Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED