Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We would like to say at the outset that we understand the need for a Local Plan and the national need for more house-building. However the Local Housing Plan for North Hertfordshire, as proposed by NHDC, is, we believe flawed in many respects.

Unequal division of housing allocation
Some building has taken place in Baldock over the lat few years, but NHDC now proposed to increase the size of Baldock by 3,290 homes by 2031. This will double the population of the town. Baldock is the smallest of the towns in North Herts but is now required by the council to have more housing than each of the other three larger towns of Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston. The main reason for this seems to be that all the land proposed for the new development is owned by Hertfordshire County Council who are willing to see it for this purpose; therefore NHDC do not have to contact individual landowners asking if they would be willing to sell.

Many people have said that the number of houses stipulated to be built in Baldock could easily be contained in a new town situated elsewhere in the County. NHDC say they may well have to consider this in the future, but that there isn't the time now to do that now.

Previous emails
I also append copies of two emails sent to NHDC at previous consultation stages, which we would like you to read, but would also like to add the following.

Infrastructure
We are particularly concerned about the developments BA1 and BA2/3. With developments of a certain size eg BA1, infrastructure will be provided eg schools, doctors, dentists, shops etc, but with smaller developments ie BA2/3 infrastructure will not be provided so no new schools, doctors, dentists etc.

We are particularly concerned that insufficient thought has been given to schools; provision. The three Baldock primary schools are currently over-subscribed so that Baldock children, even those living within walking distance of the schools, now cannot be accommodated an so have to be driven to local village schools eg Sandon and Ashwell.

It is already difficult to get a doctor's appointment so this will also be adversely affected by such a large number of new homes.

Traffic
The centre of Baldock consists of just four main streets with very limited parking. Three-bedroom houses are now allocated two parking spaces each; if just a fraction of new householders want to use the facilities in the town centre at any one time, then we foresee enormous problems.

Railway travel
The number of commuters on the local line into Kings Cross is growing all the time as more houses and apartments are being built. GOVIA are currently planning to reduce the number of fast trains stopping at Baldock and are in the process of a consultation period. Our councillors have been in touch with GOVIA who, apparently, had no knowledge of this proposed local plan but have said they will review their decisions regarding changes to times of trains from Baldock. However, even if the trains remain as now, journeys will become more difficult and uncomfortable as people already have to stand on their journey to Kings Cross. Many people moving into the new houses will inevitably be commuters so this will only exacerbate the situation.

Sporting facilities
We are all encouraged to play more sport and be more active, but according to Baldock Town Football Club's figures, Baldock's current leisure facilities are 60% for adults and 40% for children below the national average. So, when infrastructure is being planned we believe that land should be set aside for providing more leisure and sporting activities for the whole town.

Nature Reserves
We currently have two nature reserves in Baldock: one on the Weston Hills and the other at Ivel Springs. Access to these and the wider countryside is vital to people's well-being. Residents need to be able to relax and benefit from contact with nature which is proven to reduce stress. So, parks and green areas within new settlements is vital as well as easy access to the wider countryside. We also need to preserve green space between us and other settlements (towns and villages) and so a large area of designated nature space between Baldock and Bygrave, for instance, would be beneficial and aid the well-being of both the people in the town and natural habitats.

Below are Emails sent to NHDC at various times during the consultation period.
Since writing in November, many people have supported the idea of a separate development elsewhere in the county with its own centre and identity, where there could be shops, pubs, schools, doctors and dentists' surgeries, new roads etc, built on 'Garden City' lines. One such development is, I believe, proposed for a disused airfield in Northamptonshire, where 1,000 houses are proposed. If the authorities in that area think that 1,000 new houses justifies a completely new and separate development, then surely a development of 3,591 houses should have the same claim. It was distressing to hear Cllr Andrew Young admit (and he was only being honest) that initially there would not be enough school places for all the children living in the proposed new homes, but he wanted to reassure parents that their children would be transported to those schools in the area where there were places, be it Letchworth, Hitchin or Stevenage. No parent wants this for their child. Precious, but delicate, friendships are formed at these young ages and it's good if those friendships can be carried on out of school, so obviously if all children go to schools in their own town, they will be able to socialise after school and at weekends. It is not so easy for working parents to keep transporting their child to other towns all the time.

The proposed development of 3,591 houses is almost four times the size of the Clothall Common development and it would be difficult to integrate people living in those houses into the community life of the present town. When the houses started to be built on the Clothall Common estate, people in the 'old town' maintained that everything should be done to integrate it into the existing town, so not have separate small shopping precincts, nor village halls nor pubs, but that there should be an active desire to integrate people there with the current Baldock residents. Over time this has happened, with people living on Clothall Common taking part in activities in the town, joining organisations and helping run the social and community life of Baldock.

We cannot hope to do this with a settlement four times the size of the present Clothall Common development. Much more sensible would e a new development which had its own identity and could have shops, community halls and maybe even a pub. People like to have an identity and to feel part of something and belong. It helps a community coerce and I believe that because people in a small community quickly get to know one another, it deters crime. Youngsters can be given a place where they can meet and again make them feel a part of the community. As I said in my previous email, this isn't NIMBYism but trying to come up with a workable solution, not just for the present residents of Baldock, who will find life difficult with more traffic and more demands on school places, doctors, and dentists etc, but also for new people coming into the area.

This idea has also been mooted by our three local MPs: Sir Oliver Heald, Peter Lilly and Stephen McPartland. Cllr David Levett says in a report in the Midweek Mercury that '... longer term this idea should be pursued ...' Why not now? Why go for a quick fix solution because it is easy for planners at NHDC and joyful for Herts County Council who own the land?

I don't fee that NHDC have fully investigated the possibility of building a small 'Garden City' development elsewhere because it would take too much work to approach landowners to see if they would be interested in selling their land to developers. It is so easy to accept HCC's offer as they conveniently own nearly all the land around Baldock.

We would also go back to the statement made by Cllr David Levett at the public meeting at the Leisure Centre when he said that this is a 'far from perfect plan'. Is NHDC not ashamed to be putting forward a plan that is 'far from perfect'. How on earth can anyone support it? We really do think that NHDC needs to think long and hard about this. They say they have to come up with a plan and this is the best one, or the developers will move in and they will have no control on what is built. But surely everything has to have planning permission, so they do have some control. However, to prevent that happening, it seems to many people that the best solution is a completely separate development - and preferably not on Green Belt land that is also valuable agricultural land.

We have also seen the letter from the Council for the Protection of Rural England who express grave concerns about the Proposed Plan. We would urge you to take all their points into consideration. We were particularly interested in their quote from the Planning Minister to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate: 'We have set out in our recent guidance that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints which indicate that development should be restricted,' also: a SHMA is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans.' (my underlining). I think this does then give all councils more leeway than we have been given to understand and maybe more leeway than they realise.

Finally, on more than one occasion, we have been told that if we do not accept this plan with the number of houses involved, then developers will simply be able to move in and build what and where they like. In the letter from the CPRE it would appear that actually that is not the case at all. So it looks to us as though there has been some scare mongering.

Please see below copy of original email sent in November 2014:

Dear Sirs

We feel very concerned about the size of the proposed development around Baldock. We understand that 3,500 houses are proposed for Baldock, a much higher number than for any of the other towns in North Hertfordshire. It is this inequality that incenses the people of the town. We appreciate that new houses will have to be built to accommodate the ever-growing population of this country - and it would be good to know that those who have families locally could buy houses nearby if they choose, but we feel that a development of this size would be detrimental to the town.

At the moment, Baldock works very well as a small community - everyone says what a friendly place it is and the amenities we have currently serve the town well - just. A new development such as this would put overwhelming pressure on schools, roads and NHS services. Hertfordshire County Council, who own the majority of the land that would be required for the proposed development, have said that there would be no problem with the infrastructure - they would manage that. But these houses will be built over a period of years up to 2031, so we cannot imagine that new schools, doctors, surgeries etc will be built in Phase 1 of the development. So families moving into the area will naturally want their children to go to Baldock schools and the families will want to use local doctors and dentists. This will not only affect people in the new houses but also current residents, who will find it increasingly difficult to get appointments.

One of the reasons Baldock works so well is that although we have three primary schools, the majority of those pupils will end up at Knights Templar School, immediately forming a cohesion for the town of the future. We know so many people who went to Knights Templar when our children were there who have stayed in the town because they like it here. They like the amenities and the lively 'small-town' feel of the place. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It may well be one of the reasons why Baldock has such a relatively low crime figure.

At the meeting at St Mary's Junior School when many fears were expressed about this proposed development, someone who had worked for Anglian Water expressed real concern that the utilities - and particularly the water supply and sewerage disposal - wouldn't be able to cope. Electricity and gas supplies are also a worry. We already hear rumblings that if we have a severe winter there might be power cuts.

When the bypass was built, for a short time, the number of cars and lorries coming through the town was noticeably less. However, volumes have gradually built up and at times queues of cars can again be seen in the town. How on earth will the town cope with all the people and cars living in another 3,500 houses. Presumably they will sometimes want to come into the town to shop - particularly as we have a large Tesco in the town. It is understood that new roads will be built connecting a new estate to the bypass and this could, in effect, then produce a satellite town with little connection to Baldock. Why not then build a separate town, with its own identity elsewhere. This is not nimbyism, but practicality. Obviously the fact that Herts County Council owns so much land around the town is an attractive proposition and an easy option.

There is also the fact to be taken into consideration that so much agricultural land will be used up. We are told we need to grow more of our own food, but with agricultural land being snapped up for housing how is this possible? We feel that the whole question of how much housing is being built in the South East needs to be looked at, but recognise that this isn't something that NHDC or HCC can do. However, we do believe that they can question the government as to its quotas for the South East. If HS2 and HS3 rail links are put in place, then in 20 or so years time the north of the country might be more attractive both for people to move there and for people currently living there to find it a more attractive proposition to stay there rather than to move to the over-crowded and over-priced South East.

Even if the 12,100 homes proposed for North Hertfordshire were to be evenly distributed between the four towns in North Herts and the villages, we would probably be looking at getting around 2,500 - still a great number, given the current size of Baldock - probably another half a town. We urge you to think very carefully how you allocate this housing, both for the well-being of the current population and those who might wish to move to the area.

We apologise for the length of this email and, if you have managed to read it to the end, thank you for doing so.

We would like to say at the outset that we understand the need for a Local Plan and the national need for more house-building. However the Local Housing Plan for North Hertfordshire, as proposed by NHDC, is, we believe flawed in many respects.

Unequal division of housing allocation
Some building has taken place in Baldock over the lat few years, but NHDC now proposed to increase the size of Baldock by 3,290 homes by 2031. This will double the population of the town. Baldock is the smallest of the towns in North Herts but is now required by the council to have more housing than each of the other three larger towns of Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston. The main reason for this seems to be that all the land proposed for the new development is owned by Hertfordshire County Council who are willing to see it for this purpose; therefore NHDC do not have to contact individual landowners asking if they would be willing to sell.

Many people have said that the number of houses stipulated to be built in Baldock could easily be contained in a new town situated elsewhere in the County. NHDC say they may well have to consider this in the future, but that there isn't the time now to do that now.

Previous emails
I also append copies of two emails sent to NHDC at previous consultation stages, which we would like you to read, but would also like to add the following.

Infrastructure
We are particularly concerned about the developments BA1 and BA2/3. With developments of a certain size eg BA1, infrastructure will be provided eg schools, doctors, dentists, shops etc, but with smaller developments ie BA2/3 infrastructure will not be provided so no new schools, doctors, dentists etc.

We are particularly concerned that insufficient thought has been given to schools; provision. The three Baldock primary schools are currently over-subscribed so that Baldock children, even those living within walking distance of the schools, now cannot be accommodated an so have to be driven to local village schools eg Sandon and Ashwell.

It is already difficult to get a doctor's appointment so this will also be adversely affected by such a large number of new homes.

Traffic
The centre of Baldock consists of just four main streets with very limited parking. Three-bedroom houses are now allocated two parking spaces each; if just a fraction of new householders want to use the facilities in the town centre at any one time, then we foresee enormous problems.

Railway travel
The number of commuters on the local line into Kings Cross is growing all the time as more houses and apartments are being built. GOVIA are currently planning to reduce the number of fast trains stopping at Baldock and are in the process of a consultation period. Our councillors have been in touch with GOVIA who, apparently, had no knowledge of this proposed local plan but have said they will review their decisions regarding changes to times of trains from Baldock. However, even if the trains remain as now, journeys will become more difficult and uncomfortable as people already have to stand on their journey to Kings Cross. Many people moving into the new houses will inevitably be commuters so this will only exacerbate the situation.

Sporting facilities
We are all encouraged to play more sport and be more active, but according to Baldock Town Football Club's figures, Baldock's current leisure facilities are 60% for adults and 40% for children below the national average. So, when infrastructure is being planned we believe that land should be set aside for providing more leisure and sporting activities for the whole town.

Nature Reserves
We currently have two nature reserves in Baldock: one on the Weston Hills and the other at Ivel Springs. Access to these and the wider countryside is vital to people's well-being. Residents need to be able to relax and benefit from contact with nature which is proven to reduce stress. So, parks and green areas within new settlements is vital as well as easy access to the wider countryside. We also need to preserve green space between us and other settlements (towns and villages) and so a large area of designated nature space between Baldock and Bygrave, for instance, would be beneficial and aid the well-being of both the people in the town and natural habitats.

Below are Emails sent to NHDC at various times during the consultation period.
Since writing in November, many people have supported the idea of a separate development elsewhere in the county with its own centre and identity, where there could be shops, pubs, schools, doctors and dentists' surgeries, new roads etc, built on 'Garden City' lines. One such development is, I believe, proposed for a disused airfield in Northamptonshire, where 1,000 houses are proposed. If the authorities in that area think that 1,000 new houses justifies a completely new and separate development, then surely a development of 3,591 houses should have the same claim. It was distressing to hear Cllr Andrew Young admit (and he was only being honest) that initially there would not be enough school places for all the children living in the proposed new homes, but he wanted to reassure parents that their children would be transported to those schools in the area where there were places, be it Letchworth, Hitchin or Stevenage. No parent wants this for their child. Precious, but delicate, friendships are formed at these young ages and it's good if those friendships can be carried on out of school, so obviously if all children go to schools in their own town, they will be able to socialise after school and at weekends. It is not so easy for working parents to keep transporting their child to other towns all the time.

The proposed development of 3,591 houses is almost four times the size of the Clothall Common development and it would be difficult to integrate people living in those houses into the community life of the present town. When the houses started to be built on the Clothall Common estate, people in the 'old town' maintained that everything should be done to integrate it into the existing town, so not have separate small shopping precincts, nor village halls nor pubs, but that there should be an active desire to integrate people there with the current Baldock residents. Over time this has happened, with people living on Clothall Common taking part in activities in the town, joining organisations and helping run the social and community life of Baldock.

We cannot hope to do this with a settlement four times the size of the present Clothall Common development. Much more sensible would e a new development which had its own identity and could have shops, community halls and maybe even a pub. People like to have an identity and to feel part of something and belong. It helps a community coerce and I believe that because people in a small community quickly get to know one another, it deters crime. Youngsters can be given a place where they can meet and again make them feel a part of the community. As I said in my previous email, this isn't NIMBYism but trying to come up with a workable solution, not just for the present residents of Baldock, who will find life difficult with more traffic and more demands on school places, doctors, and dentists etc, but also for new people coming into the area.

This idea has also been mooted by our three local MPs: Sir Oliver Heald, Peter Lilly and Stephen McPartland. Cllr David Levett says in a report in the Midweek Mercury that '... longer term this idea should be pursued ...' Why not now? Why go for a quick fix solution because it is easy for planners at NHDC and joyful for Herts County Council who own the land?

I don't fee that NHDC have fully investigated the possibility of building a small 'Garden City' development elsewhere because it would take too much work to approach landowners to see if they would be interested in selling their land to developers. It is so easy to accept HCC's offer as they conveniently own nearly all the land around Baldock.

We would also go back to the statement made by Cllr David Levett at the public meeting at the Leisure Centre when he said that this is a 'far from perfect plan'. Is NHDC not ashamed to be putting forward a plan that is 'far from perfect'. How on earth can anyone support it? We really do think that NHDC needs to think long and hard about this. They say they have to come up with a plan and this is the best one, or the developers will move in and they will have no control on what is built. But surely everything has to have planning permission, so they do have some control. However, to prevent that happening, it seems to many people that the best solution is a completely separate development - and preferably not on Green Belt land that is also valuable agricultural land.

We have also seen the letter from the Council for the Protection of Rural England who express grave concerns about the Proposed Plan. We would urge you to take all their points into consideration. We were particularly interested in their quote from the Planning Minister to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate: 'We have set out in our recent guidance that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints which indicate that development should be restricted,' also: a SHMA is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans.' (my underlining). I think this does then give all councils more leeway than we have been given to understand and maybe more leeway than they realise.

Finally, on more than one occasion, we have been told that if we do not accept this plan with the number of houses involved, then developers will simply be able to move in and build what and where they like. In the letter from the CPRE it would appear that actually that is not the case at all. So it looks to us as though there has been some scare mongering.

Please see below copy of original email sent in November 2014:

Dear Sirs

We feel very concerned about the size of the proposed development around Baldock. We understand that 3,500 houses are proposed for Baldock, a much higher number than for any of the other towns in North Hertfordshire. It is this inequality that incenses the people of the town. We appreciate that new houses will have to be built to accommodate the ever-growing population of this country - and it would be good to know that those who have families locally could buy houses nearby if they choose, but we feel that a development of this size would be detrimental to the town.

At the moment, Baldock works very well as a small community - everyone says what a friendly place it is and the amenities we have currently serve the town well - just. A new development such as this would put overwhelming pressure on schools, roads and NHS services. Hertfordshire County Council, who own the majority of the land that would be required for the proposed development, have said that there would be no problem with the infrastructure - they would manage that. But these houses will be built over a period of years up to 2031, so we cannot imagine that new schools, doctors, surgeries etc will be built in Phase 1 of the development. So families moving into the area will naturally want their children to go to Baldock schools and the families will want to use local doctors and dentists. This will not only affect people in the new houses but also current residents, who will find it increasingly difficult to get appointments.

One of the reasons Baldock works so well is that although we have three primary schools, the majority of those pupils will end up at Knights Templar School, immediately forming a cohesion for the town of the future. We know so many people who went to Knights Templar when our children were there who have stayed in the town because they like it here. They like the amenities and the lively 'small-town' feel of the place. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It may well be one of the reasons why Baldock has such a relatively low crime figure.

At the meeting at St Mary's Junior School when many fears were expressed about this proposed development, someone who had worked for Anglian Water expressed real concern that the utilities - and particularly the water supply and sewerage disposal - wouldn't be able to cope. Electricity and gas supplies are also a worry. We already hear rumblings that if we have a severe winter there might be power cuts.

When the bypass was built, for a short time, the number of cars and lorries coming through the town was noticeably less. However, volumes have gradually built up and at times queues of cars can again be seen in the town. How on earth will the town cope with all the people and cars living in another 3,500 houses. Presumably they will sometimes want to come into the town to shop - particularly as we have a large Tesco in the town. It is understood that new roads will be built connecting a new estate to the bypass and this could, in effect, then produce a satellite town with little connection to Baldock. Why not then build a separate town, with its own identity elsewhere. This is not nimbyism, but practicality. Obviously the fact that Herts County Council owns so much land around the town is an attractive proposition and an easy option.

There is also the fact to be taken into consideration that so much agricultural land will be used up. We are told we need to grow more of our own food, but with agricultural land being snapped up for housing how is this possible? We feel that the whole question of how much housing is being built in the South East needs to be looked at, but recognise that this isn't something that NHDC or HCC can do. However, we do believe that they can question the government as to its quotas for the South East. If HS2 and HS3 rail links are put in place, then in 20 or so years time the north of the country might be more attractive both for people to move there and for people currently living there to find it a more attractive proposition to stay there rather than to move to the over-crowded and over-priced South East.

Even if the 12,100 homes proposed for North Hertfordshire were to be evenly distributed between the four towns in North Herts and the villages, we would probably be looking at getting around 2,500 - still a great number, given the current size of Baldock - probably another half a town. We urge you to think very carefully how you allocate this housing, both for the well-being of the current population and those who might wish to move to the area.

We apologise for the length of this email and, if you have managed to read it to the end, thank you for doing so.

We would like to say at the outset that we understand the need for a Local Plan and the national need for more house-building. However the Local Housing Plan for North Hertfordshire, as proposed by NHDC, is, we believe flawed in many respects.

Unequal division of housing allocation
Some building has taken place in Baldock over the lat few years, but NHDC now proposed to increase the size of Baldock by 3,290 homes by 2031. This will double the population of the town. Baldock is the smallest of the towns in North Herts but is now required by the council to have more housing than each of the other three larger towns of Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston. The main reason for this seems to be that all the land proposed for the new development is owned by Hertfordshire County Council who are willing to see it for this purpose; therefore NHDC do not have to contact individual landowners asking if they would be willing to sell.

Many people have said that the number of houses stipulated to be built in Baldock could easily be contained in a new town situated elsewhere in the County. NHDC say they may well have to consider this in the future, but that there isn't the time now to do that now.

Previous emails
I also append copies of two emails sent to NHDC at previous consultation stages, which we would like you to read, but would also like to add the following.

Infrastructure
We are particularly concerned about the developments BA1 and BA2/3. With developments of a certain size eg BA1, infrastructure will be provided eg schools, doctors, dentists, shops etc, but with smaller developments ie BA2/3 infrastructure will not be provided so no new schools, doctors, dentists etc.

We are particularly concerned that insufficient thought has been given to schools; provision. The three Baldock primary schools are currently over-subscribed so that Baldock children, even those living within walking distance of the schools, now cannot be accommodated an so have to be driven to local village schools eg Sandon and Ashwell.

It is already difficult to get a doctor's appointment so this will also be adversely affected by such a large number of new homes.

Traffic
The centre of Baldock consists of just four main streets with very limited parking. Three-bedroom houses are now allocated two parking spaces each; if just a fraction of new householders want to use the facilities in the town centre at any one time, then we foresee enormous problems.

Railway travel
The number of commuters on the local line into Kings Cross is growing all the time as more houses and apartments are being built. GOVIA are currently planning to reduce the number of fast trains stopping at Baldock and are in the process of a consultation period. Our councillors have been in touch with GOVIA who, apparently, had no knowledge of this proposed local plan but have said they will review their decisions regarding changes to times of trains from Baldock. However, even if the trains remain as now, journeys will become more difficult and uncomfortable as people already have to stand on their journey to Kings Cross. Many people moving into the new houses will inevitably be commuters so this will only exacerbate the situation.

Sporting facilities
We are all encouraged to play more sport and be more active, but according to Baldock Town Football Club's figures, Baldock's current leisure facilities are 60% for adults and 40% for children below the national average. So, when infrastructure is being planned we believe that land should be set aside for providing more leisure and sporting activities for the whole town.

Nature Reserves
We currently have two nature reserves in Baldock: one on the Weston Hills and the other at Ivel Springs. Access to these and the wider countryside is vital to people's well-being. Residents need to be able to relax and benefit from contact with nature which is proven to reduce stress. So, parks and green areas within new settlements is vital as well as easy access to the wider countryside. We also need to preserve green space between us and other settlements (towns and villages) and so a large area of designated nature space between Baldock and Bygrave, for instance, would be beneficial and aid the well-being of both the people in the town and natural habitats.

Below are Emails sent to NHDC at various times during the consultation period.
Since writing in November, many people have supported the idea of a separate development elsewhere in the county with its own centre and identity, where there could be shops, pubs, schools, doctors and dentists' surgeries, new roads etc, built on 'Garden City' lines. One such development is, I believe, proposed for a disused airfield in Northamptonshire, where 1,000 houses are proposed. If the authorities in that area think that 1,000 new houses justifies a completely new and separate development, then surely a development of 3,591 houses should have the same claim. It was distressing to hear Cllr Andrew Young admit (and he was only being honest) that initially there would not be enough school places for all the children living in the proposed new homes, but he wanted to reassure parents that their children would be transported to those schools in the area where there were places, be it Letchworth, Hitchin or Stevenage. No parent wants this for their child. Precious, but delicate, friendships are formed at these young ages and it's good if those friendships can be carried on out of school, so obviously if all children go to schools in their own town, they will be able to socialise after school and at weekends. It is not so easy for working parents to keep transporting their child to other towns all the time.

The proposed development of 3,591 houses is almost four times the size of the Clothall Common development and it would be difficult to integrate people living in those houses into the community life of the present town. When the houses started to be built on the Clothall Common estate, people in the 'old town' maintained that everything should be done to integrate it into the existing town, so not have separate small shopping precincts, nor village halls nor pubs, but that there should be an active desire to integrate people there with the current Baldock residents. Over time this has happened, with people living on Clothall Common taking part in activities in the town, joining organisations and helping run the social and community life of Baldock.

We cannot hope to do this with a settlement four times the size of the present Clothall Common development. Much more sensible would e a new development which had its own identity and could have shops, community halls and maybe even a pub. People like to have an identity and to feel part of something and belong. It helps a community coerce and I believe that because people in a small community quickly get to know one another, it deters crime. Youngsters can be given a place where they can meet and again make them feel a part of the community. As I said in my previous email, this isn't NIMBYism but trying to come up with a workable solution, not just for the present residents of Baldock, who will find life difficult with more traffic and more demands on school places, doctors, and dentists etc, but also for new people coming into the area.

This idea has also been mooted by our three local MPs: Sir Oliver Heald, Peter Lilly and Stephen McPartland. Cllr David Levett says in a report in the Midweek Mercury that '... longer term this idea should be pursued ...' Why not now? Why go for a quick fix solution because it is easy for planners at NHDC and joyful for Herts County Council who own the land?

I don't fee that NHDC have fully investigated the possibility of building a small 'Garden City' development elsewhere because it would take too much work to approach landowners to see if they would be interested in selling their land to developers. It is so easy to accept HCC's offer as they conveniently own nearly all the land around Baldock.

We would also go back to the statement made by Cllr David Levett at the public meeting at the Leisure Centre when he said that this is a 'far from perfect plan'. Is NHDC not ashamed to be putting forward a plan that is 'far from perfect'. How on earth can anyone support it? We really do think that NHDC needs to think long and hard about this. They say they have to come up with a plan and this is the best one, or the developers will move in and they will have no control on what is built. But surely everything has to have planning permission, so they do have some control. However, to prevent that happening, it seems to many people that the best solution is a completely separate development - and preferably not on Green Belt land that is also valuable agricultural land.

We have also seen the letter from the Council for the Protection of Rural England who express grave concerns about the Proposed Plan. We would urge you to take all their points into consideration. We were particularly interested in their quote from the Planning Minister to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate: 'We have set out in our recent guidance that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints which indicate that development should be restricted,' also: a SHMA is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans.' (my underlining). I think this does then give all councils more leeway than we have been given to understand and maybe more leeway than they realise.

Finally, on more than one occasion, we have been told that if we do not accept this plan with the number of houses involved, then developers will simply be able to move in and build what and where they like. In the letter from the CPRE it would appear that actually that is not the case at all. So it looks to us as though there has been some scare mongering.

Please see below copy of original email sent in November 2014:

Dear Sirs

We feel very concerned about the size of the proposed development around Baldock. We understand that 3,500 houses are proposed for Baldock, a much higher number than for any of the other towns in North Hertfordshire. It is this inequality that incenses the people of the town. We appreciate that new houses will have to be built to accommodate the ever-growing population of this country - and it would be good to know that those who have families locally could buy houses nearby if they choose, but we feel that a development of this size would be detrimental to the town.

At the moment, Baldock works very well as a small community - everyone says what a friendly place it is and the amenities we have currently serve the town well - just. A new development such as this would put overwhelming pressure on schools, roads and NHS services. Hertfordshire County Council, who own the majority of the land that would be required for the proposed development, have said that there would be no problem with the infrastructure - they would manage that. But these houses will be built over a period of years up to 2031, so we cannot imagine that new schools, doctors, surgeries etc will be built in Phase 1 of the development. So families moving into the area will naturally want their children to go to Baldock schools and the families will want to use local doctors and dentists. This will not only affect people in the new houses but also current residents, who will find it increasingly difficult to get appointments.

One of the reasons Baldock works so well is that although we have three primary schools, the majority of those pupils will end up at Knights Templar School, immediately forming a cohesion for the town of the future. We know so many people who went to Knights Templar when our children were there who have stayed in the town because they like it here. They like the amenities and the lively 'small-town' feel of the place. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It may well be one of the reasons why Baldock has such a relatively low crime figure.

At the meeting at St Mary's Junior School when many fears were expressed about this proposed development, someone who had worked for Anglian Water expressed real concern that the utilities - and particularly the water supply and sewerage disposal - wouldn't be able to cope. Electricity and gas supplies are also a worry. We already hear rumblings that if we have a severe winter there might be power cuts.

When the bypass was built, for a short time, the number of cars and lorries coming through the town was noticeably less. However, volumes have gradually built up and at times queues of cars can again be seen in the town. How on earth will the town cope with all the people and cars living in another 3,500 houses. Presumably they will sometimes want to come into the town to shop - particularly as we have a large Tesco in the town. It is understood that new roads will be built connecting a new estate to the bypass and this could, in effect, then produce a satellite town with little connection to Baldock. Why not then build a separate town, with its own identity elsewhere. This is not nimbyism, but practicality. Obviously the fact that Herts County Council owns so much land around the town is an attractive proposition and an easy option.

There is also the fact to be taken into consideration that so much agricultural land will be used up. We are told we need to grow more of our own food, but with agricultural land being snapped up for housing how is this possible? We feel that the whole question of how much housing is being built in the South East needs to be looked at, but recognise that this isn't something that NHDC or HCC can do. However, we do believe that they can question the government as to its quotas for the South East. If HS2 and HS3 rail links are put in place, then in 20 or so years time the north of the country might be more attractive both for people to move there and for people currently living there to find it a more attractive proposition to stay there rather than to move to the over-crowded and over-priced South East.

Even if the 12,100 homes proposed for North Hertfordshire were to be evenly distributed between the four towns in North Herts and the villages, we would probably be looking at getting around 2,500 - still a great number, given the current size of Baldock - probably another half a town. We urge you to think very carefully how you allocate this housing, both for the well-being of the current population and those who might wish to move to the area.

We apologise for the length of this email and, if you have managed to read it to the end, thank you for doing so.

We would like to say at the outset that we understand the need for a Local Plan and the national need for more house-building. However the Local Housing Plan for North Hertfordshire, as proposed by NHDC, is, we believe flawed in many respects.

Unequal division of housing allocation
Some building has taken place in Baldock over the lat few years, but NHDC now proposed to increase the size of Baldock by 3,290 homes by 2031. This will double the population of the town. Baldock is the smallest of the towns in North Herts but is now required by the council to have more housing than each of the other three larger towns of Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston. The main reason for this seems to be that all the land proposed for the new development is owned by Hertfordshire County Council who are willing to see it for this purpose; therefore NHDC do not have to contact individual landowners asking if they would be willing to sell.

Many people have said that the number of houses stipulated to be built in Baldock could easily be contained in a new town situated elsewhere in the County. NHDC say they may well have to consider this in the future, but that there isn't the time now to do that now.

Previous emails
I also append copies of two emails sent to NHDC at previous consultation stages, which we would like you to read, but would also like to add the following.

Infrastructure
We are particularly concerned about the developments BA1 and BA2/3. With developments of a certain size eg BA1, infrastructure will be provided eg schools, doctors, dentists, shops etc, but with smaller developments ie BA2/3 infrastructure will not be provided so no new schools, doctors, dentists etc.

We are particularly concerned that insufficient thought has been given to schools; provision. The three Baldock primary schools are currently over-subscribed so that Baldock children, even those living within walking distance of the schools, now cannot be accommodated an so have to be driven to local village schools eg Sandon and Ashwell.

It is already difficult to get a doctor's appointment so this will also be adversely affected by such a large number of new homes.

Traffic
The centre of Baldock consists of just four main streets with very limited parking. Three-bedroom houses are now allocated two parking spaces each; if just a fraction of new householders want to use the facilities in the town centre at any one time, then we foresee enormous problems.

Railway travel
The number of commuters on the local line into Kings Cross is growing all the time as more houses and apartments are being built. GOVIA are currently planning to reduce the number of fast trains stopping at Baldock and are in the process of a consultation period. Our councillors have been in touch with GOVIA who, apparently, had no knowledge of this proposed local plan but have said they will review their decisions regarding changes to times of trains from Baldock. However, even if the trains remain as now, journeys will become more difficult and uncomfortable as people already have to stand on their journey to Kings Cross. Many people moving into the new houses will inevitably be commuters so this will only exacerbate the situation.

Sporting facilities
We are all encouraged to play more sport and be more active, but according to Baldock Town Football Club's figures, Baldock's current leisure facilities are 60% for adults and 40% for children below the national average. So, when infrastructure is being planned we believe that land should be set aside for providing more leisure and sporting activities for the whole town.

Nature Reserves
We currently have two nature reserves in Baldock: one on the Weston Hills and the other at Ivel Springs. Access to these and the wider countryside is vital to people's well-being. Residents need to be able to relax and benefit from contact with nature which is proven to reduce stress. So, parks and green areas within new settlements is vital as well as easy access to the wider countryside. We also need to preserve green space between us and other settlements (towns and villages) and so a large area of designated nature space between Baldock and Bygrave, for instance, would be beneficial and aid the well-being of both the people in the town and natural habitats.

Below are Emails sent to NHDC at various times during the consultation period.
Since writing in November, many people have supported the idea of a separate development elsewhere in the county with its own centre and identity, where there could be shops, pubs, schools, doctors and dentists' surgeries, new roads etc, built on 'Garden City' lines. One such development is, I believe, proposed for a disused airfield in Northamptonshire, where 1,000 houses are proposed. If the authorities in that area think that 1,000 new houses justifies a completely new and separate development, then surely a development of 3,591 houses should have the same claim. It was distressing to hear Cllr Andrew Young admit (and he was only being honest) that initially there would not be enough school places for all the children living in the proposed new homes, but he wanted to reassure parents that their children would be transported to those schools in the area where there were places, be it Letchworth, Hitchin or Stevenage. No parent wants this for their child. Precious, but delicate, friendships are formed at these young ages and it's good if those friendships can be carried on out of school, so obviously if all children go to schools in their own town, they will be able to socialise after school and at weekends. It is not so easy for working parents to keep transporting their child to other towns all the time.

The proposed development of 3,591 houses is almost four times the size of the Clothall Common development and it would be difficult to integrate people living in those houses into the community life of the present town. When the houses started to be built on the Clothall Common estate, people in the 'old town' maintained that everything should be done to integrate it into the existing town, so not have separate small shopping precincts, nor village halls nor pubs, but that there should be an active desire to integrate people there with the current Baldock residents. Over time this has happened, with people living on Clothall Common taking part in activities in the town, joining organisations and helping run the social and community life of Baldock.

We cannot hope to do this with a settlement four times the size of the present Clothall Common development. Much more sensible would e a new development which had its own identity and could have shops, community halls and maybe even a pub. People like to have an identity and to feel part of something and belong. It helps a community coerce and I believe that because people in a small community quickly get to know one another, it deters crime. Youngsters can be given a place where they can meet and again make them feel a part of the community. As I said in my previous email, this isn't NIMBYism but trying to come up with a workable solution, not just for the present residents of Baldock, who will find life difficult with more traffic and more demands on school places, doctors, and dentists etc, but also for new people coming into the area.

This idea has also been mooted by our three local MPs: Sir Oliver Heald, Peter Lilly and Stephen McPartland. Cllr David Levett says in a report in the Midweek Mercury that '... longer term this idea should be pursued ...' Why not now? Why go for a quick fix solution because it is easy for planners at NHDC and joyful for Herts County Council who own the land?

I don't fee that NHDC have fully investigated the possibility of building a small 'Garden City' development elsewhere because it would take too much work to approach landowners to see if they would be interested in selling their land to developers. It is so easy to accept HCC's offer as they conveniently own nearly all the land around Baldock.

We would also go back to the statement made by Cllr David Levett at the public meeting at the Leisure Centre when he said that this is a 'far from perfect plan'. Is NHDC not ashamed to be putting forward a plan that is 'far from perfect'. How on earth can anyone support it? We really do think that NHDC needs to think long and hard about this. They say they have to come up with a plan and this is the best one, or the developers will move in and they will have no control on what is built. But surely everything has to have planning permission, so they do have some control. However, to prevent that happening, it seems to many people that the best solution is a completely separate development - and preferably not on Green Belt land that is also valuable agricultural land.

We have also seen the letter from the Council for the Protection of Rural England who express grave concerns about the Proposed Plan. We would urge you to take all their points into consideration. We were particularly interested in their quote from the Planning Minister to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate: 'We have set out in our recent guidance that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints which indicate that development should be restricted,' also: a SHMA is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans.' (my underlining). I think this does then give all councils more leeway than we have been given to understand and maybe more leeway than they realise.

Finally, on more than one occasion, we have been told that if we do not accept this plan with the number of houses involved, then developers will simply be able to move in and build what and where they like. In the letter from the CPRE it would appear that actually that is not the case at all. So it looks to us as though there has been some scare mongering.

Please see below copy of original email sent in November 2014:

Dear Sirs

We feel very concerned about the size of the proposed development around Baldock. We understand that 3,500 houses are proposed for Baldock, a much higher number than for any of the other towns in North Hertfordshire. It is this inequality that incenses the people of the town. We appreciate that new houses will have to be built to accommodate the ever-growing population of this country - and it would be good to know that those who have families locally could buy houses nearby if they choose, but we feel that a development of this size would be detrimental to the town.

At the moment, Baldock works very well as a small community - everyone says what a friendly place it is and the amenities we have currently serve the town well - just. A new development such as this would put overwhelming pressure on schools, roads and NHS services. Hertfordshire County Council, who own the majority of the land that would be required for the proposed development, have said that there would be no problem with the infrastructure - they would manage that. But these houses will be built over a period of years up to 2031, so we cannot imagine that new schools, doctors, surgeries etc will be built in Phase 1 of the development. So families moving into the area will naturally want their children to go to Baldock schools and the families will want to use local doctors and dentists. This will not only affect people in the new houses but also current residents, who will find it increasingly difficult to get appointments.

One of the reasons Baldock works so well is that although we have three primary schools, the majority of those pupils will end up at Knights Templar School, immediately forming a cohesion for the town of the future. We know so many people who went to Knights Templar when our children were there who have stayed in the town because they like it here. They like the amenities and the lively 'small-town' feel of the place. This is not something to be dismissed lightly. It may well be one of the reasons why Baldock has such a relatively low crime figure.

At the meeting at St Mary's Junior School when many fears were expressed about this proposed development, someone who had worked for Anglian Water expressed real concern that the utilities - and particularly the water supply and sewerage disposal - wouldn't be able to cope. Electricity and gas supplies are also a worry. We already hear rumblings that if we have a severe winter there might be power cuts.

When the bypass was built, for a short time, the number of cars and lorries coming through the town was noticeably less. However, volumes have gradually built up and at times queues of cars can again be seen in the town. How on earth will the town cope with all the people and cars living in another 3,500 houses. Presumably they will sometimes want to come into the town to shop - particularly as we have a large Tesco in the town. It is understood that new roads will be built connecting a new estate to the bypass and this could, in effect, then produce a satellite town with little connection to Baldock. Why not then build a separate town, with its own identity elsewhere. This is not nimbyism, but practicality. Obviously the fact that Herts County Council owns so much land around the town is an attractive proposition and an easy option.

There is also the fact to be taken into consideration that so much agricultural land will be used up. We are told we need to grow more of our own food, but with agricultural land being snapped up for housing how is this possible? We feel that the whole question of how much housing is being built in the South East needs to be looked at, but recognise that this isn't something that NHDC or HCC can do. However, we do believe that they can question the government as to its quotas for the South East. If HS2 and HS3 rail links are put in place, then in 20 or so years time the north of the country might be more attractive both for people to move there and for people currently living there to find it a more attractive proposition to stay there rather than to move to the over-crowded and over-priced South East.

Even if the 12,100 homes proposed for North Hertfordshire were to be evenly distributed between the four towns in North Herts and the villages, we would probably be looking at getting around 2,500 - still a great number, given the current size of Baldock - probably another half a town. We urge you to think very carefully how you allocate this housing, both for the well-being of the current population and those who might wish to move to the area.

We apologise for the length of this email and, if you have managed to read it to the end, thank you for doing so.