I object to main modifications 207, 208 and 409 (changes to allocations BA3 and BA4, and supporting text) for these reasons:
1. The changes are not effective, as they do not provide clear guidance on the appropriate extent of development in this part of Baldock.
2. 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 (and this open space which will be needed more than ever with the housing proposed in the local plan)
- building on potentially unstable land, as this area is formed from rubble excavated during the building of the Baldock by-pass
- development on rising ground that would be of poor design, especially in relation to its surroundings
1. It is not justified, as showing this entire area as housing is unnecessary to allow the housing and related infrastructure proposed in the submission local plan to go ahead.
The 'white land' that was left unallocated in the submission Local Plan should instead be designated as 'urban open land', which would safeguard its primary role as open space.
This area is much loved and used by local dog walkers as well as recreational walkers. It is as such a key local amenity and should be retained 'as is'.