MM207 - Page 138 Policy BA3 (ED146A)

I object to main modifications 207, 208 and 409 (changes to allocations BA3 and BA4, and supporting text).

My main concern is that BA3 site now includes the entire Clothall Common open space for housing. This area is frequently used by me and my neighbours as an easily accessed green and open space and I am concerned it will be lost without there being any provision of a sufficiently large open space to enjoy.

All housing development should include sufficient green space, open space, and wildlife corridors for the residents, and wildlife, of Baldock to enjoy.

Furthermore, I fully agree with the points raised by the Baldock, Bygrave, Clothall Planning Group, as follows:

The changes are not effective, as they do not provide clear guidance on the appropriate extent of development in this part of Baldock.

The changes conflict with national planning policy because they could allow:

- 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

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.

See Attached

Please find enclosed my response to the NHDC Modified Plan Consultation. My objections are based around the proposals for the land to the South and East of Baldock.

I object to the main modifications 207, 208 and 409 (changes to the Baldock 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. I understand that at the time of building the By-pass, twelve Leper graves were found on this land, but the farmer was told to cover them up by NHDC, as it would cost too much money to move them to Baldock Cemetery. Trust some of the lucrative Section 106 money would be used to finally move the graves.
- development on rising ground would be of poor design, especially in relation to its surroundings

3. 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.

I would like to submit the following comments, as have a number of other residents of Baldock, in relation to BA3.

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. 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 (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

3. 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.

I would like to express concern over the inclusion in the revised local plan of extra land South of the Royston Road/bypass roundabout at BA3. This land is the site of rubble from the bypass and surely unsuitable for building homes on. Under it are the graves of lepers covered apparently when the bypass was built. The land has a huge amenity value to members of the local population for walking exercising, biking and just relaxing. With the population due to rise by 70-80% we need more open ground for recreation rather than less and this land is not suitable for other purposes. It is a source of pleasure as there is now a variety of wildflowers and provides an important habitat for insects and other animals.

I also feel that the considerable problems surrounding the traffic bottleneck at the Whitehorse Street/Station Road traffic lights have not been solved. The congestion from the massive site at BA1 will not be suitably alleviated by the proposed link road. Furthermore air quality in the town does not appear to have been measured and without appropriate measures this is likely to increase to a critical level with the increased traffic.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached