Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to object to the NHDC Local Plan, with particular reference to the Blackhorse Farm development to the north of Baldock as it fails to meet the following "Tests of Soundness":

"Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities"

"Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies on the National Planning Policy Framework"

"Justified - the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives."

Local Traffic Congestion and Pollution in Baldock

There is a traffic bottleneck in the centre of Baldock, at the crossroads/traffic lights where the A507 (North Road) meets the Royston Road (was the A505 until the bypass was built). This junction has a large number of major traffic routes that converge at this single point (A507 traffic in both directions, traffic from A1 north heading to A507 and A505, A505 traffic heading to A1 North or A507, traffic from outer-lying villages joining any of the routes just mentioned). This junction is always congested, with major queues during rush hour, particularly heading along North Road, further than the last houses on the very outskirts of Baldock, heading out towards the A1 services. In fact even outside rush hour there are often queues that extend to the edge of town.

It would be very difficult to alter this junction as it surrounded by very old listed buildings. One of which in particular has suffered several hits, and significant damage over the last few years from lorries or vans misjudging the tight corners.

Pollution in this area is particularly bad. Baldock is in a natural bowl and in the past has always suffered with air quality problems, causing occurrence of asthma in children to be much higher than the national average. These issues were partly dealt with by the development of the Baldock bypass which took traffic from the A1 at J9 wanting to join the A505. Since then however, I believe that air quality is once again approaching very dangerous levels (apparently close to breaching EU standards), and as I regularly have to walk down past the station with my 3 year old to get into town, I feel extremely worried for his health!

In addition, I am extremely concerned about the proposed link road between the A507 and A505. It suggests that residents of the new development will have direct access onto North Road. A development of 2800 houses brings with it as standard, 2 cars per household - an additional 5,600 cars. This would hugely aggravate the current pollution issues, and essentially create gridlock at an already ridiculously congested junction. Also, I have seen an options paper created for the council which suggests that a number of houses could be developed on the Black horse farm site without any need to build the link road (therefore a cheaper option), instead access would be along Bygrave road. This is of immense concern to me, as Bygrave Road is a small lane leading to a small residential street - it is absolutely not designed to take traffic from a development of several hundred houses.

Finally, the Station is situated in this congested area (on North Road, near the crossroads). Congestion will only get worse with such huge influx of people. It is already dangerous trying to get in out of station due to poor visibility as a result of the queuing traffic, and dealing with drivers already frustrated by the lengthy queues. This situation can only be exacerbated by the number of new commuters that 2,800 houses would bring.

The National Planning Policy Framework requires that a transport assessment is undertaken for large scale developments. It states that "development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". However I have seen no evidence that any transport assessment has been undertaken, or any suggestions as to how these issues can be mitigated, therefore the plan clearly falls foul of National Planning Policy. The impacts of the suggested development will be extremely severe, both in terms of extreme congestion and high levels of pollution around the bottleneck at the A507 / Whitehorse Street, and should therefore be rejected in favour of more careful and sensible planning.

Wider Traffic Issues

The local plan intends to increase Baldock's population by 80%. Baldock has limited employment opportunities, therefore workers would have to commute outside the town which would add to the commuter traffic on an already congested road and train network. I can only assume that a large majority of commuters will be heading South, where transport links are already at breaking point. I travel to Hatfield for work and over the last 2 years have been shocked by the significant increase in traffic volumes and travel time during morning and evening rush hour, every day of the week. Why is it necessary to add further pressure when queues and delays are already at completely unacceptable levels? We need a solution for the existing traffic problems, not for them to be exacerbated by such significant population expansion. How are the new and existing residents going to get anywhere? I feel that in this respect the plan is not effective.

The Unacceptable Apportionment of Housing to Baldock and Impact on the Town

Baldock is classed as being of national importance for its historic character (only one of 5 towns in Hertfordshire), with a pretty centre consisting of beautiful character buildings. It has been singled out for a hugely disproportionate allocation of new houses both in terms of the size of the town itself but also in relation to the other towns in North Hertfordshire. Should the proposed developments come to fruition, they would increase Baldock's population by 80%, which will have a hugely magnified impact on our historic market town. Development should be appropriate to the existing size and character of the town, not a sprawling concrete development that is out of keeping with the existing community and outside of current settlement boundaries. The National Planning Policy Framework talks of "developing on accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre". The plan is to create a "bolt-on" settlement, the size of Baldock, right next to Baldock, with an approach into town that is a traffic bottleneck. If it isn't going to become part of the existing town, why build it so close that it destroys the existing town?
The answer? The idea of a new Garden City has been put forward by Oliver Heald MP as a longer term solution. Build a separate town that can support itself with its own centre, it's own employment opportunities, it's own transport network, it's own green spaces and it's own identity, that would be more in keeping with North Hertfordshire. In the meantime, use existing brownfield sites to ease short term pressure, giving breathing space to create something more sustainable in the long term.
Destruction of Greenbelt Land

The Local Plan is clearly inconsistent with National Policy in this regard! Whilst I understand that towns need to change and develop over time, surely ALL possible Brownfield sites must be considered first (including those in Luton, if we are being forced to take on some of their building requirements for no apparent benefit to us). I understand that there are a number of brownfield sites that haven't even made it into the plan. Why is this? Why is an area of prime agricultural land, which is a haven for runners, walkers and cyclists, and also a habitat for endangered farmland birds, being put forward in the local plan first? According to the National Planning Policy Framework, the purpose of greenbelt is to restrict urban sprawl, safeguard the countryside, and preserve the setting and character of historic towns. The Blackhorse Farm development goes against all of these concepts and therefore again falls foul of National Policy. Policy has also made clear that redrawing of green belt boundaries should only take place in defined exceptional circumstances (ie not just for the sake of a Local Plan, or because the council wish to release the land). It is implied that housing need is an exceptional circumstance, however I see nothing exceptional about that - it is an issue across the South East, and therefore not exceptional at all! The plan is unjustified. In addition, National Policy clearly identifies brownfield sites as a potential source of housing supply but in this plan only 20% of houses will be developed on previously developed land, again inconsistent with National Policy.

Finally, I feel that Baldock has had its fair share of development over recent years and I cannot see any positive points that such proposed levels of development would have on our picturesque historic market town, in fact all I can imagine is traffic chaos, pollution and spoilt countryside. I struggle to find any evidence to suggest that there is a need for a development of this scale to meet the needs of Baldock and its local community. I would agree with our local MPs that a more suitable solution would be a 2-stage plan allowing any large scale development to be given the consideration it requires to be a success. Please consider my views and preserve the charm and character of Baldock by not allowing it to expand at such a unreasonable rate.