Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr Ian Robinson search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 3178
Received: 28/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Robinson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Site BA1:
- More suitable alternative sites
- Scale of development
- Limited parking at Baldock railway station
- Air quality, noise and pollution
- No mention of tree planting
- Drainage and flooding
- Heritage assets
- Lack of Open and Green Space
Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.
Whilst further detail around my objections can be found below my main concerns are that the plan is not effective as there is insufficient evidence that the traffic issues can be resolved within the plan period and it is not justified as there are more suitable alternative sites for houses closer to existing transport links and in towns where there is better existing infrastructure to support growth (for instance in Stevenage).
Section 4 - Communities
Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* 2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
* The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
* It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
* Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
* No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
* Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
* Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
* More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
* A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
* A large green space with ample parking
* Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Tree planting along every public road
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
* Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
* Funding to extend the library and community centre.
* Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.
Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
* Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
* The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
* No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
* There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
* Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require each site to include a children's play park.
* Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Funding to extend both the library and community centre
* Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.
If you could confirm receipt of my email, that would be much appreciated.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
BA2 Land west of Clothall Road
Representation ID: 3179
Received: 28/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Robinson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to BA2:
- Local amenities and community centres
- Healthcare facilities
- Education facilities
- Limited parking at Baldock railway station
- Lack of Open and Green Space
- Air quality, noise and pollution
- Lack of children's play area
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- More suitable alternative sites
Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.
Whilst further detail around my objections can be found below my main concerns are that the plan is not effective as there is insufficient evidence that the traffic issues can be resolved within the plan period and it is not justified as there are more suitable alternative sites for houses closer to existing transport links and in towns where there is better existing infrastructure to support growth (for instance in Stevenage).
Section 4 - Communities
Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* 2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
* The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
* It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
* Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
* No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
* Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
* Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
* More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
* A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
* A large green space with ample parking
* Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Tree planting along every public road
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
* Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
* Funding to extend the library and community centre.
* Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.
Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
* Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
* The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
* No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
* There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
* Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require each site to include a children's play park.
* Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Funding to extend both the library and community centre
* Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.
If you could confirm receipt of my email, that would be much appreciated.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
BA3 Land south of Clothall Common
Representation ID: 3180
Received: 28/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Robinson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to BA3:
- Local amenities and community centres
- Healthcare facilities
- Education facilities
- Limited parking at Baldock railway station
- Lack of Open and Green Space
- Air quality, noise and pollution
- Lack of children's play area
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- More suitable alternative sites
Please consider this email as my representation as part of the public consultation on the new housing development within Baldock. I shall be commenting on sites BA1, BA2 and BA3.
Whilst further detail around my objections can be found below my main concerns are that the plan is not effective as there is insufficient evidence that the traffic issues can be resolved within the plan period and it is not justified as there are more suitable alternative sites for houses closer to existing transport links and in towns where there is better existing infrastructure to support growth (for instance in Stevenage).
Section 4 - Communities
Site BA1:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* 2400 new houses in Baldock will cause significant pressure on the roads. The cross roads by the station, linking the A507 and A505, is already jammed with traffic during peak periods with long tailbacks. There is also a lot of industry traffic that moves from the Letchworth industrial estate across to the A505 via Baldock.
* The crossroads cannot be widened as it is surrounded by listed buildings. The proposed road linking the A1 Baldock Services directly with the A505 does not account for the increased traffic which will be moving to and from Baldock rail station.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station.
* It is inequitable that Baldock town is to be increased by 80% where as other Hertfordshire towns are expanding by only 10 - 20% and yet Baldock is one of the smaller towns thus less able to cope with the size of development being suggested.
* Air quality will be significantly reduced within the town following increased traffic of at least 5000 cars on the roads.
* No mention of tree planting to improve the air quality issue, or % of green space planned to aid surface water drainage and improve aesthetics and well-being.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* BA1 housing site is on a slope. Baldock town has issues with flooding when there is heavy rain. Building will reduce the natural drainage resulting in increased risk of flood water and damage to the town centre. Many buildings within the centre are historic and/or listed buildings.
* Its my understanding that the proposed site for building is the habitat for a number of endangered species (birds and bats) which I believe should be protected through either a reduction in the size of the development to limit damage to the species or reduce the density of the housing to ensure species can co-exist with the development.
* Without sufficient new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Fewer houses to be built within this site as Baldock road network and current community services will struggle to cope.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to reduce flooding risk to the town.
* More equitable approach to the build allocation across Hertfordshire
* A variety of housing styles and increase the allowance of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require this site to have a few a children's play parks.
* A large green space with ample parking
* Require a minimum of green space across the site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general asthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Tree planting along every public road
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Reduce number of houses and / or density of houses to ensure endangered wildlife is protected
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume one car families and thus causes congestion on the roads outside.
* Build key infrastructure in advance of allowing new building to prevent construction traffic going through existing road network pinch points.
* Funding to extend the library and community centre.
* Work with rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Rather than build as an extension of Baldock should the Council not consider developing a town of the same size away from existing communities in order that the road network and other infrastructure can be developed from scratch and thus be suitable for the needs of the community rather than exacerbating existing infrastructure issues? This has worked successfully in a number of places, such as Milton Keynes.
Site BA2 & Site BA3:
Objection to the proposal on the following grounds -
* Informed that the first build will be in site BA2 and BA3. As a result there will be pressure on the current schools, doctors surgery and other amenities such as the community centre, library and town centre parking. There is no mention of providing additional school or doctor services within the current plan for BA2 and BA3.
* Currently, there is one doctors surgery servicing Baldock and surrounding villages (Ashwell, Weston, and Sandon). It is difficult to secure a same day appointment if you ring 10-15 minutes after the opening time. Advance appointments usually entail a two week wait.
* The current primary school provision in Baldock consists of two faith schools (St Mary's and St John's) and 1 non-religious school (Hartsfield). Hartsfield has been oversubscribed for the last 4 years and has a catchment of only c.900m. Many in Baldock have to travel to village schools (Sandon, Ashwell, and Weston) incurring traffic and timing issues for working parents. The new 400 build will generate another class worth of primary school children with no where to go and yet it is already significant problem.
* Limited parking available at Baldock railway station. Also, increased commuter traffic would put further pressure on already congested junctions such as the A505/A507 crossroads.
* No mention of what % green space will be provided, nor mention of tree planting to improve air quality, nor mention of parks for children.
* All construction traffic would need to go through the town causing air quality, noise and congestion issues.
* Without new parks and green space, people in the new sites would need to drive to the existing facilities causing congestion and air quality issues.
Suggested changes to the plan:
* Additional primary school along with the new builds in site BA1 and BA2 to cater for both the sites and the current children of Baldock.
* There is talk of increasing the size of Hartsfield from a 2 form entry to 3. I would question the appropriateness of this for such small children given many teachers would then be unfamiliar and children to them likewise.
* Recommend a variety of housing styles and increase the allowances of self-builds; this will reduce the monotony often associated with a housing development.
* Require each site to include a children's play park.
* Require a minimum of green space per site to ensure improved air quality, surface water drainage, and general aesthetic wellbeing. Suggest developers imitate the % green space achieved in Milton Keynes, a highly successful build with regards to green spaces. 22% figure 1.7, pg 22 in the MK planning manual, MKDC 1992.
* Every house to have a back and front garden to aid water drainage and reduce flooding risk.
* Additional railway parking
* Additional town centre parking
* Funding to extend both the library and community centre
* Work rail and bus providers to ensure that services are increased as the size of the town grows rather than reduced (see Great Northern 2018 consultation).
* Increase the size and amenities of the station (i.e. more manned ticket office hours)
* Ensure houses have sufficient parking. Modern developments seem to assume 1 car families and this causes congestion on the roads outside.
If you could confirm receipt of my email, that would be much appreciated.