Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing in with regards to the Baldock development in particular and BA2/BA3 proposals.

Whilst we all agree that there needs to be further housing made available ,the strategy adopted does not seem sound :

*At one of the town meetings David Levett of NHDC openly admits that a Garden City new settlement approach would be more beneficial but they do not have the time to do this ; what we need here is a long term viable and sustainable programme , something we can look back on as a success like the local Letchworth Garden City. This is just a quick plan (as NHDC have no plan in place) to tick off the numbers as mentioned in point2.
*Sir Oliver Heald MP has expressed concerns over this plan as he can see it is just an exercise of mass building that NHDC needs to sign off to essentially provide a quick plan.
*The distance of these expansions to Baldock will mean that most people are effectively encouraged to get in the car to go everywhere as they are not localised enough to the town and all of its facilities that attract people to the town - meaning further traffic flow through the town and less community spirit as people do not walk around.
*When I go to the local park , schools and out in the town it appears most of the people moving to Baldock are from the London area as you can now commute from Baldock in good time and people like the feel of a small town. How does this support a local plan for local people ?
*The NPPF states that it needs to be a sustainable development with three dimensions (i) economic - as the housing in general is too far to walk into Baldock people will get in their cars and travel further afield as the town will not cope with this demand on parking etc (ii) social - by bolting on large housing estates these become their own enclaves and will not contribute to the real spirit and culture of the town (iii) environmental - a properly thought out new Garden City encourages people to walk to its facilities whereas bolt on estates at a distance ensure people drive everywhere damaging the environment and detracting from the character of a small town.
*From where I live you have country views and there are always people walking dogs , out with families - this opportunity will be replaced with housing.
*You can not logically increase a small towns size by 80% and expect the amenities/infrastructure/traffic etc to cope - you cant not change existing infrastructure that is built around already. The town itself will not be able to cope with the massive extra volume - it is not designed for this volume of people/traffic and the actual town infrastructure can not be changed. Even with the considerations infrastructure is an inherent problem when expansions of this size are undertaken.
*The extra traffic from sites BA2/3 will be predominantly going south and therefore have a major impact at the north end of Baldock town where there are problems already at most times of the day.
*The Plan does not as detailed above retain and enhance the town centre of Baldock as recommended by the NPPF.

I am writing in with regards to the Baldock development in particular and BA2/BA3 proposals.

Whilst we all agree that there needs to be further housing made available ,the strategy adopted does not seem sound :

*At one of the town meetings David Levett of NHDC openly admits that a Garden City new settlement approach would be more beneficial but they do not have the time to do this ; what we need here is a long term viable and sustainable programme , something we can look back on as a success like the local Letchworth Garden City. This is just a quick plan (as NHDC have no plan in place) to tick off the numbers as mentioned in point2.
*Sir Oliver Heald MP has expressed concerns over this plan as he can see it is just an exercise of mass building that NHDC needs to sign off to essentially provide a quick plan.
*The distance of these expansions to Baldock will mean that most people are effectively encouraged to get in the car to go everywhere as they are not localised enough to the town and all of its facilities that attract people to the town - meaning further traffic flow through the town and less community spirit as people do not walk around.
*When I go to the local park , schools and out in the town it appears most of the people moving to Baldock are from the London area as you can now commute from Baldock in good time and people like the feel of a small town. How does this support a local plan for local people ?
*The NPPF states that it needs to be a sustainable development with three dimensions (i) economic - as the housing in general is too far to walk into Baldock people will get in their cars and travel further afield as the town will not cope with this demand on parking etc (ii) social - by bolting on large housing estates these become their own enclaves and will not contribute to the real spirit and culture of the town (iii) environmental - a properly thought out new Garden City encourages people to walk to its facilities whereas bolt on estates at a distance ensure people drive everywhere damaging the environment and detracting from the character of a small town.
*From where I live you have country views and there are always people walking dogs , out with families - this opportunity will be replaced with housing.
*You can not logically increase a small towns size by 80% and expect the amenities/infrastructure/traffic etc to cope - you cant not change existing infrastructure that is built around already. The town itself will not be able to cope with the massive extra volume - it is not designed for this volume of people/traffic and the actual town infrastructure can not be changed. Even with the considerations infrastructure is an inherent problem when expansions of this size are undertaken.
*The extra traffic from sites BA2/3 will be predominantly going south and therefore have a major impact at the north end of Baldock town where there are problems already at most times of the day.
*The Plan does not as detailed above retain and enhance the town centre of Baldock as recommended by the NPPF.