects of Baldock should be protected. NPPF Paragraph 69 states that the planning system should play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities but the historic market town of Baldock cannot sustain the proposed 80% growth and the unique character of the town might be lost for ever. It is very possible that Baldock would become two towns with limited integration of social and economic communities. Local Plan Paragraph 4.38 states that the District contains a range of retail and service centres, from medium sized towns to small village and neighbourhood centres. Each one performs a particular role to meet the needs of its catchment population, and is part of a network of centres within the District, and the Council is committed to protect the vitality and viability of all centres. Paragraph 4.44 notes that the growth of the District will require additional centres to be provided to serve BA1 and the large developments at Baldock. This will require more than just a large housing estate. Moreover, NPPF Paragraph 126 states that local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. In this regard increasing the size of Baldock by 80% (3,500 houses) will put its significant heritage assets at great risk.

Landscape (NE1)
Ivel Nature Reserve a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Scheduled Ancient Monument needs protection and the siting of BA1, a very large housing development adjacent to this site will threaten the sensitive nature of its vulnerable biodiversity. There will be a significant detrimental impact on this ecologically sensitive area and local wildlife due to the loss of a very large area of open space which is essential for the survival of the rare breads of bats, newts and the corn bunting which exist there. The site has a history stretching back more than 5000 years, it is well greatly valued by locals and benefits greatly from the surrounding farmland. The 1979 Act (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) emphasises the need for care with planning consent in these instances. In addition, the BA1 site is designated as being of archaeological interest and is consequently subject to additional planning requirements. In the Local Plan, sustainability appraisal notes identify BA1 having moderate to high landscape sensitivity. NPPF 118 states: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Also, proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site's notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made if the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Local people are extremely concerned that this has not been adequately addressed in the local plan.

Countryside and Green Belt (SP5)
The BA1 site is Green Belt to the north of Baldock. It has been designated Green Belt to protect the northern boundary of the town and to preserve the setting and special character of the historic town of Baldock. The BA1 site is very well established quality and accessible agricultural land that has been devotedly farmed for many decades. If the BA1 site goes ahead this prime agricultural land will be lost for ever. There are many small holdings that will lose their land which has been handed down from generation to generation. Small farmers will lose their livelihood. There are doubts over whether adequate consideration has been given to available brownfield sites before building on Green Belt. Contrary to the NPPF paragraph 80 point 4, which lists one of the main purposes of the Green Belt is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns like Baldock (the oldest historic town in North Hertfordshire), the local plan, paragraph 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 Local Plan itself as the site will only be developed after the smaller sites across the town. This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. NPPF paragraph 82 states: The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. I do not believe that this is an exceptional circumstance. The BA1 North Baldock housing site has been designated purely on the basis that it is land currently owned by Hertfordshire County Council and therefore cheaply and easily acquired. There is no evidence to show that other sites were considered, and there is no assessment to show that this is the most suitable site for a development of this size. No other consideration has been given to justifying why the site north of Baldock is the best one available. Furthermore, the planned development at Baldock is vastly disproportionate to that which is planned for Letchworth and Hitchin, which are both significantly larger towns. Other land owners are prepared to put their land forward for development, however they have not been considered.

I wish to make it clear at this point that I am fully in agreement with the local council's obligation to provide housing to a growing population and that some housing should be planned for Baldock. However, a development of the size of that which is planned for Baldock is hugely out of proportion to the current size of the town and to the ability of the current transport and civic amenities to support and to sustain it.

I therefore wish to object to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 for the reasons I have stated above. I do not consider it a sound plan for the future of North Hertfordshire. It lacks a sense of clear vision for the future as there are many aspects of this plan which need further consideration and questions about the future provision of health, education and transport services which at this point in time remain unanswered. The plan is clearly at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework and my concerns and questions over the legality of the plan remain, for the time being, unanswered.

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

Whilst further detail around my objections can be found below my main concerns are that the plan is not effective as there is insufficient evidence that the traffic issues can be resolved within the plan period and it is not justified as there are more suitable alternative sites for houses closer to existing transport links and in towns where there is better existing infrastructure to support growth (for instance in Stevenage).

Section 4 - Communities

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

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

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

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

If you could confirm receipt of my email, that would be much appreciated.

My representation relates to site BA1 whereby it is proposed to build 2,800 houses North of Baldock on land including Blackhorse Farm.

I refer particularly to the existence of nesting Corn Buntings on the proposed site. The Corn Bunting is a farmland bird species that has declined by up to 90% in recent years. Recent survey work by Herts Bird Club (published 2014) identified at least 11 breeding pairs of Corn Buntings in the area on which you are proposing to build. The site is a 'local hotspot' for this bird and is of County Level Importance.

Corn Bunting is a Priority Species and the proposed site a Priority Habitat and, as such, I strongly object to housing being built in this area.

I understand, however, from your proposed submission, that you have a number of provisions that will 'increase, protect and enhance biodiversity', 'protect the environment', 'secure any necessary mitigation measures that reduce the effect of the development' etc.

In particular, you have specified in SP14 (page 61) that 'planning permission for residential-led development will be granted where the following site specific requirements are met'...(in point j iii) 'appropriate mitigation, compensation and/or enhancement of key features of biodiversity measures will be taken....including...... identified protected species and priority habitats'....of which the Corn Bunting must be a part.

You state that you have a policy of habitat compensation i.e. finding a suitable site where the Corn Buntings will wish to breed. In order to go ahead with your plans for BA1, it will be necessary to find, construct or implement in some way, the appropriate compensatory habitat and ensure that sufficient Corn Buntings are breeding there before starting to implement your proposed building plan.

You have stated your policy in this respect as Policy NE6 (page 117) and I support this policy with the aforementioned proviso that sufficient Corn Buntings are breeding on the alternative site in advance of the start of any building works.

I believe these to be the only circumstances in which BA1 building should go ahead

With regard to the possible development of land around Baldock to provide 3290 new houses, I would like to raise the following points:

Transport Links: As there does not appear to be any provision for large amounts of further employment in the proposals, I imagine the people living in the new development will need to travel out of Baldock to work. The two lane A1(M) is already severely congested between Baldock and Welwyn at peak times, with lots of slow moving traffic, queues and many accidents resulting from the volume of traffic. The large amount of extra traffic likely to be generated by this proposed development will mean much worse congestion on the A1(M), which will in turn have a knock on effect on other local roads, including the Baldock bypass. Taking this further, the A1 northbound from Baldock is also only 2 lanes and the other main routes away from Baldock (the A505 and particularly the A507) are already very busy and will all find it difficult to cope with very large amounts of extra traffic. I am very concerned that if the proposed development were to go ahead on this scale, the traffic around the area will be unmanageable, with Baldock being grid-locked every morning and evening.

Baldock rail station is also likely to see a large increase in the number of people wanting to travel by train. The trains are already very over-crowded and there is a proposal by the rail company to cut the number of off peak trains stopping at the station, which can only make matters worse. Also, the station only has parking for a very small amount of cars and the permitted car parks in the town are full to bursting during the week: where will the extra people park for the station?

Utilities: We are always being told we live in one of the driest areas of the country and must conserve water. Will the potential doubling of the population of Baldock be sustainable with regards to the amount of water required? Similarly how will the sewage system cope with the huge increase in waste? I am concerned that this will cause considerable problems in the future.

Development of Prime Agricultural land: Much of the land in the proposed development area is prime agricultural land. In the current climate, when land is being needed to grow crops to make sustainable fuel as well as for food, it does not appear sensible to build on it.

Detrimental affect to character of historic market town: I feel very strongly that this development is too big. Baldock is a small historic market town, with a strong sense of community. The proposed development will approximately double the population of the town and cannot fail to have an effect on both the physical character of the town (by bringing more traffic and greater numbers of people) and the community spirit. There will be greater pressure on all amenities including shops, doctors, dentists, vets, sports facilities etc as well as police, fire brigade, ambulances and schools. Baldock will go from being the smallest of the North Herts towns to being one of the biggest, with very little gain to the current community. The idea of a new garden city, with its own infrastructure and amenities, seems a much better option in my opinion.

I have lived in Bygrave for more than 30 years and I was born within one mile of the A507 in Bedfordshire. Because my parents both had parents living in Essex I regularly travelled on this route from a young age. My first memory of a traffic jam dates from 1950 when we were stuck on the A507 between Stotfold and Baldock which gave me a feeling of complete desperation that we might never arrive. Traffic gridlock is stressful for adults also and having worked in Letchworth Industrial Area for 12 years in the 1980's and 1990's I know that the bottleneck on the A507 entering Baldock is a continuing and progressive problem. It took me three times as long to drive to my workplace in the 1990's as it had done a decade earlier, and this was almost entirely due to traffic jams on the A507. I have driven the length of the A507 for both business and leisure for more than fifty years, and it is the proposed developments close to this road in the vicinity of Baldock that I most strongly object to in the NHDC plan. At a time when the Government is promising to spend more than one billion pounds to tackle congestion and claiming to promote "joined-up thinking" the NHDC plan appears to be completely at odds with Government policy.
The following points relating to the A507, to Baldock and its surrounding towns and villages should demonstrate the deficiencies in the local Plan.
A 507
1. This road provides an important east-west route with good links to the A1 and M1 motorways west of Baldock, and good links to Stanstead Airport and the East Coast ports to the east of Baldock.
2. There are no good alternative routes in this region.
3. Every town and village along this route has been bypassed in Bedfordshire. In Essex improvements to the route to both Stanstead and the coastal ports have been made. No improvements to the A507 have been made in Hertfordshire since the Buntingford bypass was built many years ago.
4. The only traffic lights and the only one way system on this road are in Baldock, which hosts the only section of this road that is subject to regular congestion and delays.
5. Lessons learned by most councils in the twentieth century should have informed NHDC by now. Most councils try to move major through roads out of town ( bypass ) rather than building the town around a through route, which is what the NHDC plan appears to do.

BALDOCK
1. It is an historic coaching and market town that benefited well into the twentieth century from the confluence of three major roads ( A1, A505 & A507 ) in the town. The rapid increase in traffic volumes during the last century meant that this became the main problem for Baldock which became the site of the worst traffic jams in North Hertfordshire.
2. Planning mistakes of the past, notably the extension of Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin along the route of the A505, have resulted in one large built up area in which each town suffers from the proximity of its neighbours. Baldock is the the least accessible and most congested town in this conurbation .
3. It has become primarily a dormitory town with the majority of its working inhabitants employed elsewhere. Baldock ranks as the worst shopping venue of any town in the region according to Venuescope UK shopping index, as well as having the smallest projected growth of retail space. Lack of ready access makes it an unattractive location for most types of business. It would also almost certainly rank amongst the most deprived towns in terms of its recreational facilities or most other amenities. More housing will destroy rather than revive the town.
4. Previous bypasses - the A1M and Baldock Eastern bypass - have provided only temporary or incomplete solutions to the towns traffic problems., While A1 through traffic has been removed from the town, the attempt to divert traffic from the A505 has been less successful. The Whitehorse Street junction where the A505 crosses the A507 will always remain the focal point for the towns traffic problems, and it is stating the obvious to say that further building along either of these routes in Baldock will compound an already intractable problem.
5. Unfortunately the Council have contributed to the congestion in Baldock by siting an Industrial area on the A505 immediately north of and close to the Whitehorse Street junction with the A507. Lorries turning left at this junction from the A507 towards this industrial area often navigate the junction so slowly that traffic inevitably backs up behind them. Lorries travelling north along Whitehorse Street towards the Industrial area are usually wide enough to block the filter lane left onto the A507 when traffic is stopped at the junction. Apart from this badly located Industrial area, the building and infilling with resid ential properties on the north of the A507 all contribute to congestion in and around the Whitehorse Street junction.
6. Access to Baldock railway station is often compromised by long queues of slow moving traffic approaching the junction ( as is access to and from the Ashwell Road ). Thus it may soon become as difficult to depart from Baldock as it is to enter the town.
7. The solution to this growing problem is a moratorium on all building north of the A 507 and no further extension of Baldock along this road unless and until an A507 Baldock bypass has been built. In the meantime the Green Belt should be extended on the north side of Baldock to ensure no further infilling contributes to the congestion.
NHDC LOCAL PLAN
This plan fails to meet any of the NPPF soundness criteria. It is not positively prepared because it fails to take into account regional travel requirements, and the major developments are planned in the most inappropriate locations ( Area codes BA1 & BA2 ). It is not justified because even if this large number of new houses is required in North Hertfordshire, which I doubt, it is easy to identify more appropriate locations. I note that this plan proposes a large new retail park
park in Royston together with a limited amount of new housing. Venuescope reveals that Royston already has much better shopping, as well as better recreational facilities than Baldock. It lies on the same London-Cambridge railway line and even a large scale retail and housing
development would have minimal effect on through traffic. Thus it is a more suitable location for such development.

NHDC admit that their plan would have negative effects upon residents in Baldock, which would also apply to residents in nearby settlements. The proposed expansion of the town in area BA1 would effectively turn Bygrave into an inaccessible suburb of the inaccessible town of Baldock.
Among negative effects noted by the Council are the following:
Significant loss of agricultural land.
Reduced access to open countryside.
Traffic congestion and pollution.
Reduction in quality of landscape and townscape character.
Impacts upon amenities and "a reduction in tranquillity for existing residents".

It sounds like a very bad plan. It is. This plan should be rejected.

There are many reasons why you would get complaints but I don't think the Councillors realize what this land means to many people, what it means to me and why we don't want them taking it away.

I have countless memories of walking across the hills, be it rain or shine. In summer we walk over the hill twice a day and recently have lugged water balloons over to play after playing in the edge of the irrigation systems water that splashed across the path.
The view on top of the hill is fantastic, you can even see Letchworth, Weston hills, St. Mary's church spire.
The hill opens up loads of paths where you can go to different villages nearby like Bygrave, Royston, Aswell, Baldock you can even walk to the services! It makes you feel very linked with the community.

There's loads of wildlife and while walking over you are sure to see amazing sights.
Without specifically looking I have seen birds such as skylarks, red kites, crows, pheasants, sparrows, swifts, pigeons (of course), collared doves, even grey partridges with their chicks- which are endangered. I have even heard an owl which was a beautiful surprise. There are often bunnies in the field and even hedgehogs. We've seen a bees nest and spent half an hour watching bumble bees trying to carry soil double their weight. With wings flailing they would scrabble along trying to use the wind to help them in their way.

Every year the farmer is growing new things, wheat, oats, potatoes, rapeseed and more. It's so nice to have British grown vegetables, as they are supporting our local farmers and are also healthier for the environment as they do not need to be transported across the world, and less preservatives have to be used.
There are farms all along Bygrave road who are scared for their livelihood.
There are worries of property prices falling, increased pollution, village life disappearing, an influx of people and congestion as we won't be able to get out of our house in the morning.

Baldock is an old market town that has a very historic heritage. To build houses on its greenbelt would, I feel, be a mistake as it would no longer be the small town on its way to London, it would become one massive town joined to others by a monstrosity of houses.
The pollution will be immense and they aren't planning anything to solve that problem.

My parents move to Baldock before I was born and as it is to many people it is my home. I can t bare to think of it being destroyed and it makes me so upset to think about it.
There are many empty houses around and lots of abandoned brownfield sites that would be perfect to use, in fact a farmer has even offered different land to be used. I don't believe we should just build on this site because it's easiest, I believe that we should do what we can to save the greenbelt for our future generations, that they too may experience the wonders of nature, Without having to travel for so long.

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, 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 then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the 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. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

Baldock is already severely lacking in recreational amenities for its current population - we would be inviting more bored teens and young adults to hang around in a town filled with pubs and little else. There is no longer any resident police to deal with problems that arise now, never mind the future.
Please consider the current plans for Baldock and the whole of North Hertfordshire carefully. The North of England is crying out for growth and yet the South continues to be further and further stretched and ruined.
Whatever building is eventually decided for Baldock, I would like to be assured that it will be allocated to local people first. There must be a guaranteed proportion set aside for local people. After all, this is supposed to be meeting our needs - rather than accommodating yet more commuters moving in to an area. The number of dwellings currently being planned for Baldock is unjust, unfair and completely disproportionate compared to the rest of the area.
There are many more reasons to not develop certain planned areas around Baldock - excavation of Roman sites, flooding, sewerage, access roads, local work opportunities (or lack of) etc. I hope that other residents will take up clearer and more informed reasoning on those points than I can. I again ask you to consider carefully all the objections put forward and look at the wider picture for the whole of North Hertfordshire.
I would like to be kept updated on the Plan's progress and I would like to be invited to the Public Hearing. Thank you for your time and informed consideration.