Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing to comment on the NHDC 's local plan 2011-2031.
My comments concentrate on the impact which the development will have
1. on the Historic Market Town of Baldock and
2. the particular area which I have lived in since 1982 and
3. the particular dwellings situated in the area I live in

The Construction of 3,436 Houses (Reference 13.15)
The NPPF soundness criteria
Positively Prepared
During the 34 years in which I have lived in Baldock I have already seen the town grow steadily, the largest development being The Clothall Common Housing Estate which is earmarked to be increased by yet another 500 houses.
As a result of this expansion and other regional domestic and commercial growth the town became increasingly congested with huge traffic jams especially on the Eastern approach, a problem which was eased by the construction of the 2006 Baldock Bypass, reference 13,22.
The present plan is likely to reverse the slight improvement which was achieved by the by-pass as 3,436 new households will have to move about the town in addition to whatever new commercial development is planned along the B
Reference No.13.15
The town presently has 4,491 dwellings. The Local Plan intends to add a total of another 3,436 of which 3,136 are still to be built between now and 2031.
The 2011 census presented a population of 10,280 inhabitants. 3,436 new houses will increase the population of Baldock by a minimum of 7-8,000 people.
These figures speak for themselves.
This plan is not positively prepared as it is completely out of proportion with any other development in North Herts.
Justified
The land North of Baldock, reference BA1, is a large open site and seems to have been chosen as a convenient plot because 2,800 houses can be fitted into it. There is no justification for such inadequate planning.
The Local Plan is not justified because reasonable alternatives do not appear to have been fully explored.
Effective
The town of Baldock cannot absorb the intended development, it is not an effective development.
In order to add that number of dwellings the present infrastructure of Baldock needs to be almost doubled which is totally unfeasible. also, that would have to be done BEFORE the 3,436 houses are all up and running or serious shortages will be experienced as we know happened in Great Ashby nr Stevenage. It seems as if Modern Baldock is intended to be built alongside Historic Baldock which is neither effective nor conducive to the nature of this Historic Market Town with its distinct character.
Consistent with National Policy
The development of the land under reference BA1 is not sustainable.

The Importance of Baldock's History and Heritage (Reference 13.13/13.14/13.17)
Positively Prepared
Not at all.
When coming to Baldock on the Eastern Approach there is a BROWN Signpost saying BALDOCK - HISTORIC MARKET TOWN
Baldock's rich history has long been established. During the preparation for the construction of the Baldock Bypass extensive archeological diggings were carried out involving the Baldock Schools. The findings of Roman artefacts can be viewed in local museums.
Baldock's centre has a conservation area and many old buildings which are already seriously compromised by the intense through traffic.
"Managing growth in this relatively developed part of the District whilst allowing each town to retain its identity is one of the challenges to be addressed" (Reference 13.14)

Justified
The need for more housing cannot justify the destruction of a Historic Market Town.

Site BA10 New Employment Allocation- Royston Road

Positively Prepared
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Justified
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Effective
No comment, I am not able to assess that
Consistent with National Policy
No comment, I am not able to assess that

The Plan to develop the site BA10 into a larger business park fails in its entirety to acknowledge the fact that there are 8 existing family homes spread along the Royston Road and situated on the very site that is to be developed.
When I moved into my house in 1982 all these houses were owned by Hertfordshire Council.
Over the years the Council sold most of them into private ownership and all the privately owned houses have been renovated, modernised and extended. Two of those houses changed hands in 2015 and it is an outrage that none of the searches which were done found anything about the intended development of the site they are on. This poses some serious questions:
1. Is the Council hiding anything?
2. Why have we not been notified of anything regarding the future of our houses if there is going to be commercial development around our houses?
3. Why can Councillor Michael Muir and Councillor Mike Weeks not offer any information at all
about this part of the plan?
This section of the plan has not considered any alternative or any impact on the 8 dwellings along the Royston Road.
This situation has caused considerable anxiety amongst the residents along the Royston Road.
We do not know what the outcome for these 8 houses will be.
Nobody can tell us whether our homes will be subject to compulsory purchase and will eventually be demolished the Business Park will be built behind and around our houses thus hugely reducing the value of our houses and making a sale impossible.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in 2003 in the context of the construction of the Baldock Bypass I received a document from the Planning & Environment Directorate of North Herts District Council.
This document was a DRAFT REGISTER OF IMPORTANT LOCAL BUILDINGS FOR BALDOCK.
It included
Small Holdings, Royston Road
Early 20th Century small holdings are positioned at regular intervals along Royston Road. Each house has been designed with a group of outbuildings and a small area of land. The houses are simple rectangular blocks with rendered walls and plain tiled roofs. the outbuildings are weatherboarded with slate roofs.

The houses could not be included in the register in the end because the properties are within the Bygrave Parish and not Baldock. However, there is a case for their contribution to the Baldock heritage and they must not be destroyed.

The aspect of transport to and from a potential business park has not been addressed at all , nor has it been addressed how that would further impact on an already congested crossroads in the centre of Baldock.
This plan is neither positively prepared, nor justified, nor effective.

Conclusion
This plan is ill-prepared and unsound in its present form. The size of the suggested development is unfair and completely disproportionate with any other development and will destroy the character of an important town.
Whilst there is acceptance in the town that some development will have to happen, there is a very determined consensus that it cannot take on this size and shape and needs to be revised.

I am writing to comment on the NHDC 's local plan 2011-2031.
My comments concentrate on the impact which the development will have
1. on the Historic Market Town of Baldock and
2. the particular area which I have lived in since 1982 and
3. the particular dwellings situated in the area I live in

The Construction of 3,436 Houses (Reference 13.15)
The NPPF soundness criteria
Positively Prepared
During the 34 years in which I have lived in Baldock I have already seen the town grow steadily, the largest development being The Clothall Common Housing Estate which is earmarked to be increased by yet another 500 houses.
As a result of this expansion and other regional domestic and commercial growth the town became increasingly congested with huge traffic jams especially on the Eastern approach, a problem which was eased by the construction of the 2006 Baldock Bypass, reference 13,22.
The present plan is likely to reverse the slight improvement which was achieved by the by-pass as 3,436 new households will have to move about the town in addition to whatever new commercial development is planned along the B
Reference No.13.15
The town presently has 4,491 dwellings. The Local Plan intends to add a total of another 3,436 of which 3,136 are still to be built between now and 2031.
The 2011 census presented a population of 10,280 inhabitants. 3,436 new houses will increase the population of Baldock by a minimum of 7-8,000 people.
These figures speak for themselves.
This plan is not positively prepared as it is completely out of proportion with any other development in North Herts.
Justified
The land North of Baldock, reference BA1, is a large open site and seems to have been chosen as a convenient plot because 2,800 houses can be fitted into it. There is no justification for such inadequate planning.
The Local Plan is not justified because reasonable alternatives do not appear to have been fully explored.
Effective
The town of Baldock cannot absorb the intended development, it is not an effective development.
In order to add that number of dwellings the present infrastructure of Baldock needs to be almost doubled which is totally unfeasible. also, that would have to be done BEFORE the 3,436 houses are all up and running or serious shortages will be experienced as we know happened in Great Ashby nr Stevenage. It seems as if Modern Baldock is intended to be built alongside Historic Baldock which is neither effective nor conducive to the nature of this Historic Market Town with its distinct character.
Consistent with National Policy
The development of the land under reference BA1 is not sustainable.

The Importance of Baldock's History and Heritage (Reference 13.13/13.14/13.17)
Positively Prepared
Not at all.
When coming to Baldock on the Eastern Approach there is a BROWN Signpost saying BALDOCK - HISTORIC MARKET TOWN
Baldock's rich history has long been established. During the preparation for the construction of the Baldock Bypass extensive archeological diggings were carried out involving the Baldock Schools. The findings of Roman artefacts can be viewed in local museums.
Baldock's centre has a conservation area and many old buildings which are already seriously compromised by the intense through traffic.
"Managing growth in this relatively developed part of the District whilst allowing each town to retain its identity is one of the challenges to be addressed" (Reference 13.14)

Justified
The need for more housing cannot justify the destruction of a Historic Market Town.

Site BA10 New Employment Allocation- Royston Road

Positively Prepared
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Justified
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Effective
No comment, I am not able to assess that
Consistent with National Policy
No comment, I am not able to assess that

The Plan to develop the site BA10 into a larger business park fails in its entirety to acknowledge the fact that there are 8 existing family homes spread along the Royston Road and situated on the very site that is to be developed.
When I moved into my house in 1982 all these houses were owned by Hertfordshire Council.
Over the years the Council sold most of them into private ownership and all the privately owned houses have been renovated, modernised and extended. Two of those houses changed hands in 2015 and it is an outrage that none of the searches which were done found anything about the intended development of the site they are on. This poses some serious questions:
1. Is the Council hiding anything?
2. Why have we not been notified of anything regarding the future of our houses if there is going to be commercial development around our houses?
3. Why can Councillor Michael Muir and Councillor Mike Weeks not offer any information at all
about this part of the plan?
This section of the plan has not considered any alternative or any impact on the 8 dwellings along the Royston Road.
This situation has caused considerable anxiety amongst the residents along the Royston Road.
We do not know what the outcome for these 8 houses will be.
Nobody can tell us whether our homes will be subject to compulsory purchase and will eventually be demolished the Business Park will be built behind and around our houses thus hugely reducing the value of our houses and making a sale impossible.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in 2003 in the context of the construction of the Baldock Bypass I received a document from the Planning & Environment Directorate of North Herts District Council.
This document was a DRAFT REGISTER OF IMPORTANT LOCAL BUILDINGS FOR BALDOCK.
It included
Small Holdings, Royston Road
Early 20th Century small holdings are positioned at regular intervals along Royston Road. Each house has been designed with a group of outbuildings and a small area of land. The houses are simple rectangular blocks with rendered walls and plain tiled roofs. the outbuildings are weatherboarded with slate roofs.

The houses could not be included in the register in the end because the properties are within the Bygrave Parish and not Baldock. However, there is a case for their contribution to the Baldock heritage and they must not be destroyed.

The aspect of transport to and from a potential business park has not been addressed at all , nor has it been addressed how that would further impact on an already congested crossroads in the centre of Baldock.
This plan is neither positively prepared, nor justified, nor effective.

Conclusion
This plan is ill-prepared and unsound in its present form. The size of the suggested development is unfair and completely disproportionate with any other development and will destroy the character of an important town.
Whilst there is acceptance in the town that some development will have to happen, there is a very determined consensus that it cannot take on this size and shape and needs to be revised.

I am writing to comment on the NHDC 's local plan 2011-2031.
My comments concentrate on the impact which the development will have
1. on the Historic Market Town of Baldock and
2. the particular area which I have lived in since 1982 and
3. the particular dwellings situated in the area I live in

The Construction of 3,436 Houses (Reference 13.15)
The NPPF soundness criteria
Positively Prepared
During the 34 years in which I have lived in Baldock I have already seen the town grow steadily, the largest development being The Clothall Common Housing Estate which is earmarked to be increased by yet another 500 houses.
As a result of this expansion and other regional domestic and commercial growth the town became increasingly congested with huge traffic jams especially on the Eastern approach, a problem which was eased by the construction of the 2006 Baldock Bypass, reference 13,22.
The present plan is likely to reverse the slight improvement which was achieved by the by-pass as 3,436 new households will have to move about the town in addition to whatever new commercial development is planned along the B
Reference No.13.15
The town presently has 4,491 dwellings. The Local Plan intends to add a total of another 3,436 of which 3,136 are still to be built between now and 2031.
The 2011 census presented a population of 10,280 inhabitants. 3,436 new houses will increase the population of Baldock by a minimum of 7-8,000 people.
These figures speak for themselves.
This plan is not positively prepared as it is completely out of proportion with any other development in North Herts.
Justified
The land North of Baldock, reference BA1, is a large open site and seems to have been chosen as a convenient plot because 2,800 houses can be fitted into it. There is no justification for such inadequate planning.
The Local Plan is not justified because reasonable alternatives do not appear to have been fully explored.
Effective
The town of Baldock cannot absorb the intended development, it is not an effective development.
In order to add that number of dwellings the present infrastructure of Baldock needs to be almost doubled which is totally unfeasible. also, that would have to be done BEFORE the 3,436 houses are all up and running or serious shortages will be experienced as we know happened in Great Ashby nr Stevenage. It seems as if Modern Baldock is intended to be built alongside Historic Baldock which is neither effective nor conducive to the nature of this Historic Market Town with its distinct character.
Consistent with National Policy
The development of the land under reference BA1 is not sustainable.

The Importance of Baldock's History and Heritage (Reference 13.13/13.14/13.17)
Positively Prepared
Not at all.
When coming to Baldock on the Eastern Approach there is a BROWN Signpost saying BALDOCK - HISTORIC MARKET TOWN
Baldock's rich history has long been established. During the preparation for the construction of the Baldock Bypass extensive archeological diggings were carried out involving the Baldock Schools. The findings of Roman artefacts can be viewed in local museums.
Baldock's centre has a conservation area and many old buildings which are already seriously compromised by the intense through traffic.
"Managing growth in this relatively developed part of the District whilst allowing each town to retain its identity is one of the challenges to be addressed" (Reference 13.14)

Justified
The need for more housing cannot justify the destruction of a Historic Market Town.

Site BA10 New Employment Allocation- Royston Road

Positively Prepared
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Justified
Reference 13.20 / 13.21
Effective
No comment, I am not able to assess that
Consistent with National Policy
No comment, I am not able to assess that

The Plan to develop the site BA10 into a larger business park fails in its entirety to acknowledge the fact that there are 8 existing family homes spread along the Royston Road and situated on the very site that is to be developed.
When I moved into my house in 1982 all these houses were owned by Hertfordshire Council.
Over the years the Council sold most of them into private ownership and all the privately owned houses have been renovated, modernised and extended. Two of those houses changed hands in 2015 and it is an outrage that none of the searches which were done found anything about the intended development of the site they are on. This poses some serious questions:
1. Is the Council hiding anything?
2. Why have we not been notified of anything regarding the future of our houses if there is going to be commercial development around our houses?
3. Why can Councillor Michael Muir and Councillor Mike Weeks not offer any information at all
about this part of the plan?
This section of the plan has not considered any alternative or any impact on the 8 dwellings along the Royston Road.
This situation has caused considerable anxiety amongst the residents along the Royston Road.
We do not know what the outcome for these 8 houses will be.
Nobody can tell us whether our homes will be subject to compulsory purchase and will eventually be demolished the Business Park will be built behind and around our houses thus hugely reducing the value of our houses and making a sale impossible.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in 2003 in the context of the construction of the Baldock Bypass I received a document from the Planning & Environment Directorate of North Herts District Council.
This document was a DRAFT REGISTER OF IMPORTANT LOCAL BUILDINGS FOR BALDOCK.
It included
Small Holdings, Royston Road
Early 20th Century small holdings are positioned at regular intervals along Royston Road. Each house has been designed with a group of outbuildings and a small area of land. The houses are simple rectangular blocks with rendered walls and plain tiled roofs. the outbuildings are weatherboarded with slate roofs.

The houses could not be included in the register in the end because the properties are within the Bygrave Parish and not Baldock. However, there is a case for their contribution to the Baldock heritage and they must not be destroyed.

The aspect of transport to and from a potential business park has not been addressed at all , nor has it been addressed how that would further impact on an already congested crossroads in the centre of Baldock.
This plan is neither positively prepared, nor justified, nor effective.

Conclusion
This plan is ill-prepared and unsound in its present form. The size of the suggested development is unfair and completely disproportionate with any other development and will destroy the character of an important town.
Whilst there is acceptance in the town that some development will have to happen, there is a very determined consensus that it cannot take on this size and shape and needs to be revised.