Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Object

Representation ID: 5838

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to Baldock in terms of air quality:
- Baldock is at high risk of exceeding air quality standards
- Baldock is located in a bowl, where pollution can nest
- The impact of the size of development in the town has not been properly assessed
- cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields)
- not consistent with national policy on account of the likelyhood of exceeding air quality limits. NPPF paragraph 124

Object

Representation ID: 5839

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to SP5 in relation to Baldock and BA1
-much of the Green Belt around Baldock is Prime agricultural land(grade 2)
-justification of the removal of the BA1 site from Greenbelt is that it will be able to be developed in the first five years. WYG Appraisal assumes only the first 100 houses will be developed until funding for road and railway are found from developing other sites
-plan cannot be justified as the most appropriate strategy,when considered against the reasonable alternatives
-not consistent with national policy-Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 5879

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection in relation to Baldock (consultation):
-not consulted Govia-reduced services

Object

Representation ID: 5880

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Baldock Group

Number of people: 3

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection in relation to Baldock (Sustainability Appraisal):

SP3, BA10, SP5:cannot be justified as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives

BA1 and SP4:Sustainability appraisal notes (table 9) creates a high probability of adverse impacts on landscape and townscape character. The Landscape sensitivity Study (July 2013) identifies BA1 to have moderate to high landscape sensitivity.Cannot be justified as most appropriate strategy,given impact on town character and inability to solve integration issues.
-plan not justified as most appropriate strategy against reasonable alternatives.West of Stevenage should be reconsidered-delivery


D4:plan cannot be justified as most appropriate strategy, against the reasonable alternatives (Priory Fields)
-not consistent with national policy-air quality limits (NPPF paragraph 124)