Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to put forward my comments on the Local Plan 2011-2031, with particular reference to Baldock.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to develop areas BA1 and BA3 on the plan and believe the plan to be unsound for the following reasons:-

1) The scale of the development is inappropriate to Baldock, which is a small historic market town and one of the oldest settlements in the country. Development on this scale would have the effect of almost doubling the size and population of the town and would spoil its special character.

Although the plan allows for the provision of schools and shops on the BA1 area, there will still only be one Baldock town centre which will become choked by the additional traffic coming in to use its facilities. This will not be alleviated at all by the existence of the Baldock bypass - even today the town continues to suffer from congestion at peak times. Similarly there will still only be one small railway station, which is already very busy at peak times and will not be able to cope with a dramatic increase in commuters.

2) The development of areas BA1 and BA3 would be on prime Green Belt land. As such it would go against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, nor would it prevent neighbouring areas from merging into each other as BA1 would see the merger of Baldock and lower Bygrave. It would also encroach into the countryside, meaning that Baldock would lose its beautiful rural landscapes, which in turn would spoil its rural market town setting.

Development of area BA3 also goes against the original principles of preserving the landscape which were followed when the bypass was built, where the road was built into a hollow so that it could not be seen. The residents of this area, should it be developed, would suffer air and noise pollution from the bypass traffic.

It is well known that access to open spaces enhances the health and well-being of local communities. Development of these two areas would have a detrimental effect on the existing residents of Baldock as the open spaces available to them would be further away, and life in the town centre would be more inconvenient. The open areas are also wildlife habitats and development there would threaten a number of species, including at-risk farmland birds, with no guarantees that they could be successfully relocated.


I do recognise the need to provide extra housing for the area and have no objection to the proposed development of areas BA2, BA4, BA5, BA7 and BA11 on the plan. In fact I would suggest that area BA4 could actually be expanded, in a north-easterly direction parallel with the A505 towards the junction with the bypass, as long as it did not extend as far as the junction or run alongside the bypass.

I have objected to the development of area BA5 in the past, but would rather this area was developed instead of Green Belt land.

Furthermore, I would suggest that extra housing could be built on area BA10 of the plan, as an alternative to developing open land. The possibility of building a new town at a new location in Hertfordshire should also be reconsidered.

My final comment would be that the estimates for the numbers of new homes required were made before the UK voted to leave the European Union, and as such would have had to allow for unrestricted numbers of people coming to live in the UK from Europe. If the UK is to limit these numbers then the forecasts should be re-estimated both locally and nationally, in which case I would expect the estimates to be reduced, including those for North Hertfordshire. As the forecasts are probably now over-estimates I do not believe the plan is sound, based on these numbers, nor that the "exceptional circumstances" rule can be applied to sanction building on Green Belt land around Baldock.

I would be grateful if you could forward my comments to the Independent Planning Inspector and notify me when the Local Plan is submitted.

I wish to put forward my comments on the Local Plan 2011-2031, with particular reference to Baldock.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to develop areas BA1 and BA3 on the plan and believe the plan to be unsound for the following reasons:-

1) The scale of the development is inappropriate to Baldock, which is a small historic market town and one of the oldest settlements in the country. Development on this scale would have the effect of almost doubling the size and population of the town and would spoil its special character.

Although the plan allows for the provision of schools and shops on the BA1 area, there will still only be one Baldock town centre which will become choked by the additional traffic coming in to use its facilities. This will not be alleviated at all by the existence of the Baldock bypass - even today the town continues to suffer from congestion at peak times. Similarly there will still only be one small railway station, which is already very busy at peak times and will not be able to cope with a dramatic increase in commuters.

2) The development of areas BA1 and BA3 would be on prime Green Belt land. As such it would go against the principle of checking the unrestricted spread of large built-up areas, nor would it prevent neighbouring areas from merging into each other as BA1 would see the merger of Baldock and lower Bygrave. It would also encroach into the countryside, meaning that Baldock would lose its beautiful rural landscapes, which in turn would spoil its rural market town setting.

Development of area BA3 also goes against the original principles of preserving the landscape which were followed when the bypass was built, where the road was built into a hollow so that it could not be seen. The residents of this area, should it be developed, would suffer air and noise pollution from the bypass traffic.

It is well known that access to open spaces enhances the health and well-being of local communities. Development of these two areas would have a detrimental effect on the existing residents of Baldock as the open spaces available to them would be further away, and life in the town centre would be more inconvenient. The open areas are also wildlife habitats and development there would threaten a number of species, including at-risk farmland birds, with no guarantees that they could be successfully relocated.


I do recognise the need to provide extra housing for the area and have no objection to the proposed development of areas BA2, BA4, BA5, BA7 and BA11 on the plan. In fact I would suggest that area BA4 could actually be expanded, in a north-easterly direction parallel with the A505 towards the junction with the bypass, as long as it did not extend as far as the junction or run alongside the bypass.

I have objected to the development of area BA5 in the past, but would rather this area was developed instead of Green Belt land.

Furthermore, I would suggest that extra housing could be built on area BA10 of the plan, as an alternative to developing open land. The possibility of building a new town at a new location in Hertfordshire should also be reconsidered.

My final comment would be that the estimates for the numbers of new homes required were made before the UK voted to leave the European Union, and as such would have had to allow for unrestricted numbers of people coming to live in the UK from Europe. If the UK is to limit these numbers then the forecasts should be re-estimated both locally and nationally, in which case I would expect the estimates to be reduced, including those for North Hertfordshire. As the forecasts are probably now over-estimates I do not believe the plan is sound, based on these numbers, nor that the "exceptional circumstances" rule can be applied to sanction building on Green Belt land around Baldock.

I would be grateful if you could forward my comments to the Independent Planning Inspector and notify me when the Local Plan is submitted.