Proposed Main Modifications

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.

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.

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.