Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I do not believe that all aspects required to make the plan sustainable have either been considered or delivered in the proposals for the largest site in the plan, SP14 North of Baldock.
The previous largest development near Baldock, Clothall Common, has not been considered a success by local planners as it has proven to be a separate adjunct to Baldock, providing in the main, homes for commuters to go to London or Cambridge, without any real integration into Baldock town.
This proposal is over twice the size of Clothall Common, and faces almost impossible access to both the Town of Baldock and its rail services and to help sustain its shops and facilities.
The vague plan regarding roads in and around Baldock is nowhere near good enough to show sustainability. There is no actual transport plan.
A potential new road linking Radwell with the Royston Road is in effect a by-pass for the town. It will prove impossibloe to get to the railway station or the town centre except via the existing road access under the railway bridge (already hugely congested) or by using the new road to leave Baldock and try to get back in to the town centre via different roads which are also heavily congested.
The NPPF also refers to sustainability of town centres. Baldock is a historic market town. This development will not only be a standalone development (schools, doctors surgeries and shops), but traffic will prevent going to baldock even if you wanted to. Therefore this new development due to its size will actually affect Baldock detrimentally.
Finally there are no Goverment proposals to widen the A1M along its length so the 5000 plus vehicles this plan will pump onto the A1 to London will lead to even more traffic congestion, air pollution and as a buffer against people visiting the small towns on this route to help sustain them

i have outlined my traffic and town centre infrastructure and sustainability objections in the sustainability section earlier.

My additional comments are based on the huge removal of green belt on this site. Government guidance says green belt should be protected :

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;

the above guidelines are almost all broken in this site. With the exception being that you will be building effectively a new town just a few hundred metres form an existing town, and also swallowing up a historic small settlement village in Bygrave

I do not believe sufficient discussion was given to other identified and unidentified sites in North Herts which may have been much more accessible and not threatening one of our historic market towns.
This site was not selected for its sustainability or its suitability. It was selected as it was a convenient site for the benefit of Herts County Council (exclusive owner). In addition Herts CC were given rights to extend their original land offer considerably in size, when no other landowners were offered the opportunity to also make a similar offer. This would have undoubtedly have lead to other more suitable sites.