Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.