MM409 - Page 142 paragraph 13.30

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 object to main modifications 207, 208 and 209 (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.

[Please also refer to our representations on MM207 and MM208, which relate to the same issue]

We object to these modifications for the following reasons:

The proposed amendment to the text fails to provide adequate guidance on the appropriate extent of development in this part of Baldock. It refers to bunding which does not appear to exist in the location suggested, and it does not provide clarity about the outer limits of proposed development.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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 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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Having looked at the local plan currently under consultation, I wish to 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 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)
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.

See Attached

See Attached