Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I would like to formally register my views on the proposed plans, and in particular my opposition to certain aspects proposed in the 20 year plan relating to Baldock, which I believe are not sound.

Firstly, Baldock is a unique rural market town in Hertfordshire which has managed to retain a strong local community whilst transitioning to a modern thriving town, with local shops, restaurants, pubs, small businesses and excellent schools. Increasing the size of Baldock by 3,290 new homes would equate to a population increase of approximately 8,000 people, nearly doubling the number of Baldock residents (based upon an average 2.4 people per household, as used by the Office of National Statistics). This will undoubtedly have a major impact to the feel of the town, dramatically changing the character of the town. Baldock does not have the space or infrastructure within its Town Centre to be able to expand and provide the kind of shops comparable to the likes of Letchworth or Hitchin, which would be necessary to support the increased number of residents. Even with careful planning it is hard to imagine how the necessary broader infrastructure (roads, railways, services and schools) could be developed at the necessary pace to support the proposed housing development. As far as I am aware, there is no overall integrated plan with Network Rail and the local rail service provider to cope with likely increase in commuters using the railways. Nor am I aware of any modelling of the impact that the proposed developments would have on the volume of road traffic entering Baldock. There would likely be a significant increase in the volume of traffic passing through the town centre, unless of course the old proposed northern by-pass is also built as part of the new development, though this was considered unsound at the time of the by-pass debate which resulted in the selection and construction if the eastern by-pass. On the basis that all these things do not appear to have been fully considered, then I believe that the proposal is not sound.

The development strategy ought to be to maximise use of existing brown field sites within the boundary of Baldock; minimise the growth of Baldock and protect the countryside, open areas and Green Belt local to Baldock and rather, the planning authority ought to consider the establishment of a New Town in Hertfordshire which can be developed in a more controlled, planned way, with the local infrastructure developing at the same pace as the new town.

I have no objection to the development of Areas BA2; BA4; BA5; BA7 and BA11, but I strongly object to Areas BA3 and BA1 being developed, on the basis of my concerns outlined above. A major additional concern to the development of Areas BA1 and BA3 is that these are prime green belt land, which goes against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, and would result in the loss of the rural feel to the existing boundary of Clothall Common, adjacent to the retained Allotments. This is an important feature to the balance of the feeling of the town (modern and old) with its rural surroundings. Any such housing would be very close to the Baldock by-pass, which is not sound from an environmental perspective with the potential for high levels of air and noise pollution for those residents.

I feel strongly that we must not reduce the easy access to open fields and Green Belt land for the local community of Baldock, and rather focus more on re-using and re-claiming existing industrial or brown field sites. On that basis I would also ask the Planning Authority to consider re-using Areas BE1; BB1; BE2 and BA10 for housing and re-locating those existing businesses to other modern industrial capacity in neighbouring towns.

I would like to formally register my views on the proposed plans, and in particular my opposition to certain aspects proposed in the 20 year plan relating to Baldock, which I believe are not sound.

Firstly, Baldock is a unique rural market town in Hertfordshire which has managed to retain a strong local community whilst transitioning to a modern thriving town, with local shops, restaurants, pubs, small businesses and excellent schools. Increasing the size of Baldock by 3,290 new homes would equate to a population increase of approximately 8,000 people, nearly doubling the number of Baldock residents (based upon an average 2.4 people per household, as used by the Office of National Statistics). This will undoubtedly have a major impact to the feel of the town, dramatically changing the character of the town. Baldock does not have the space or infrastructure within its Town Centre to be able to expand and provide the kind of shops comparable to the likes of Letchworth or Hitchin, which would be necessary to support the increased number of residents. Even with careful planning it is hard to imagine how the necessary broader infrastructure (roads, railways, services and schools) could be developed at the necessary pace to support the proposed housing development. As far as I am aware, there is no overall integrated plan with Network Rail and the local rail service provider to cope with likely increase in commuters using the railways. Nor am I aware of any modelling of the impact that the proposed developments would have on the volume of road traffic entering Baldock. There would likely be a significant increase in the volume of traffic passing through the town centre, unless of course the old proposed northern by-pass is also built as part of the new development, though this was considered unsound at the time of the by-pass debate which resulted in the selection and construction if the eastern by-pass. On the basis that all these things do not appear to have been fully considered, then I believe that the proposal is not sound.

The development strategy ought to be to maximise use of existing brown field sites within the boundary of Baldock; minimise the growth of Baldock and protect the countryside, open areas and Green Belt local to Baldock and rather, the planning authority ought to consider the establishment of a New Town in Hertfordshire which can be developed in a more controlled, planned way, with the local infrastructure developing at the same pace as the new town.

I have no objection to the development of Areas BA2; BA4; BA5; BA7 and BA11, but I strongly object to Areas BA3 and BA1 being developed, on the basis of my concerns outlined above. A major additional concern to the development of Areas BA1 and BA3 is that these are prime green belt land, which goes against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, and would result in the loss of the rural feel to the existing boundary of Clothall Common, adjacent to the retained Allotments. This is an important feature to the balance of the feeling of the town (modern and old) with its rural surroundings. Any such housing would be very close to the Baldock by-pass, which is not sound from an environmental perspective with the potential for high levels of air and noise pollution for those residents.

I feel strongly that we must not reduce the easy access to open fields and Green Belt land for the local community of Baldock, and rather focus more on re-using and re-claiming existing industrial or brown field sites. On that basis I would also ask the Planning Authority to consider re-using Areas BE1; BB1; BE2 and BA10 for housing and re-locating those existing businesses to other modern industrial capacity in neighbouring towns.