MM208 - Page 139 Policy BA4 (ED146A)

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 37

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6711

Received: 03/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Merison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

I am writing to you to strongly object to the modification of the local plan of housing for Baldock and oppose the plan. I strongly object to BA4 being built and the fact that you have now joined BA3 to BA4 and want to build on the raised land next to Clothall Common is disgraceful. This land is used daily by a large number of people for recreation and provides a beautiful view of Baldock and the surrounding countryside quite frankly helping with physical and mental health of local residents and I think it's disgusting you want to destroy this view/recreational land and habitat for wildlife just to build houses that aren't needed or wanted.

Please don't destroy a vibrant community and small town of Baldock - there are very few places like this left in South England.

May I remind you that you state in your schedule of modifications you will:

"Protect key elements of North Hertfordshire's environment including
biodiversity, important landscapes, heritage assets and green
infrastructure (including the water environment)"

By building on BA4 and proposing to join houses around Clothall Common to BA3 this does not abide by the above statement. It might not be an important landscape to you but it is to the local residents and moreover to drainage and managing surface water levels in the area with the drainage systems in place - further houses will potentially make this problem worse.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and I sincerely hope you will change your modification and furthermore remove the proposed development at BA4.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6712

Received: 04/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Ben Merison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

I am contacting you to raise an objection to your modification to the Baldock local housing plan, in particular with respect to sections BA4 and BA3. I strongly object to your plans to build section BA4 on the back of Clothall Common, and the fact you have now modified the plans to join this with BA3 I find utterly disgraceful. This surrounding countryside is used by many local residents and provides a good environment for helping local people with physical and mental wellbeing, as well as being an excellent area for all wildlife, including providing a good region for dog walking.

Baldock currently thrives from its status as a small town with a buzzing local community, where every member contributes strongly to maintaining the status of this community. There is no shortage of houses for sale in Baldock, and these plans to build copious amounts of extra houses are quite frankly neither needed nor wanted.

By continuing to proceed with these plans it comes across as though you are not concerned about the physical or mental wellbeing of Baldock's current residents, or about protecting important landscapes or heritage assets of North Hertfordshire.

I thank you for taking the time to read through this e-mail and wholeheartedly hope you consider removing the modification to section BA4 in your proposal plan.

Comment

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6718

Received: 20/01/2019

Respondent: Miss Amy Judges

Representation Summary:

This are is bigger than originally presented within the local plan and minimises the public open space that is frequently used by current residents of clothall grassland also offers valuable habitat that is not present in the surrounding area and is known to support a good assemblage of orchids and common reptiles. The loss of other open space is also an issue with the larger develops in the baldock area.

Full text:

This are is bigger than originally presented within the local plan and minimises the public open space that is frequently used by current residents of clothall grassland also offers valuable habitat that is not present in the surrounding area and is known to support a good assemblage of orchids and common reptiles. The loss of other open space is also an issue with the larger develops in the baldock area.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6723

Received: 21/01/2019

Respondent: Ms Wendy Jeffs

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

Please take account of my objections to the changes to the local plan as detailed below.

Specifically, 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 extent of development in this part of Baldock.

As a result, the changes conflict with national planning policy because they would 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

The changes are not justified, as allocating this entire area for 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

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6726

Received: 21/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Edward Duffy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

Please take account of my objections to the changes to the local plan as detailed below.

Specifically, 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 extent of development in this part of Baldock.

As a result, the changes conflict with national planning policy because they would 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

The changes are not justified, as allocating this entire area for 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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 21/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Karl Hope

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6732

Received: 20/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Sinclair

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

I object to main modifications 207, 208 and 409 (changes to allocations BA3 and BA4, and supporting text) for these main reasons:
I do believe the changes are not effective, as they do not provide any clear guidance on the appropriate size and extent of development in this part of Baldock. Also there is no plan regarding the flow of the extra traffic.
As a result of these changes, there is 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
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.
I feel that it is important that 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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6735

Received: 19/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Simon Watts

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

I strongly 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 extent of development in this part of Baldock.

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

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6775

Received: 20/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Alexander Chadwick

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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 extent of development in this part of Baldock.

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

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6778

Received: 15/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Mills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Having reviewed the changes proposed for Baldock, I object to the joining of BA3 and BA4.

The additional land in BA4 was set aside as Hertfordshire chalk grassland when the bypass was built. Therefore how can it now be planned to build upon it.

Please leave us some green space..

Full text:

Having reviewed the changes proposed for Baldock, I object to the joining of BA3 and BA4.

The additional land in BA4 was set aside as Hertfordshire chalk grassland when the bypass was built. Therefore how can it now be planned to build upon it.

Please leave us some green space..

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6779

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Phil Charsley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

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. 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)
b. building on potentially unstable land, as this area is formed from rubble excavated during the building of the Baldock by-pass, which could give significant problems in the future
c. development on rising ground that could be of poor design, especially in relation to its surroundings, and could impact on the existing housing
d. houses built on this land close to the bypass would be subject to significant traffic noise.
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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6781

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Charsley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

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, which could give significant problems in the future
* development on rising ground that could be of poor design, especially in relation to its surroundings, and could impact on the existing housing
* houses built on this land close to the bypass would be subject to significant traffic noise.
* The open space has considerable environmental value for plant diversity, and is a nesting site for skylarks, which are otherwise rare in our area
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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6793

Received: 11/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Liana Pitcock

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

I would like to hereby submit my objection on the proposed modifications on Baldock Local Plan BA3.

This site is used for recreational purposes by the Baldock residents. The proposed modification does not include any area for recreation and open spaces. On the contrary to all the objections previously submitted against the proposed plan in the 2017 consultation, these modifications are adding more houses to be built and does not address the concerns of residents relating to infrastructure, schools and open spaces.

The schools are over subscribed already without any new development, roads are grid locked by the Baldock crossing and the railway station is already at full capacity during peak hours. The modifications do not address or solve any of these issues, it is mind boggling adding additional housing and reducing open/green space. This will also add to the already high air pollution and risk of flooding.

I therefore categorically object to the modifications.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6811

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Tinsey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below

Full text:

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6872

Received: 16/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Neil Brown

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Main modifications 207, 208 and 409 are not effective, conflict with national planning policy and are not justified.

Full text:

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

The changes are 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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6923

Received: 28/02/2019

Respondent: Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Planning Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The modifications are not effective, as they fail to provide clear guidance on the appropriate extent of development in this part of Baldock. Because of this, they also create potential conflicts with national policy. They are also not justified, and there are more effective ways of delineating the appropriate extent of development.

Full text:

[Please also refer to our representations on MM207 and MM409, which relate to the same issue]
We object to these modifications for the following reasons:

1. The modifications are not effective, as they do not provide clear guidance on the appropriate extent of development in this part of Baldock. Our understanding is that the Council does not intend that residential development should occur beyond the areas proposed as sites BA3 and BA4 in the submission local plan. However the proposed modification of the site boundary of BA3, and the text of the policy itself, do not make this clear. The modification to the text of policy BA3 refers to "maintaining or re-profiling the existing bunding towards the east of the site with no housing permitted on or beyond its (revised) alignment". This appears to be an error: there is no bunding to the east of the site, apart from the way the ground rises towards the line of the Baldock bypass at its eastern edge.

2. Because the modifications do not provide clarity on the appropriate extent of development, there is a risk of conflict with national planning policy because they could allow:
a) A much-used area of existing open space to be lost or eroded, without any replacement provision being proposed (conflict with NPPF para. 97). We are not aware that the Council has identified this land as being surplus to recreational requirements, and indeed the need for it is likely to increase significantly with the developments proposed at BA3 and BA4.
b) Building on potentially unstable land (NPPF 178a), as the area left as 'white land' in the submission local plan is mainly comprised of made ground, formed from rubble deposited during the building of the Baldock by-pass.
c) Development on rising ground which, because of the topography, would relate poorly to its surroundings (NPPF 127c).

3. The modifications 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. We note that no changes are proposed to the overall amount of housing to be provided for, and that the Council's justification for the modifications relies on three points (set out in ED146A: Note on outstanding Matter 10 issues for Baldock). None of the three points provides a convincing rationale:
a) Bring the (likely) route of the proposed link road within a single allocation (BA3 as proposed to be revised). It is not clear what advantage this offers, as sites BA3 and BA4 are both in the ownership of Hertfordshire County Council.
b) Distinguish between that land which is currently outside of and within the Green Belt (BA4 as proposed to be revised is wholly outside the existing Green Belt rather than straddling the boundary). This is immaterial, as the previous status of the land is of no relevance once it has been removed from the Green Belt through the local plan.
c) Provide additional policy guidance for the land between BA3 and BA4 which, in the plan and policies map as submitted, would be 'white land' with no specific allocation or guiding criteria. As explained above, the modification fails to provide clear guidance as to the future of this land, and indeed bringing all of it within BA3 is unnecessary to provide that additional guidance.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6933

Received: 01/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Ronald Austin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below

Full text:

As a Bygrave resident I have previously expressed my concerns but understand you are inviting comments now in relation to 'modifications' within the Local Plan.

I feel that I must object to main modifications 207, 208 and 409 which relate to changes made to Local Housing Allocations BA3 and BA4.

The changes are not clear as to the extent of intended development in this part of Baldock and there appears no clarity as to the proposed southern link road either.

The fact that the two areas BA3 and BA4 are seemingly being merged into one, will mean that a much used area of open space will be lost or eroded. Consideration should be given that such an open space will be required more than ever with the level of housing proposed in the Local Plan.

It's understood that this additional intended building land was made up from the excavated spoil when the Baldock bypass was constructed. The fact too that it is elevated land would not provide a particularly pleasing design not only to existing Clothall Common residents but to those surrounding new home owners.

There seems no justification in merging these two areas into one larger development, particularly with 2,800 homes set under BA1. The area that was originally left unallocated in the submission Local Plan should remain so as to safeguard its open space role for the future.

I trust you can take my concerns into consideration.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6935

Received: 02/03/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Thomas and Christine Odd

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below.

Full text:

We object to the main modifications of sections 207, 208 and 409 (changes to allocations BA3 and BA4), the reasons being as follows:

We live on Clothall Common and we strongly oppose the proposed development of housing on the open land much cherished by people of all ages for walking and other recreational purposes. Also, it appears that the land could be unstable as it is mostly formed of rubble. To lose such a much-valued open space could mean there is less green space in Baldock than in parts of central London! Baldock simply does not have the infrastructure to support this plan and its residents would suffer the consequences of yet more housing.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6937

Received: 02/03/2019

Respondent: Ross Davies

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below.

Full text:

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
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.
In my opinion you are trying to ruin one of the last rural towns in Hertfordshire and the only reason I moved here in the first place. If this building takes place I will be forced from my home.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6939

Received: 03/03/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Simon and Jo Meaker

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below.

Full text:

I object to modifications 207,208 and 409 as detailed in the changes to allocations BA3 and BA4.
In particular, my concern is the inclusion of the open space 'white land' in BA3 and BA4 and thus enabling housing to be extended to this area. In the initial plan this area was designated as a country park.
1. The changes are not effective. They do not give sufficient and clear guidance on the extent of development in this part of Baldock.
2. The changes conflict with national planning policy.
a. This area of open space is a key recreational area on Clothall Common. It is used constantly by dog walkers, cyclists, runners and families. There is no indication of any replacement despite the density of the proposed housing making it even more essential to have open spaces.
b. This area was created as a barrier to alleviate noise from the bypass and was created from spoil during the construction of the tunnel. It is therefore unstable ground and is not suitable for housing.
c. Development of housing on rising ground would be of poor design and would be more prominent in relation to its surroundings.
3. It is not justified, as showing this open space as housing is unnecessary to allow for the proposed total number of houses and other related structures in the submission Local Plan to go ahead.
In conclusion the white land that was left unallocated between BA3 and BA4 in the submission Local Plan should instead be designated as 'urban open land'.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6941

Received: 25/02/2019

Respondent: NHDC Baldock Town Councillor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below.

Full text:

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 also object to the wording of MM 028, relating to sustainable transport. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the policy and attached to the Plan as Appendix 4 are unfit for purpose and will fuel increased levels of anti-social behaviour within communities for generations to come. On 30 November 2017, at the Public Examination, I raised the matter of current Car Parking Standards with the Government Inspector, who made clear his concern at the current standard and indicated that he considered the standard should be reviewed. To date, this has not been done - the standards remain the same at, inter alia, a minimum of 2 car parking spaces for dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms. The standard relies on survey work done almost ten years ago - much has changed since then and the Government Inspector agreed with that view.

It is ridiculous to think that two car parking spaces will be sufficient for 4/5+ bedroom houses. Families etc. living in such houses will typically use 4+ vehicles, which means that the additional cars will be decanted onto the public highway, or obstruct private property. One of the major causes of neighbour disputes resulting in anti-social behaviour is car parking. We are designing in the ingredients for increased anti-social behaviour in the future; this is entirely foreseeable and we should not abrogate our responsibility to future communities.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6944

Received: 25/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Luke Callan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below.

Full text:

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 6974

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Albert J Sillwood

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text

Full text:

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7015

Received: 27/02/2019

Respondent: Mr James Lees

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below

Full text:

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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7017

Received: 27/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Ray Batchelor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See full text below

Full text:

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'.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7122

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter James

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached

Full text:

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
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.

Any road joining the A507 to what was the A505 across the Clothall common estate, would become a rat run and cause major disruption's to anyone living on the estate, making access during rush hours arduous.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7124

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christine James

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached

Full text:

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
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.

Any road joining the A507 to what was the A505 across the Clothall common estate, would become a rat run and cause major disruption's to anyone living on the estate, making access during rush hours arduous.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7126

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Harry Barber

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached

Full text:

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
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.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7128

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Professor Martin Hardcastle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached

Full text:

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
* destruction of wildlife habitats, e.g. of the skylarks that nest in the area newly designated for housing.

3. They are not justified, as designating this entire area for 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.

Having said that, I continue to feel that the positioning of the 'urban open land' in both the original and revised plan is poorly thought out. Using the land (currently agricultural land) closer to Baldock for housing and leaving the existing public open space as it is makes far more sense.

Object

Proposed Main Modifications

Representation ID: 7130

Received: 19/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Cath Heslop

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached

Full text:

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 extent 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 (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
2. 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.