Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

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

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

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

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

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

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

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

I wish to object to the Local Plan as I consider it unjustified, ill thoughtout and not consistent with National Policy, in particular with reference to sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 around Baldock.
North Hertfordshire and Baldock, in particular, will be ruined if this goes ahead.
The plan currently under consultation is fatally floored before it is started and I fail to comprehend why it has even got this far. I feel let-down by North Herts District Council as I don't believe they have kept to the Select Committee's conclusion that councils need to get plans in to protect areas that should not be built on. And that includes Green Belt. It is my understanding that Countryside and Green Belt should not be taken away until ALL other possible land has been considered exhaustively. This has not been done for Baldock, because sadly, much of the land contained in the plan is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. With government cuts to councils, I should think they are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such an easy cash-cow as Baldock apparently is.
As a whole area, the number of houses being discussed for North Hertfordshire is still huge and I think well over what it needs to be. I agree with Oliver Heald who has previously said that a whole new garden city-based town would be much more feasible for the area. It would save Green Belt and valuable agricultural land. The infra-structure would be in place from the start of the development - rather than trying to make current infra-structure 'fit' all the extra homes, people and traffic.
Roads and Rail
This is key to the development plans for Baldock in particular. You cannot avoid bringing in unacceptable levels of traffic to an already over-used sticking point - I'm thinking of the traffic lights and railway station areas in particular here. Also, consideration has to be given to the logistics of bringing the traffic to the new development areas of Baldock. Moving the railway line will presumably not be an option. The Buntingford road should also be considered. It too will not be fit for extra traffic and is not suitable for the amount of lorries and cars already using it.
More generally, the North Hertfordshire section of the A1 cannot cope with current traffic levels and is regularly gridlocked at both peak and off-peak times. s I understand it, the bridge sections cannot be widened. How is it ever going to take yet more commuters?
Having said that, assuming that somebody's 'grand plan' for this area can rectify that situation, I understand that there is an area to the West of Stevenage that could take a new town to accommodate all of the housing planned for North Hertfordshire. Why can that particular area not be triggered? Would it be triggered if Stevenage made it part of their plan? If it were, I believe that it could then become viable for the rest of the North Hertfordshire allocation. I feel the current plan is 'make do and mend' rather collaborating with other councils to ensure the best plan for the whole of the local area. Hertfordshire Infrastructure Investment Strategy (HIIS) should look at the bigger picture for the whole area.
The plan makes no significant points other than the convenience of Baldock's location next to a station. NHDC had not even consulted with Govia the train provider during the course of the preparation of this inadequate local plan and indeed, Govia are currently planning to reduce the service to Baldock station. Is there enough capacity for the railway to take a doubling of passengers? How will commuters access the station? Where will they park?
The NPPF - Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport. 'All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement..." It goes on to state that "development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken with the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development.
The Plan is simply not effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It fails the consistency with the national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport improvements that would be needed for the site/s to work.
Infrastructure
Traffic and travel is just one issue, there is also the strain and chaos expected for doctors, schools and The Lister Hospital to be considered - until trigger points in the master plan are reached and somebody then does a make-do-and-mend job on local services. It is not good enough and it is not what the area deserves.
No detailed plans have been given. There is an infrastructure development plan included in the evidence bas (not added until September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans.
The NPPF - Paragraph 177 states it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Local planning authorities must understand district-wide development costs at the time the Local Plans are drawn up.
Once again this is not consistent with national policy. The plan has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.
Green Belt
Is it truly right and fair to remove the Green Belt from around Baldock? Much of which is prime agricultural land. Have brownfield sites been exhausted first?
Baldock is a quaint, rural, and historic market town. There are views that will be lost forever if sites BA1, BA2 and BA3 in particular are moved ahead. Grade 1 agricultural land should not be considered as part of this plan. It is a criminal waste of resources that England cannot afford to keep losing.
I sincerely hope that sense can be seen here and the current plan in question for Baldock and North Hertfordshire will be seen for what it is.Too big and disproportionate. In October 2014, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said that "thousands of brownfield sites are available for development and should be prioritised. "The new guidance reaffirms how councils should safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases. The housing need does NOT justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-green-belt-land
The NPPF acknowledges that the Green Belt is to protect areas from urban sprawl and towns merging. This has already failed once for Baldock/Letchworth. Please do not exacerbate the problem by allowing the Green Belt 'to be moved' for convenience.
In a separate document that covers the reassessment of the Green Belt, para 5.52 justifies removing BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan." This is then contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after small sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be safeguarded for future needs outside of the Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered. It may also fail the criteria 4 - ie. is not consistent with national policy with regard to the Green Belt.
Air Pollution
Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest. I don't believe there has been an assessment made on the impact of the extra traffic through the town and the pollution levels. I can testify that my husband had only 'sport induced asthma' on moving here 15 years ago. That is now a chronic condition for which he has to use multiple inhalers, one of which has to be used multiple times, daily.
The NPPF Paragraph 124 states that "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants..."
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields) and fails the criteria 4 ie. is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.

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