I object to main modifications 207, 208 and 409 (changes to allocations BA3 and BA4 and supporting text for these reasons:
The changes are not effective as they do not provide clear guidance on the appropriate extend of development in this part of Baldock

1. As a result, the changes conflict with national planning policy because they could allow:

* a much-used area of open space to be lost or eroded without replacement provision or without an assessment being undertaken that has clearly shown the open space to be surplus to requirements
* there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety if new housing is accessed from Royston Rd
* increased car use when the Baldock rail station will already be at capacity due to new housing on BA1
* areas of archaeological interest to be built on in BA1 as prehistoric remains were uncovered in the 80s/90s in Walls Field and Clothall Common by NHDC
* building to be commenced on unstable land without a site investigation information being made available which would include risk assessment of the land in BA1.