Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

The site BA1 North Baldock is completely unsuitable for such a massive development.
The first point I would ask for your consideration on is

POLLUTION - Baldock has been monitored over the years (especially when decisions were being considered for the A505 bypass) - The very high pollution levels were significant in the decision. Baldock is an historic market town that has been the site of a development for many thousands of years and is in fact the OLDEST Town in North Hertfordshire. It has significant archaeology in and around the town. It is situated in a natural 'bowl' which is now causing fumes and air pollution to remain in this geography and not being able to disperse naturally. With the onset of fumes from an ever growing vehicle demand. To add potentially 2,500 homes at the North end and a further 1,000 proposed to the south east (approx 2 cars per dwelling on average) to this situation, will send pollution levels beyond the current acceptable guidelines. in fact air quality standards are already close to being exceeded in Whitehorse Street/Hitchin Street now. This plan cannot be
justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives
( Priory Fields) - The Housing and Green Belt Background paper notes that former site 209E (Priory fields in Hitchin) was considered unsuitable for the same
reason! It is not consistent with national policy on account of the likelihood of exceeding air quality limits.
Asthma in the young and old will again rise to an intolerable level. I do not speak lightly on this particular subject as my Brother died of Asthma, so i know only too well just how serious this can become. Peak times on North Road have already caused huge tail backs of traffic and one is almost choked by the fumes now when doing the school run with young children.

The number of houses being proposed is grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing town and housing needs within it. The houses will not be there for our children, when they grow up. The numbers proposed far out way the current need locally and will be taken up by people outside of the county.

While not apposed to some housing within the town area and towards the natural boundary of the A505 bypass road. The housing figures proposed here are grossly unfair in relation to the proposed numbers for nearby towns within the county.

GREENBELT -
Greenbelt should NEVER be built on and should be preserved and protected to avoid urban sprawl as agreed in parliament. This proposed development will be built on 'prime arable' greenbelt and will unbelievably be just the width of one road away from Ivel Springs - a local nature reserve and is designated as an 'Ancient Monument'.
In the plan, Housing and Green Belt background paper para 3.14 states
that BA1 site makes a 'significant contribution to Green Belt purposes'.
In the same document, para 5.52 justifies REMOVING BA1 from the Green Belt on the basis that it can contribute to meeting housing requirements "in the first five years following adoption of the plan".

This is contradicted in the Plan itself as the site will only be developed after smaller sites across the town. Policy SP8 makes provision for land in Stevenage West to be
safeguarded for future needs outside of this Local Plan allocation, for up to 3,100 homes, to be used after 2026!
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the 'reasonable alternatives'. The site
West of Stevenage should be reconsidered now and not wait till after 2026.
It may also fail the criteria 4 i.e. it is not consistent with national policy
with regard to the Green Belt. Removing Greenbelt is not a solution, it is there for a reason.


RAILWAY - The rail network at peak times, is already a squeeze. Adding this huge amount of houses to the town and destination is something that will impact further on this.
It is unbelievable to note that NHDC had not consulted with Govia the train provider for Baldock to London Kings X during the course of the preparation of this local plan!
Currently Govia are planning to reduce the service to Baldock at off-peak times by half. This is yet another example of the lack of lateral thought that has been put into this most unsuitable development.
In paragraph 32 it states that
"development decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit significant impacts of development. "
The Plan is NOT effective as it cannot be delivered in the plan period. It also fails the
consistency with national policy test as it does not properly assess the transport
improvements that would be needed for the BA1 site to work.

LOCAL WORK OPPORTUNITIES -
NHDC Local plan states
Policy SP3 describes the additional employment provision of 19.6ha of
land East of Baldock. Building this many homes is certainly no guarantee that these will generate businesses here in Baldock. It is more likely to have thousands more commuters using and filling up an already clogged Rail and Road network. The A1 corridor is completely inadequate now to take the huge volume of vehicles at peak times. How will having a huge number of developments all the way along it be a sensible solution?
The proposal also states that the council will "promote and support the expansion of the knowledge based economy in the District". Paragraph 4.23 states that "Many higher skilled residents commute out of the District for employment. "
Then Paragraph 34 states that "plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimized "
Yet another clear contradiction in policy and reality.
This plan cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
West of Stevenage should be reconsidered.
It also fails the criteria 4 i.e. it is not consistent with national policy as West of Stevenage has not been properly considered.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Local plan -
SP14 states that a masterplan must be produced prior to any other detailed matters. No detailed plans have been given. There is an Infrastructure development plan included in the evidence base (added
in September 2016) but it does not give detailed plans!

Paragraph 177 states that it is equally important that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.
To facilitate this, it is important that local planning authorities understand district-wide development costs at the time Local Plans are drawn up. For this reason, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time, in the Local Plan.
This is not consistent with national policy as it has not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.

At one meeting I attended it was put to us (residents) that a generation of Baldock children would need to bused out of the town to neighbouring schools as the schools would only be built when the need is already there (IE the houses are built). This is madness and reactionary political decision making at it's worst. The schools in Baldock are all over subscribed now. Effectively doubling the size of the town is going to have a disastrous impact on the schooling in our town. Baldock has an incredibly good name when it comes to schools and the community is incredibly proud of that fact. The lack of thought behind these decisions to facilitate what seems to be planning bullying on a small historic town is outrageous.

The doctors surgery is verging on impossible to get an appointment and our doctors are working to capacity already. They can not facilitate a large increase in local population demand.

The roads in and around this town are already near capacity and to think not long ago a bypass was given the green light to alleviate this problem. Now we are just going to undo all that work. Putting another bypass in to the North East of the town, may well encourage some traffic to use this and avoid the town. But you can not ignore the massive demand on the roads there will be within the boundary of the town. Commuters, coming in from surrounding villages, lorries delivering, commuters from within the town needing to get to the overcrowded station and finding the car park not big enough, the trains not long enough, the services cut.

The sewage works (by the allotments off North Road) will need a complete new site as the current plant is inadequate for 3,500 new homes and the waste they will demand to be processed.

There is a flood risk in Baldock already, surely this number of homes is just unsuitable.

The Lister hospital - This is a general point for such a large number of housing in North Herts. How will it cope? It is a super hospital right now, but absolutely working to near capacity.

BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOMES IN BALDOCK - This is a folly and a myth. NO developer will invest millions into an area that will see its house prices drop.
affordability - There can only be a cap on the first round of selling, then after that the market will determine the price and 'all the homes for our children and our grandchildren', will be as far away as they always were.

Lastly, here is one thing I would like to add on this point, that is not easy to qualify with paragraph numbers etc. This point is 'community, pride, history, caring and a sense of belonging'. I know to many planners these are things that they have told us are not valid points. But as someone who has lived here for 25 years and has chosen to have children here. I can say confidently that should these be adopted, one day we will lament this plan and policy. Talking about how the community rallies together and to see and witness the sense of pride in our historic town will be something long gone if this disproportionate and frankly unfair development is approved. I urge you to reconsider this plan and to apply a sensible and fair number of homes that will give the town chance to grow WITH and embrace. Not be swamped by and lose everything that we hold dear about our town.

I trust you will give these points due consideration and reject the BA1 North of Baldock proposal.