Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Regarding the consultancy process for the local development plan, please find below my representation. I would like to start by saying that in principle, I am fully supportive of the need to increase housing stock within the area however I would like to raise two comments in relation to proposed local plan and its impact on Royston.

Firstly, it is my firm belief that the redevelopment of brown field sites should be prioritised over the development of any new sites. Take, for example the site on Lumen Road (RY8) that has been derelict for many years. Unfortunately any progress towards redevelopment has been difficult to determine often due to closed council sessions. I appreciate that there is a concern that the site is potentially contaminated however I would assume that it would make sense (morally and ethically if nothing else) to decontaminate the land and convert it to residential use rather than leave it as a contaminated, derelict eyesore that encourages vandalism and other anti social activities. Everyone gains as decontaminating the land would clearly benefit the wider community making the area a better area to live.

The second point relates to certain of the significant employment and residential sites proposed. The plan describes a significant employment opportunity on the north west of Royston - RY9 - and two significant housing proposals on the east side of town - RY2 (330 homes) and RY10 (300 homes) - on the opposite side of town. Given the locations of these sites and together with the location of the rail station, it is reasonable to assume that one consequence of this would be a significant increase in cross-town traffic. These two residential sites alone represent an almost 10% increase in housing compared to the 2011 census number of 6800 dwellings and the increase in volume of traffic would be expected to be similar. There are only a very limited number of routes to get from one side of town to the other with people preferring to use either the route through the town centre, or rat-runs predominantly consisting of Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue, rather than using the A505 bypass. The areas described (Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue) are residential areas and should not be considered as major conduits to aid traffic flow. These residential areas are already blighted by traffic and excessive speeding (with the very limited speed restriction humps on Mill Road being virtually pointless) and if anything, efforts should be in place to reduce or control traffic flow rather than increase it.
To the best of my knowledge, no studies have been presented to determine the impact of having employment and residential areas on the opposite side of Royston will have on the local roads - with Aecom transport studies not extending as far as Royston. There is apparently a COMET study of traffic flow in Royston however details of the study (methodology and results) have not been provided as part of the Supporting evidence. Some limited data is available through the supporting document (Local Plan Transport Technical Review (Odyssey Markrides 2016) which suggests several roads with volumes over capacity during peak times including through the town centre. This will only serve to force even more traffic through "rat-runs". Currently, it is not clear whether the impact on side roads and residential roads was considered in the study. Regardless, I would emphasise that as part of any development strategy, measures should be included to ensure that traffic flow these areas (Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue) are not adversely affected by the proposals in question.

Finally, the document describes a vision to make North Hertfordshire an attractive and vibrant place where people will want to live. This is an admirable vision however I believe this can only be achieved if the existing residents views are taken into account during the consultancy.

Regarding the consultancy process for the local development plan, please find below my representation. I would like to start by saying that in principle, I am fully supportive of the need to increase housing stock within the area however I would like to raise two comments in relation to proposed local plan and its impact on Royston.

Firstly, it is my firm belief that the redevelopment of brown field sites should be prioritised over the development of any new sites. Take, for example the site on Lumen Road (RY8) that has been derelict for many years. Unfortunately any progress towards redevelopment has been difficult to determine often due to closed council sessions. I appreciate that there is a concern that the site is potentially contaminated however I would assume that it would make sense (morally and ethically if nothing else) to decontaminate the land and convert it to residential use rather than leave it as a contaminated, derelict eyesore that encourages vandalism and other anti social activities. Everyone gains as decontaminating the land would clearly benefit the wider community making the area a better area to live.

The second point relates to certain of the significant employment and residential sites proposed. The plan describes a significant employment opportunity on the north west of Royston - RY9 - and two significant housing proposals on the east side of town - RY2 (330 homes) and RY10 (300 homes) - on the opposite side of town. Given the locations of these sites and together with the location of the rail station, it is reasonable to assume that one consequence of this would be a significant increase in cross-town traffic. These two residential sites alone represent an almost 10% increase in housing compared to the 2011 census number of 6800 dwellings and the increase in volume of traffic would be expected to be similar. There are only a very limited number of routes to get from one side of town to the other with people preferring to use either the route through the town centre, or rat-runs predominantly consisting of Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue, rather than using the A505 bypass. The areas described (Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue) are residential areas and should not be considered as major conduits to aid traffic flow. These residential areas are already blighted by traffic and excessive speeding (with the very limited speed restriction humps on Mill Road being virtually pointless) and if anything, efforts should be in place to reduce or control traffic flow rather than increase it.
To the best of my knowledge, no studies have been presented to determine the impact of having employment and residential areas on the opposite side of Royston will have on the local roads - with Aecom transport studies not extending as far as Royston. There is apparently a COMET study of traffic flow in Royston however details of the study (methodology and results) have not been provided as part of the Supporting evidence. Some limited data is available through the supporting document (Local Plan Transport Technical Review (Odyssey Markrides 2016) which suggests several roads with volumes over capacity during peak times including through the town centre. This will only serve to force even more traffic through "rat-runs". Currently, it is not clear whether the impact on side roads and residential roads was considered in the study. Regardless, I would emphasise that as part of any development strategy, measures should be included to ensure that traffic flow these areas (Mill Road, Queens Road and Stamford Avenue) are not adversely affected by the proposals in question.

Finally, the document describes a vision to make North Hertfordshire an attractive and vibrant place where people will want to live. This is an admirable vision however I believe this can only be achieved if the existing residents views are taken into account during the consultancy.