Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I am writing with concern to the proposed plans for the development of housing in Baldock. Whilst acknowledging that extra housing is necessary to meet the needs of the local population I must question the disproportionate number of new houses in Baldock compared to other areas in North Herts and the justification of the plans.
Concerning BA2 and BA3
There is no mention of providing extra provision for the increase in numbers arising from the 400 houses proposed, requiring registering at the only doctors surgery in the town. It is very difficult to book a same day appointment, unless you are lucky enough to get through on the telephone in the first few minutes of opening time. Long term bookings are at a premium and similarly difficult to secure, usually a two week wait.
There is no reference to school places for this stage of development. Currently there are two faith schools and one Primary school which is oversubscribed. The new houses will surely generate the need for extra places to be provided.
There is no reference to the planting of extra trees, the lungs of a community, as well as being of an aesthetic value. Do not the residents deserve a quality environment?

Concerning site BA1
The road network is already very congested at peak periods and this is exacerbated when either of the by passes are closed in times of emergency, which is not infrequent. As there are few opportunities within the town for employment, to which people might walk, it follows that the extra population will need to travel beyond the town. This will be either a rail or road journey.
There is tremendous pressure at the traffic light junction where the A505 and A507 meet. The tail back queues are a reminder that the junction cannot cope with the existing demand. This is an historic situation which has failed to be resolved due to the fact that the properties at this junction are listed. The impact on people who need to arrive in Baldock for work or school is significant and I have personal knowledge of a shop manager who has failed to open on time due to being held up in this traffic for up to an hour. The proposed mini roundabout (AECOM Table 5.1) will not resolve the congestion that already exists and therefore will not cope with the added volume of traffic.
If, as frequently happens the railway bridge with a head height of 14'6'', is struck by over height vehicles, then the congestion is severely impacted upon. The increase in traffic will only add to the probability of this occurring more frequently.
This road is not capable of carrying the current volume of traffic and as the IDP Traffic Baseline (para) shows that traffic in North Herts will go up by 16.1% anyway then the building of extra homes in this corridor is surely unjustified and not effective.

I am very concerned about air quality in the town; Baldock is located in a valley and consequently air circulation is not good. The volume of existing traffic means that there is a high level of emissions. The invisible ultra fine particles, PM2.5, emitted by diesel engines are a major risk to health as they penetrate the lungs and circulatory system. This increases the risk to the health of our children, the old and the vulnerable and in fact, to the whole community. It has been reported that prior to the Baldock By-pass being built in 1995, the levels of asthma in local children was well above the national average.
One only has to walk along Hitchin Street or Whitehorse Street at the beginning and end of the school and working day to be aware of this. In fact the levels are close to exceeding EU permitted levels (para 9.28). The housing and Green Belt background paper informs us that site 209E was considered unsuitable for these very reasons. Is not the quality of the air for Baldock residents not of equal value? The increased volume of traffic can only add to these levels. For this reason alone the plan is unjustified.
The plan is unjustified and not effective as there is not an adequate highways structure to take the extra traffic that will come with the development. Both vehicular and pedestrian, currently the A507 /Bygrave Road junction has poor sight lines when accessing the A507 from Bygrave Road, a significant increase in vehicular traffic onto the A507 will increase the accident probability at this junction; Bygrave Road is not even classified as a B Class road; the width of the road is not sufficient for safe passage, together with the blind bends, lack of pedestrian footpath along the rural section all add up to an inadequate facility, which would not be funded by the developers at the outset as the infrastructure aspects are always funded from housing receipts in retrospect, invariably resulting in a reduced scope, if at all!
The existing station is very small and there are proposed cuts to the existing train services by Govia. It appears that this company were unaware of the proposed development. Many people commute out of Baldock and the proposed development would significantly add to the volume of traffic entering the town. The car park is already limited and many commuters park in the surrounding residential streets. This has an impact on domestic parking. No provision appears to have been made for the extra parking spaces that will be required.
There is also no reference to provision of extra play facilities. Although some do exist within the town they do not have car parking provision, the BA 1 development will be too great a distance for young children to travel to enjoy any of the existing sites. Children need to have safe areas in which to play and exercise. There are already signs of obesity amongst primary children (in my professional role as a teacher I have seen an increase in such cases). We cannot deny them this essential facility.
No consideration appears to have been given to the natural environment and the fact that the area is home to several endangered species including the corn bunting, pipistrelle bats and newts. It is our duty to protect these species, not further add to the destruction of their habitats.
There is no modelling of the impact from the new developments on the infrastructure (AECOM section 7 summary). The Local Plan Viability Assessment (update 2016) has not considered specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation concerns associated with the major sites especially the BA1 site.
Drainage is also a concern; as Baldock sits in a valley, flood risk could potentially be high. During recent heavy rainfall, the town has suffered flooding with St Mary's school suffering several times within a few weeks as the drainage system was unable to cope. This caused severe disruption to the school. A significant increase in hard landscape due to housing will always increase the rate of flooding (especially if the required infrastructure is not in place), the infrastructure in Baldock does not have the capacity for additional storm water or sewage treatment.
Baldock has a thriving community, we as residents; enjoy a good quality of life. The proposed expansion will irreparably damage the unique feature of this historic market town. Surely we should be preserving our heritage for future generations; it is their right to inherit this and ours to protect it for them.

I am writing with concern to the proposed plans for the development of housing in Baldock. Whilst acknowledging that extra housing is necessary to meet the needs of the local population I must question the disproportionate number of new houses in Baldock compared to other areas in North Herts and the justification of the plans.
Concerning BA2 and BA3
There is no mention of providing extra provision for the increase in numbers arising from the 400 houses proposed, requiring registering at the only doctors surgery in the town. It is very difficult to book a same day appointment, unless you are lucky enough to get through on the telephone in the first few minutes of opening time. Long term bookings are at a premium and similarly difficult to secure, usually a two week wait.
There is no reference to school places for this stage of development. Currently there are two faith schools and one Primary school which is oversubscribed. The new houses will surely generate the need for extra places to be provided.
There is no reference to the planting of extra trees, the lungs of a community, as well as being of an aesthetic value. Do not the residents deserve a quality environment?

Concerning site BA1
The road network is already very congested at peak periods and this is exacerbated when either of the by passes are closed in times of emergency, which is not infrequent. As there are few opportunities within the town for employment, to which people might walk, it follows that the extra population will need to travel beyond the town. This will be either a rail or road journey.
There is tremendous pressure at the traffic light junction where the A505 and A507 meet. The tail back queues are a reminder that the junction cannot cope with the existing demand. This is an historic situation which has failed to be resolved due to the fact that the properties at this junction are listed. The impact on people who need to arrive in Baldock for work or school is significant and I have personal knowledge of a shop manager who has failed to open on time due to being held up in this traffic for up to an hour. The proposed mini roundabout (AECOM Table 5.1) will not resolve the congestion that already exists and therefore will not cope with the added volume of traffic.
If, as frequently happens the railway bridge with a head height of 14'6'', is struck by over height vehicles, then the congestion is severely impacted upon. The increase in traffic will only add to the probability of this occurring more frequently.
This road is not capable of carrying the current volume of traffic and as the IDP Traffic Baseline (para) shows that traffic in North Herts will go up by 16.1% anyway then the building of extra homes in this corridor is surely unjustified and not effective.

I am very concerned about air quality in the town; Baldock is located in a valley and consequently air circulation is not good. The volume of existing traffic means that there is a high level of emissions. The invisible ultra fine particles, PM2.5, emitted by diesel engines are a major risk to health as they penetrate the lungs and circulatory system. This increases the risk to the health of our children, the old and the vulnerable and in fact, to the whole community. It has been reported that prior to the Baldock By-pass being built in 1995, the levels of asthma in local children was well above the national average.
One only has to walk along Hitchin Street or Whitehorse Street at the beginning and end of the school and working day to be aware of this. In fact the levels are close to exceeding EU permitted levels (para 9.28). The housing and Green Belt background paper informs us that site 209E was considered unsuitable for these very reasons. Is not the quality of the air for Baldock residents not of equal value? The increased volume of traffic can only add to these levels. For this reason alone the plan is unjustified.
The plan is unjustified and not effective as there is not an adequate highways structure to take the extra traffic that will come with the development. Both vehicular and pedestrian, currently the A507 /Bygrave Road junction has poor sight lines when accessing the A507 from Bygrave Road, a significant increase in vehicular traffic onto the A507 will increase the accident probability at this junction; Bygrave Road is not even classified as a B Class road; the width of the road is not sufficient for safe passage, together with the blind bends, lack of pedestrian footpath along the rural section all add up to an inadequate facility, which would not be funded by the developers at the outset as the infrastructure aspects are always funded from housing receipts in retrospect, invariably resulting in a reduced scope, if at all!
The existing station is very small and there are proposed cuts to the existing train services by Govia. It appears that this company were unaware of the proposed development. Many people commute out of Baldock and the proposed development would significantly add to the volume of traffic entering the town. The car park is already limited and many commuters park in the surrounding residential streets. This has an impact on domestic parking. No provision appears to have been made for the extra parking spaces that will be required.
There is also no reference to provision of extra play facilities. Although some do exist within the town they do not have car parking provision, the BA 1 development will be too great a distance for young children to travel to enjoy any of the existing sites. Children need to have safe areas in which to play and exercise. There are already signs of obesity amongst primary children (in my professional role as a teacher I have seen an increase in such cases). We cannot deny them this essential facility.
No consideration appears to have been given to the natural environment and the fact that the area is home to several endangered species including the corn bunting, pipistrelle bats and newts. It is our duty to protect these species, not further add to the destruction of their habitats.
There is no modelling of the impact from the new developments on the infrastructure (AECOM section 7 summary). The Local Plan Viability Assessment (update 2016) has not considered specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation concerns associated with the major sites especially the BA1 site.
Drainage is also a concern; as Baldock sits in a valley, flood risk could potentially be high. During recent heavy rainfall, the town has suffered flooding with St Mary's school suffering several times within a few weeks as the drainage system was unable to cope. This caused severe disruption to the school. A significant increase in hard landscape due to housing will always increase the rate of flooding (especially if the required infrastructure is not in place), the infrastructure in Baldock does not have the capacity for additional storm water or sewage treatment.
Baldock has a thriving community, we as residents; enjoy a good quality of life. The proposed expansion will irreparably damage the unique feature of this historic market town. Surely we should be preserving our heritage for future generations; it is their right to inherit this and ours to protect it for them.

I am writing with concern to the proposed plans for the development of housing in Baldock. Whilst acknowledging that extra housing is necessary to meet the needs of the local population I must question the disproportionate number of new houses in Baldock compared to other areas in North Herts and the justification of the plans.
Concerning BA2 and BA3
There is no mention of providing extra provision for the increase in numbers arising from the 400 houses proposed, requiring registering at the only doctors surgery in the town. It is very difficult to book a same day appointment, unless you are lucky enough to get through on the telephone in the first few minutes of opening time. Long term bookings are at a premium and similarly difficult to secure, usually a two week wait.
There is no reference to school places for this stage of development. Currently there are two faith schools and one Primary school which is oversubscribed. The new houses will surely generate the need for extra places to be provided.
There is no reference to the planting of extra trees, the lungs of a community, as well as being of an aesthetic value. Do not the residents deserve a quality environment?

Concerning site BA1
The road network is already very congested at peak periods and this is exacerbated when either of the by passes are closed in times of emergency, which is not infrequent. As there are few opportunities within the town for employment, to which people might walk, it follows that the extra population will need to travel beyond the town. This will be either a rail or road journey.
There is tremendous pressure at the traffic light junction where the A505 and A507 meet. The tail back queues are a reminder that the junction cannot cope with the existing demand. This is an historic situation which has failed to be resolved due to the fact that the properties at this junction are listed. The impact on people who need to arrive in Baldock for work or school is significant and I have personal knowledge of a shop manager who has failed to open on time due to being held up in this traffic for up to an hour. The proposed mini roundabout (AECOM Table 5.1) will not resolve the congestion that already exists and therefore will not cope with the added volume of traffic.
If, as frequently happens the railway bridge with a head height of 14'6'', is struck by over height vehicles, then the congestion is severely impacted upon. The increase in traffic will only add to the probability of this occurring more frequently.
This road is not capable of carrying the current volume of traffic and as the IDP Traffic Baseline (para) shows that traffic in North Herts will go up by 16.1% anyway then the building of extra homes in this corridor is surely unjustified and not effective.

I am very concerned about air quality in the town; Baldock is located in a valley and consequently air circulation is not good. The volume of existing traffic means that there is a high level of emissions. The invisible ultra fine particles, PM2.5, emitted by diesel engines are a major risk to health as they penetrate the lungs and circulatory system. This increases the risk to the health of our children, the old and the vulnerable and in fact, to the whole community. It has been reported that prior to the Baldock By-pass being built in 1995, the levels of asthma in local children was well above the national average.
One only has to walk along Hitchin Street or Whitehorse Street at the beginning and end of the school and working day to be aware of this. In fact the levels are close to exceeding EU permitted levels (para 9.28). The housing and Green Belt background paper informs us that site 209E was considered unsuitable for these very reasons. Is not the quality of the air for Baldock residents not of equal value? The increased volume of traffic can only add to these levels. For this reason alone the plan is unjustified.
The plan is unjustified and not effective as there is not an adequate highways structure to take the extra traffic that will come with the development. Both vehicular and pedestrian, currently the A507 /Bygrave Road junction has poor sight lines when accessing the A507 from Bygrave Road, a significant increase in vehicular traffic onto the A507 will increase the accident probability at this junction; Bygrave Road is not even classified as a B Class road; the width of the road is not sufficient for safe passage, together with the blind bends, lack of pedestrian footpath along the rural section all add up to an inadequate facility, which would not be funded by the developers at the outset as the infrastructure aspects are always funded from housing receipts in retrospect, invariably resulting in a reduced scope, if at all!
The existing station is very small and there are proposed cuts to the existing train services by Govia. It appears that this company were unaware of the proposed development. Many people commute out of Baldock and the proposed development would significantly add to the volume of traffic entering the town. The car park is already limited and many commuters park in the surrounding residential streets. This has an impact on domestic parking. No provision appears to have been made for the extra parking spaces that will be required.
There is also no reference to provision of extra play facilities. Although some do exist within the town they do not have car parking provision, the BA 1 development will be too great a distance for young children to travel to enjoy any of the existing sites. Children need to have safe areas in which to play and exercise. There are already signs of obesity amongst primary children (in my professional role as a teacher I have seen an increase in such cases). We cannot deny them this essential facility.
No consideration appears to have been given to the natural environment and the fact that the area is home to several endangered species including the corn bunting, pipistrelle bats and newts. It is our duty to protect these species, not further add to the destruction of their habitats.
There is no modelling of the impact from the new developments on the infrastructure (AECOM section 7 summary). The Local Plan Viability Assessment (update 2016) has not considered specific infrastructure pressures and mitigation concerns associated with the major sites especially the BA1 site.
Drainage is also a concern; as Baldock sits in a valley, flood risk could potentially be high. During recent heavy rainfall, the town has suffered flooding with St Mary's school suffering several times within a few weeks as the drainage system was unable to cope. This caused severe disruption to the school. A significant increase in hard landscape due to housing will always increase the rate of flooding (especially if the required infrastructure is not in place), the infrastructure in Baldock does not have the capacity for additional storm water or sewage treatment.
Baldock has a thriving community, we as residents; enjoy a good quality of life. The proposed expansion will irreparably damage the unique feature of this historic market town. Surely we should be preserving our heritage for future generations; it is their right to inherit this and ours to protect it for them.