Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Mr Thomas Pedersen search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock

Representation ID: 850

Received: 25/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Thomas Pedersen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to SP14 - BA1:
- Transport
- Pollution
- Schools
- Doctors
- Infrastructure
- Retaining a sense of town centres
- Not consistent with NPPF
- Agricultural land

Full text:

The proposal to build 2800 houses to extend baldock is out of proportion. the town cannot cope with this amount of development. as it is there is always queues from all directions to get though baldock. lorries continues to travel through baldock instead of the existing bypass so adding another bypass wont help. no sign of a consistent plan beyond a mention of a bypass. this is not compliant with policy that suggests avoiding major infrastructure changes which this would be. the train station is overcrowded and the reality is that most of these houses will be sold to london people who will need to commute into london. currently there is a rail consultation about downgrading the service from baldock which will only make this problem worse. there is no sign that NHDC has consulted with govia about this.. the schools are at capacity and so is the doctors and other services. again no sign of a plan or costings for addressing this beyond a brief mention of new school and doctors(no costs or is it feasible, ie chronic shortage of doctors etc).
i am concerned that the airpolution will increase from all the additional traffic and see no evidence for addressing this. doubling the size of baldock and expecting to integrate this into the existing town is unrealistic. it is more likely we end of with a continuous sprawl from hitchin through to ashwell with no coherent town centers.
builiding on prime agricultural land is against national policy and hence this whole scheme should be reconsidered. overall this is poorly thought through scheme and smacks of panic and lack of vision.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.