Proposed Main Modifications

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:

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:

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.