Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We wish to protest about the utterly unfair, disproportionate and unjust proposed housing developments at Baldock which will ruin our lovely town. Ever since NHDC was formed Baldock, as its smallest town, has been at the back of the queue for everything and now the Council has decided to dump the bulk of its housing allocation on us simply because it is easy to do so and because we do not have the power or the votes to prevent it. It is a mockery of democracy and so-called localism.
Baldock has already undergone enormous expansion in the last 60 years or so and
particularly in the last 35 years. It is remarkable that it has managed to keep some of its rural charm, historic character and sense of community through all those changes and the indifference of successive Councils. It is unlikely to survive the sheer scale and rapidity of these latest proposals and a unique community will be lost forever.
Natural Environment, Historic Environment, Countryside and Green Belt:
* The Ivel
These four large developments are bound to have an adverse effect on the water table, threatening not only our water supply but also the rare chalk stream habitat of the River Ivel which rises on the northern edge of the town and draws its water from the same chalk strata. The Ivel already suffers from the growth of the town as it is now and the effects of an increase of a further 75% of housing could cause severe damage.
The Plan does not seem to have made any assessment of the likely damage to the water supply or the river nor does it include any plan to avoid these effects.
* Sewerage
The Plan does not say whether or not it has been ascertained if the sewerage pumping station at Baldock (all Baldock's sewerage flows into the Ivel after treatment) can cope with a 75% increase in sewerage and prevent an overflow into the Ivel.
* Green Belt
The Plan involves building on Green Belt contrary to Government guidelines when there is a preponderance of non-Green Belt land in the District.
* Heritage:
No account been taken of the historic landscape setting of the town contrary to
Government guidelines specifying 'that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource'
and should be conserved 'in a manner appropriate to their significance'.
The Plan quotes the NPPF guidelines as saying that there should be 'conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environments, including landscapes' yet it treats the historic environment as a separate matter relating only to conservation areas and listed buildings. A town or village is often an important part of a landscape and it is ridiculous to treat them separately.
The Plan claims to refuse developments (NE1) that are 'have a detrimental impact on the appearance of their immediate surroundings and the lanscape character of the area' without 'suitable mitigation' yet have not even considered the matter in regard to the proposed spoliation of some fine landscapes, particularly the very attractive valley and landscape views leading down to the town from the hills around Clothall and Quickswood which will be badly spoilt by BA2 & BA3. BA1 will also spoil an attractive piece of countryside on Bygrave Common which is an important part of the setting of the Ivel Springs Nature Reserve and of the town itself.
Infrastructure Delivery:
* Roads:
Baldock's road system in the historic town centre is already badly congested at certain times of the day with consequent severe pollution in Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street where, according to |NHDC, levels of NO2 are 'close to exceeding National Air Quality objectives'. This is despite two major bypasses carrying non-local traffic.
Most of the traffic through and in the town is local traffic which appears to be going
between Baldock and Letchworth (the industrial estate of the latter being the main local source of local employment). This congestion is severely aggravated at the times of the school run. The main traffic queues occur in Hitchin Street, Station Road/North Road and Clothall Road because of the junctions at either end of Whitehorse Street (only about 250 yards apart) which street carries the greatest volume of traffic. The proposals for all four sites will add to this problem by adding local traffic in significant volumes yet the Plan claims that it 'addresses the protection of the health of residents'.
The great size of the BA1 scheme would greatly increase the problems in North
Road/Station Road, Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street for the above reasons. The
railway line blocks any convenient alternative. The proposal to run a relief road to the eastern Baldock exit on the southern bypass is impractical because it is incovenient for most local traffic flows (ie. to Letchworth, where it would meet queues at Letchworth Gate,) and would mean a long detour to most local destinations to the west. It would also be very expensive. One might also add that if two major bypasses have not prevented traffic problems in Baldock this proposed relief road running in the wrong direction is unlikely to succeed.
The plan does not include any idea of the cost that the railway may impose for allowing a bridge to be built for the relief road, or the cost of the bridge, or who would be liable for the cost.
BA2, BA3 and BA4 would also cause further congestion at the Whitehorse Street
junctions and would cause increased traffic along South Road, a residential street not well adapted, or adaptable, to high traffic flows and already suffering as a 'rat-run'.
There is no obvious, viable means of alleviating these problems.
* The Railway:
The railway is already at capacity how will it cope with this number of extra commuters?
It is even proposed that the number of trains is to be cut which will make the situation
intolerable because many of the likely new residents will be commuting by train.
Logically large scale housing would be better sited near to the main line railway, not
this branch line, and near to the three lane section of the A1.
* Pedestrian access:
Pedestrian access to the town from BA1 is poor because of the narrow pavements under the railway bridge and the consequent risk to pedestrians and especially children, this will only add to the traffic problems as people would use cars for school runs etc. instead of walking.
* Services
The scale and speed of these changes will mean that the schools, medical services, the doctor's surgery will be unable to cope. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this? Where will the extra doctors and nurses come from?
Conclusion There seems to be no attempt in the Plan to find any alternative to this inequitable and disproportionate distribution of housing. No real attempt has been made to encourage other landowners to come forward with possible sites, not even the County Council which holds many other parcels of land in the District. Why, for instance, have the large HCC holdings north of Ickleford not been considered? They are conveniently placed for the mainline railway at Arlesey and for major employment centres at Hitchin, Bedford and Letchworth.
Like so many plans of this sort this Plan contains many fine sounding aspirations and
policies which are simply ignored when it does not suit and is therefore so much highflown verbiage. This cannot disguise the failure to follow the NPPF guidelines in many instances, or the basic dishonesty and unfairness of these proposals which threaten the future of this town, its sense of community and its quality of life as well as the natural environment.

We wish to protest about the utterly unfair, disproportionate and unjust proposed housing developments at Baldock which will ruin our lovely town. Ever since NHDC was formed Baldock, as its smallest town, has been at the back of the queue for everything and now the Council has decided to dump the bulk of its housing allocation on us simply because it is easy to do so and because we do not have the power or the votes to prevent it. It is a mockery of democracy and so-called localism.
Baldock has already undergone enormous expansion in the last 60 years or so and
particularly in the last 35 years. It is remarkable that it has managed to keep some of its rural charm, historic character and sense of community through all those changes and the indifference of successive Councils. It is unlikely to survive the sheer scale and rapidity of these latest proposals and a unique community will be lost forever.
Natural Environment, Historic Environment, Countryside and Green Belt:
* The Ivel
These four large developments are bound to have an adverse effect on the water table, threatening not only our water supply but also the rare chalk stream habitat of the River Ivel which rises on the northern edge of the town and draws its water from the same chalk strata. The Ivel already suffers from the growth of the town as it is now and the effects of an increase of a further 75% of housing could cause severe damage.
The Plan does not seem to have made any assessment of the likely damage to the water supply or the river nor does it include any plan to avoid these effects.
* Sewerage
The Plan does not say whether or not it has been ascertained if the sewerage pumping station at Baldock (all Baldock's sewerage flows into the Ivel after treatment) can cope with a 75% increase in sewerage and prevent an overflow into the Ivel.
* Green Belt
The Plan involves building on Green Belt contrary to Government guidelines when there is a preponderance of non-Green Belt land in the District.
* Heritage:
No account been taken of the historic landscape setting of the town contrary to
Government guidelines specifying 'that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource'
and should be conserved 'in a manner appropriate to their significance'.
The Plan quotes the NPPF guidelines as saying that there should be 'conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environments, including landscapes' yet it treats the historic environment as a separate matter relating only to conservation areas and listed buildings. A town or village is often an important part of a landscape and it is ridiculous to treat them separately.
The Plan claims to refuse developments (NE1) that are 'have a detrimental impact on the appearance of their immediate surroundings and the lanscape character of the area' without 'suitable mitigation' yet have not even considered the matter in regard to the proposed spoliation of some fine landscapes, particularly the very attractive valley and landscape views leading down to the town from the hills around Clothall and Quickswood which will be badly spoilt by BA2 & BA3. BA1 will also spoil an attractive piece of countryside on Bygrave Common which is an important part of the setting of the Ivel Springs Nature Reserve and of the town itself.
Infrastructure Delivery:
* Roads:
Baldock's road system in the historic town centre is already badly congested at certain times of the day with consequent severe pollution in Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street where, according to |NHDC, levels of NO2 are 'close to exceeding National Air Quality objectives'. This is despite two major bypasses carrying non-local traffic.
Most of the traffic through and in the town is local traffic which appears to be going
between Baldock and Letchworth (the industrial estate of the latter being the main local source of local employment). This congestion is severely aggravated at the times of the school run. The main traffic queues occur in Hitchin Street, Station Road/North Road and Clothall Road because of the junctions at either end of Whitehorse Street (only about 250 yards apart) which street carries the greatest volume of traffic. The proposals for all four sites will add to this problem by adding local traffic in significant volumes yet the Plan claims that it 'addresses the protection of the health of residents'.
The great size of the BA1 scheme would greatly increase the problems in North
Road/Station Road, Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street for the above reasons. The
railway line blocks any convenient alternative. The proposal to run a relief road to the eastern Baldock exit on the southern bypass is impractical because it is incovenient for most local traffic flows (ie. to Letchworth, where it would meet queues at Letchworth Gate,) and would mean a long detour to most local destinations to the west. It would also be very expensive. One might also add that if two major bypasses have not prevented traffic problems in Baldock this proposed relief road running in the wrong direction is unlikely to succeed.
The plan does not include any idea of the cost that the railway may impose for allowing a bridge to be built for the relief road, or the cost of the bridge, or who would be liable for the cost.
BA2, BA3 and BA4 would also cause further congestion at the Whitehorse Street
junctions and would cause increased traffic along South Road, a residential street not well adapted, or adaptable, to high traffic flows and already suffering as a 'rat-run'.
There is no obvious, viable means of alleviating these problems.
* The Railway:
The railway is already at capacity how will it cope with this number of extra commuters?
It is even proposed that the number of trains is to be cut which will make the situation
intolerable because many of the likely new residents will be commuting by train.
Logically large scale housing would be better sited near to the main line railway, not
this branch line, and near to the three lane section of the A1.
* Pedestrian access:
Pedestrian access to the town from BA1 is poor because of the narrow pavements under the railway bridge and the consequent risk to pedestrians and especially children, this will only add to the traffic problems as people would use cars for school runs etc. instead of walking.
* Services
The scale and speed of these changes will mean that the schools, medical services, the doctor's surgery will be unable to cope. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this? Where will the extra doctors and nurses come from?
Conclusion There seems to be no attempt in the Plan to find any alternative to this inequitable and disproportionate distribution of housing. No real attempt has been made to encourage other landowners to come forward with possible sites, not even the County Council which holds many other parcels of land in the District. Why, for instance, have the large HCC holdings north of Ickleford not been considered? They are conveniently placed for the mainline railway at Arlesey and for major employment centres at Hitchin, Bedford and Letchworth.
Like so many plans of this sort this Plan contains many fine sounding aspirations and
policies which are simply ignored when it does not suit and is therefore so much highflown verbiage. This cannot disguise the failure to follow the NPPF guidelines in many instances, or the basic dishonesty and unfairness of these proposals which threaten the future of this town, its sense of community and its quality of life as well as the natural environment.

We wish to protest about the utterly unfair, disproportionate and unjust proposed housing developments at Baldock which will ruin our lovely town. Ever since NHDC was formed Baldock, as its smallest town, has been at the back of the queue for everything and now the Council has decided to dump the bulk of its housing allocation on us simply because it is easy to do so and because we do not have the power or the votes to prevent it. It is a mockery of democracy and so-called localism.
Baldock has already undergone enormous expansion in the last 60 years or so and
particularly in the last 35 years. It is remarkable that it has managed to keep some of its rural charm, historic character and sense of community through all those changes and the indifference of successive Councils. It is unlikely to survive the sheer scale and rapidity of these latest proposals and a unique community will be lost forever.
Natural Environment, Historic Environment, Countryside and Green Belt:
* The Ivel
These four large developments are bound to have an adverse effect on the water table, threatening not only our water supply but also the rare chalk stream habitat of the River Ivel which rises on the northern edge of the town and draws its water from the same chalk strata. The Ivel already suffers from the growth of the town as it is now and the effects of an increase of a further 75% of housing could cause severe damage.
The Plan does not seem to have made any assessment of the likely damage to the water supply or the river nor does it include any plan to avoid these effects.
* Sewerage
The Plan does not say whether or not it has been ascertained if the sewerage pumping station at Baldock (all Baldock's sewerage flows into the Ivel after treatment) can cope with a 75% increase in sewerage and prevent an overflow into the Ivel.
* Green Belt
The Plan involves building on Green Belt contrary to Government guidelines when there is a preponderance of non-Green Belt land in the District.
* Heritage:
No account been taken of the historic landscape setting of the town contrary to
Government guidelines specifying 'that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource'
and should be conserved 'in a manner appropriate to their significance'.
The Plan quotes the NPPF guidelines as saying that there should be 'conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environments, including landscapes' yet it treats the historic environment as a separate matter relating only to conservation areas and listed buildings. A town or village is often an important part of a landscape and it is ridiculous to treat them separately.
The Plan claims to refuse developments (NE1) that are 'have a detrimental impact on the appearance of their immediate surroundings and the lanscape character of the area' without 'suitable mitigation' yet have not even considered the matter in regard to the proposed spoliation of some fine landscapes, particularly the very attractive valley and landscape views leading down to the town from the hills around Clothall and Quickswood which will be badly spoilt by BA2 & BA3. BA1 will also spoil an attractive piece of countryside on Bygrave Common which is an important part of the setting of the Ivel Springs Nature Reserve and of the town itself.
Infrastructure Delivery:
* Roads:
Baldock's road system in the historic town centre is already badly congested at certain times of the day with consequent severe pollution in Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street where, according to |NHDC, levels of NO2 are 'close to exceeding National Air Quality objectives'. This is despite two major bypasses carrying non-local traffic.
Most of the traffic through and in the town is local traffic which appears to be going
between Baldock and Letchworth (the industrial estate of the latter being the main local source of local employment). This congestion is severely aggravated at the times of the school run. The main traffic queues occur in Hitchin Street, Station Road/North Road and Clothall Road because of the junctions at either end of Whitehorse Street (only about 250 yards apart) which street carries the greatest volume of traffic. The proposals for all four sites will add to this problem by adding local traffic in significant volumes yet the Plan claims that it 'addresses the protection of the health of residents'.
The great size of the BA1 scheme would greatly increase the problems in North
Road/Station Road, Whitehorse Street and Hitchin Street for the above reasons. The
railway line blocks any convenient alternative. The proposal to run a relief road to the eastern Baldock exit on the southern bypass is impractical because it is incovenient for most local traffic flows (ie. to Letchworth, where it would meet queues at Letchworth Gate,) and would mean a long detour to most local destinations to the west. It would also be very expensive. One might also add that if two major bypasses have not prevented traffic problems in Baldock this proposed relief road running in the wrong direction is unlikely to succeed.
The plan does not include any idea of the cost that the railway may impose for allowing a bridge to be built for the relief road, or the cost of the bridge, or who would be liable for the cost.
BA2, BA3 and BA4 would also cause further congestion at the Whitehorse Street
junctions and would cause increased traffic along South Road, a residential street not well adapted, or adaptable, to high traffic flows and already suffering as a 'rat-run'.
There is no obvious, viable means of alleviating these problems.
* The Railway:
The railway is already at capacity how will it cope with this number of extra commuters?
It is even proposed that the number of trains is to be cut which will make the situation
intolerable because many of the likely new residents will be commuting by train.
Logically large scale housing would be better sited near to the main line railway, not
this branch line, and near to the three lane section of the A1.
* Pedestrian access:
Pedestrian access to the town from BA1 is poor because of the narrow pavements under the railway bridge and the consequent risk to pedestrians and especially children, this will only add to the traffic problems as people would use cars for school runs etc. instead of walking.
* Services
The scale and speed of these changes will mean that the schools, medical services, the doctor's surgery will be unable to cope. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this? Where will the extra doctors and nurses come from?
Conclusion There seems to be no attempt in the Plan to find any alternative to this inequitable and disproportionate distribution of housing. No real attempt has been made to encourage other landowners to come forward with possible sites, not even the County Council which holds many other parcels of land in the District. Why, for instance, have the large HCC holdings north of Ickleford not been considered? They are conveniently placed for the mainline railway at Arlesey and for major employment centres at Hitchin, Bedford and Letchworth.
Like so many plans of this sort this Plan contains many fine sounding aspirations and
policies which are simply ignored when it does not suit and is therefore so much highflown verbiage. This cannot disguise the failure to follow the NPPF guidelines in many instances, or the basic dishonesty and unfairness of these proposals which threaten the future of this town, its sense of community and its quality of life as well as the natural environment.