Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr Mike Bambury search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 2482
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Mike Bambury
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object on the following grounds:
unfair that Baldock should have to take 2000+ houses;
increased congestion and gridlock;
potential decrease in rail service for commuters; and
no solution proposed for the railway bridge.
I'm writing to oppose the Baldock development. I had used the consultation software but the design of it was impenetrable and heavy with planning jargon, it refused to register my application and then lost my details. therefore I'm writing with my objection.
It's grossly unfair that Baldock should be expected to take an extra 2000+ houses while surrounding areas with larger populations are absolved from pulling their weight.
The 2014 consultation on traffic flow under the railway bridge bears no relationship to the level of congestion experienced at the present time. Almost any time I leave my house, there's a huge queue. Jamming two thousand houses' worth of extra traffic will lead to gridlock and unsafe levels of traffic.
No clear solution has been proposed to get around the choke point of the railway bridge. The pavement is far too narrow. My 83 year old mother has almost toppled into traffic on more than one occasion. She would find it impossible to cross the road with any more traffic.
Frankly, a local MP was astounded that this scheme was going ahead with the railway bridge the way it was. He said they would have to abandon this scheme because of it. Not only has this not been abandoned, it has gone ahead with no plans to solve problems of congestion in the station, surrounding roads (including mine) and traffic flow. The railway company has decided they want to reduce the train service to Baldock. They knew nothing of these plans. Ours is a commuter town, facing reduced train service and irresponsible rises in population without regard for how this will work in practice. I therefore oppose this scheme. We opposed this before and were ignored. I hope that someone will listen to us now.