Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

RADWELL PARISH MEETING RESPONSE to NHDC LOCAL PLAN 2011-31
A special Parish meeting on November 10th 2016 was attended by about a third of the electors in the Parish.

Radwell Parish Meeting is very concerned about the North Hertfordshire DC Local Plan submission.
We are pleased to note there are no plans to expand Radwell village which is in the Green Belt.

We do not believe that the proposals are justified, effective or consistent with national policy, especially as regards the site BA1 to the North of Baldock.

General overview:
NHDC commissioned the North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study (April 2016) which concludes that a new settlement/Garden City will be required to meet housing needs post-2031. The proposed local plan makes no contribution to this and should be withdrawn and replaced with a plan that makes progress towards this objective. In particular, Baldock developments proposed will enlarge the town by about 80% of which the largest part will be Area BA1 which is separated from the town by the railway. It is a location which has nothing to recommend it. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan - the new railway crossings which are proposed, will only worsen the existing overcrowded vehicular access to the town.

It is not contested that the only reason BA1 has been included is the fact that the land-owner (Hertfordshire County Council) is willing to sell the land for development, despite its being green-belt. It is inconceivable that this area would have been selected for a major development of Baldock, were it not for this fact, which is not a 'planning' criterion at all. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the North Herts plan does.

Specific comments:
Radwell is North of Baldock, which is our nearest town. There is already a huge amount of traffic on North Road A507 in morning and afternoon rush hours, between the Radwell area and Baldock. The major housing development (BA1) is planned to extend Baldock northwards.
This will inevitably produce a great increase in traffic going to and from Baldock station, schools and town centre and through the already-inadequate railway bridge. The plan offers no solution to this central weakness and in this respect is unsustainable and not effective.

Although primary schooling may be provided within the development, some parents - particularly those seeking a Catholic or C of E school - will choose primary schools in the current town. A secondary school in the BA1 area would not have sustainable pupil numbers until most of the housing is occupied, and probably not even then, at today's level of school funding. The current Baldock secondary school has site capacity for substantial expansion. Thus pupils of secondary age will also be taken to school via this same narrow railway bridge. The plan's vague suggestion of 'secondary age education provision' (p.61, h) ignores this problem and is therefore unsound.

The suggested new road crossing over the railway to the east of the development may provide for residents seeking to travel East or South on the A505. Those heading for the station or town centre, and living at the East end of the development, might choose to use this crossing; if so they will then use the Royston Road (B656), already overcrowded at rush-hour. The expansion of the business areas (BE2, BA10) will also increase traffic on the B656. This road does not have sufficient capacity, nor room to be widened. In failing to recognise this, the plan is unsound and unsustainable.

Residents of BA1 travelling West will also contribute to A507 traffic under the railway to join the B656 West-bound.

In short, development BA1 will be quite unsustainable unless an alternative way can be found for access to the town, station and schools. The plans ignore this problem. Site BA1 was not, and would never have been, selected by rational thought, but only because the landowner (the County Council) has offered it for development. Development planning on the basis of landowners' offers is irrational and unsustainable.

The current rail service to Baldock will not accommodate an increased population. The provision of more, and longer, trains will require enlargement of the station, and much more car parking (already a severe problem). This is ignored in the plan. This point applies to all substantial development of the town, i.e. BA2, 3 and 4 as well as BA1. In the Local Plan Submission (p. 61, Policy SP14: Site BA1, e(ii)) there is a 'requirement' for safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to, Baldock Station, but the plan itself offers no solution as to how these are to be achieved, and if not achievable, the use of the word 'requirement' amounts to a recognition that the plan is undeliverable, and therefore unjustified and not effective.

This Local Plan has little sign of infrastructure and strategic planning. Adding to existing towns without proper planning for cycle paths, roads, railways, parking etc is chaotic. We need a proper long term plan; not a rapid reaction to a set of statistics for housing numbers, which themselves seem to be proving inaccurate. No justification is offered for building in the Green Belt - clearly the reason is not a planning argument, but simply the presence of a willing seller of the land in question. The plan is therefore not consistent with national policy.

NHDC should propose only reasonable numbers of houses, not on the Green Belt, and not enormously enlarging existing settlements. Brownfield sites should be used and plans for a new town should be advanced.

RADWELL PARISH MEETING RESPONSE to NHDC LOCAL PLAN 2011-31
A special Parish meeting on November 10th 2016 was attended by about a third of the electors in the Parish.

Radwell Parish Meeting is very concerned about the North Hertfordshire DC Local Plan submission.
We are pleased to note there are no plans to expand Radwell village which is in the Green Belt.

We do not believe that the proposals are justified, effective or consistent with national policy, especially as regards the site BA1 to the North of Baldock.

General overview:
NHDC commissioned the North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study (April 2016) which concludes that a new settlement/Garden City will be required to meet housing needs post-2031. The proposed local plan makes no contribution to this and should be withdrawn and replaced with a plan that makes progress towards this objective. In particular, Baldock developments proposed will enlarge the town by about 80% of which the largest part will be Area BA1 which is separated from the town by the railway. It is a location which has nothing to recommend it. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan - the new railway crossings which are proposed, will only worsen the existing overcrowded vehicular access to the town.

It is not contested that the only reason BA1 has been included is the fact that the land-owner (Hertfordshire County Council) is willing to sell the land for development, despite its being green-belt. It is inconceivable that this area would have been selected for a major development of Baldock, were it not for this fact, which is not a 'planning' criterion at all. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the North Herts plan does.

Specific comments:
Radwell is North of Baldock, which is our nearest town. There is already a huge amount of traffic on North Road A507 in morning and afternoon rush hours, between the Radwell area and Baldock. The major housing development (BA1) is planned to extend Baldock northwards.
This will inevitably produce a great increase in traffic going to and from Baldock station, schools and town centre and through the already-inadequate railway bridge. The plan offers no solution to this central weakness and in this respect is unsustainable and not effective.

Although primary schooling may be provided within the development, some parents - particularly those seeking a Catholic or C of E school - will choose primary schools in the current town. A secondary school in the BA1 area would not have sustainable pupil numbers until most of the housing is occupied, and probably not even then, at today's level of school funding. The current Baldock secondary school has site capacity for substantial expansion. Thus pupils of secondary age will also be taken to school via this same narrow railway bridge. The plan's vague suggestion of 'secondary age education provision' (p.61, h) ignores this problem and is therefore unsound.

The suggested new road crossing over the railway to the east of the development may provide for residents seeking to travel East or South on the A505. Those heading for the station or town centre, and living at the East end of the development, might choose to use this crossing; if so they will then use the Royston Road (B656), already overcrowded at rush-hour. The expansion of the business areas (BE2, BA10) will also increase traffic on the B656. This road does not have sufficient capacity, nor room to be widened. In failing to recognise this, the plan is unsound and unsustainable.

Residents of BA1 travelling West will also contribute to A507 traffic under the railway to join the B656 West-bound.

In short, development BA1 will be quite unsustainable unless an alternative way can be found for access to the town, station and schools. The plans ignore this problem. Site BA1 was not, and would never have been, selected by rational thought, but only because the landowner (the County Council) has offered it for development. Development planning on the basis of landowners' offers is irrational and unsustainable.

The current rail service to Baldock will not accommodate an increased population. The provision of more, and longer, trains will require enlargement of the station, and much more car parking (already a severe problem). This is ignored in the plan. This point applies to all substantial development of the town, i.e. BA2, 3 and 4 as well as BA1. In the Local Plan Submission (p. 61, Policy SP14: Site BA1, e(ii)) there is a 'requirement' for safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to, Baldock Station, but the plan itself offers no solution as to how these are to be achieved, and if not achievable, the use of the word 'requirement' amounts to a recognition that the plan is undeliverable, and therefore unjustified and not effective.

This Local Plan has little sign of infrastructure and strategic planning. Adding to existing towns without proper planning for cycle paths, roads, railways, parking etc is chaotic. We need a proper long term plan; not a rapid reaction to a set of statistics for housing numbers, which themselves seem to be proving inaccurate. No justification is offered for building in the Green Belt - clearly the reason is not a planning argument, but simply the presence of a willing seller of the land in question. The plan is therefore not consistent with national policy.

NHDC should propose only reasonable numbers of houses, not on the Green Belt, and not enormously enlarging existing settlements. Brownfield sites should be used and plans for a new town should be advanced.