MM387 Housing Allocations BA3 & BA4

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..

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.

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.

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.

[Please also refer to our representations on MM207, MM208 and MM409, which relate to the same issue]

We object to this modification for the following reasons:

1. It not effective, as it does 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.

2. Because the modification does not provide clarity on the appropriate extent of development, there is a risk of conflict with national planning policy because it 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 modification 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. 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.

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached