Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr Ian A Murray search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP14: Site BA1 - North of Baldock
Representation ID: 406
Received: 16/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian A Murray
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The proposed development to the North of Baldock will be catastrophic in terms of traffic congestion in the town - specifically at the Eastern and Northern access routes which coincide at the traffic lights at the junction of Royston Road and Station Road. The site has been chosen for reasons of expediency, rather than as a properly thought through strategic plan. The consequences on a currently thriving market town will be huge.
The policy is totally deficient in its recognition of the impact of the new development on congestion on the Northern and Eastern access routes into Baldock (London Road, Royston Road). The proposed inclusion of the link road from the A507 to the A505, will only address traffic wishing to travel to the A1M junction to the South of the town, or Eastwards towards Royston and Cambridge. Any access from the new development into the centre of Baldock will still require to pass through the traffic lights at the junction of Station Road and Royston Road (either from the North or the East). This junction is already a bottleneck (particularly from the North) and the council in its submissions barely recognises this, and has presented no adequate traffic models based on current traffic flows and forecast increases in vehicles to demonstrate the impact on this part of the town. A site to the North of the railway station of more than 2000 dwellings will massively increase the number of cars entering Baldock from the North and East. The consequence of this will be Baldock returning to its status years ago as a congestion nightmare (before the bypass was built). As a result people will avoid the town centre and travel South or North to access facilities (e.g retail, local services), damaging the economy of the town centre. It is my clear view that the sites proposed have been put forward by the Council for reasons of expediency rather than practicality - they have been chosen because the council owns the land not because the site is the best, most practical and economically viable solution. As a minimum the council must be encouraged to properly recognise this issue and obliged to provide robust models to demonstrate the impact on the town. I do not therefore believe that the plan has been 'Positively Prepared' nor that it is 'Justified' as per the soundness tests set out in the policy documents.