Proposed Main Modifications

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).

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).

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.