Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

AREA BA1
GREEN BELT
The NPPF says that green belt should be protected and only altered in exceptional circumstances. There is no justification in this plan for destroying green belt countryside.
Both Oliver Heald MP (2015) and Stephen McPartland MP (November 2016) argue for a new garden city development with planned infrastructure and transport. This Local Plan (BA1) is not the most appropriate strategy and is unjustified. It is not consistent with national policy.
NPPF Core planning principles 17 'take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it'
'support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk....encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)'.
There is nothing in this Local Plan about any of this.
Too many houses are planned, and brownfield sites should be used first. The Local Plan should clearly state this.

BALDOCK TOWN/ ROADS and TRAFFIC
NPPF 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 24 'When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.'
BA1 would not be well connected to Baldock town centre. It is an insular development which will not mix well with the rest of Baldock.

The plan has not got sufficient detail about roads to and from Baldock. It is incomplete. The plan should not be submitted without details about where exactly the new roads are to be built and also showing costings and traffic forecasts.

It is incomplete and unsustainable. There are traffic implications for Radwell where I live. Baldock is my local town. The A507 into Baldock is already insufficient to deal with present traffic. For example on November 9th it took me 25 minutes leaving at 8.00am to get from Radwell to Knights Templar School in Baldock where I teach. This is normally an 8 minute journey at other times of day.
The A507 railway bridge is very narrow and there is no mention of plans to rebuild and widen it.

At present when turning out of Radwell Lane onto the A507 one can wait for gaps in the traffic flow resulting from the traffic lights in Baldock and turn in the gaps (which can take quite some time). If there is a new road from this development onto the A507 further south there will be more traffic driving north and turning out of Radwell will become even more dangerous.

There may also be more traffic driving south from the A1(M) Junction 10 and using the proposed link road to the A505 as a northern Baldock bypass. Lorries from the north already often turn off the A1(M) and go along the A507 to Baldock before turning left at the traffic lights onto Royston Road to avoid the extra mileage of using the Baldock Bypass turn from Letchworth Gate Junction 9 A1(M). Many houses have recently been built in Central Bedfordshire which add to local congestion. This is also a cross administrative boundary issue which has not been thought out.

If BA1 were to go ahead there will be substantial construction traffic during the building of this development adding to the difficulties already suffered on approach roads to Baldock.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT
NPPF 4. Promoting sustainable transport 'Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport'

There are plans in the new Govia Thameslink Train 2018 survey to reduce the off peak trains from Baldock to London making the journey last 56 minutes instead of 40 as at present. The NHDC did not consult with them before presenting this local Plan. I understand that belatedly NHDC have been in discussions and that the Baldock fast trains may be retained but only at peak times.

Getting to Baldock station by car from Radwell is already very difficult at peak times and will be more difficult with increased traffic. The station car park is already too small for Baldock and outlying villages and fills up early in the morning. It is very difficult to find alternative parking and there seems to be nothing in this Plan to alleviate this large problem.

Hertfordshire County Council has recently cut out the bus 391 which travelled until September 30th 2016 from Stotfold in Bedfordshire to Radwell, Baldock and Weston and then on to our nearest hospital in Stevenage. The railway station in Stevenage is not close to the hospital in Stevenage. There is no direct public transport to the Lister Hospital from Baldock. This is a cross administrative boundary issue. Transport to the Lister Hospital is not mentioned, nor any discussion with Bedfordshire County Council.

WATER
There is no reference to where the water supply is to come from. There is a lack of clarity in the plan.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Schools, a doctor's surgery and a community hall are mentioned but there should be details for this sort of plan. We know from a North Herts District Councillor that some of these were promised for nearby Great Ashby near Stevenage and were not built. There seems to be no guarantee in the Plan that any developer would include proper infrastructure.

CONCLUSION
The proposed local plan is not positively prepared, justified or effective or consistent with national policy. It has a disproportionate effect on Baldock and local villages such as Radwell and should be withdrawn. A new Garden City site should be found to meet future housing needs after initial use of brownfield sites.