Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Object

Representation ID: 4305

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to SP3 in relation to BA10:
- cross- reference to BA10
- few new work opportunities here, so most will commute out of Baldock
- heavy impact on roads and railways
- houses should be built closer to centres of employment such as West of Stevenage
- cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered.
- not consistent with national policy as West of Stevenage has not been properly considered (Paragraph 34)

Object

Representation ID: 4306

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to SP4 in relation to BA1:
- BA1 will cause severe integration problems with the town due to the inaccessibility of the existing town
- cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, given the impact on the town character and inability to solve integration issues.

Object

Representation ID: 4307

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection SP6:
-not consulted Govia-reduced services
-insufficient capacity,access to station and trains
-not consistent with national policy-does not properly assess the necessary transport improvements(paragraph 32)
-suggested mitigating roads will not solve issues
-costs not been properly assessed
-not effective-cannot be delivered in plan period,lack of detailed plans,costs of mitigating the transport issues and negotiation with railway suppliers on building the new Road bridge - without this bridge BA1 is not viable.
-cannot be justified as being appropriate
-not consistent with national policy-does not properly assess necessary transport improvements for BA1-contravenes NPPF para32
-transport assessment does not consider N.of Baldock

Object

Representation ID: 4308

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to SP7 in relation to BA1, BA3 and BA4:
- There is no detailed plans on which the viability of the sites can be assessed.
- Major decisions have been postponed until the Masterplan and there are serious likelihood that the site will be proved to be undeliverable in the plan period.
- not consistent with national policy,not assessed the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure and assumes that costs will be met by developers.

Object

Representation ID: 4309

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection SP8(Green Belt):
-much of the Green Belt around Baldock is Prime agricultural land(grade 2)
-justification GB removal-developed in first five years.WYG Appraisal-only first 100 houses will be developed until funding(road&railway)from other sites
-plan cannot be justified as the most appropriate strategy,when considered against the reasonable alternatives.West of Stevenage should be reconsidered.BA1 may not be able to be delivered any faster than the West of Stevenage
-not consistent with national policy-Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 4310

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection BA1:
-agricultural land(grade2)
-justification GB removal-developed in first five years.WYG Appraisal-only first 100 houses will be developed until funding from other sites
-plan not justified as most appropriate strategy against reasonable alternatives.West of Stevenage should be reconsidered-delivery
-not consistent national policy:Green Belt&does not properly assess transport improvements, not assessed costs of infrastructure,assumes costs met by developers
-no detailed plans,viability
-major decisions postponed until Masterplan-delivery
-not consulted Govia-reduced services
-insufficient capacity,access to station,trains
-suggested mitigating roads will not solve issues
-not effective-cannot be delivered in plan period,no detailed plans,costs of mitigation,negotiation with railway suppliers-without bridge BA1 not viable.
-transport assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 4311

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection D4 (Baldock):
-In paragraph 9.28, the plan notes that air quality standards are already close to being exceeded in Whitehorse Street/Hitchin Street. The Housing and Green Belt Background paper notes that former site 209E (Prioroy fields in HItchin) considered unsuitable for the same reason
-Baldock at high risk of exceeding air quality standards,located in a bowl,pollution can nest
-impact of the size of development in the town not been properly assessed
-cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives(Priory Fields)
-not consistent with national policy-air quality limits NPPF paragraph 124.

Object

Representation ID: 4313

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection BA3:
-no detailed plans,viability
-major decisions postponed until Masterplan-delivery
-not consistent with national policy,not assessed costs of necessary infrastructure,assumes costs be met by developers
-not consulted Govia-reduced services
-insufficient capacity,access to station,trains
-not consistent with national policy-does not properly assess transport improvements(paragraph 32)
-suggested mitigating roads will not solve issues
-costs not properly assessed
-not effective-cannot be delivered in plan period,lack of detailed plans,costs of mitigating transport issues and negotiation with railway suppliers on building the new Road bridge-without this bridge BA1 not viable.
-cannot be justified as appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 4314

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection BA4:
-no detailed plans,viability
-major decisions postponed until Masterplan-delivery
-not consistent with national policy,not assessed costs of necessary infrastructure,assumes costs be met by developers
-not consulted Govia-reduced services
-insufficient capacity,access to station,trains
-not consistent with national policy-does not properly assess transport improvements(paragraph 32)
-suggested mitigating roads will not solve issues
-costs not properly assessed
-not effective-cannot be delivered in plan period,lack of detailed plans,costs of mitigating transport issues and negotiation with railway suppliers on building the new Road bridge-without this bridge BA1 not viable.
-cannot be justified as appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 4315

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to BA10:
- cross- reference made at SP3
- few new work opportunities here, so most will commute out of Baldock
- heavy impact on roads and railways
- houses should be built closer to centres of employment such as West of Stevenage
- cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. West of Stevenage should be reconsidered.
- not consistent with national policy as West of Stevenage has not been properly considered (Paragraph 34).