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. As a result, 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
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.

I also object to the wording of MM 028, relating to sustainable transport. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the policy and attached to the Plan as Appendix 4 are unfit for purpose and will fuel increased levels of anti-social behaviour within communities for generations to come. On 30 November 2017, at the Public Examination, I raised the matter of current Car Parking Standards with the Government Inspector, who made clear his concern at the current standard and indicated that he considered the standard should be reviewed. To date, this has not been done - the standards remain the same at, inter alia, a minimum of 2 car parking spaces for dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms. The standard relies on survey work done almost ten years ago - much has changed since then and the Government Inspector agreed with that view.

It is ridiculous to think that two car parking spaces will be sufficient for 4/5+ bedroom houses. Families etc. living in such houses will typically use 4+ vehicles, which means that the additional cars will be decanted onto the public highway, or obstruct private property. One of the major causes of neighbour disputes resulting in anti-social behaviour is car parking. We are designing in the ingredients for increased anti-social behaviour in the future; this is entirely foreseeable and we should not abrogate our responsibility to future communities.

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. As a result, 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
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.

I also object to the wording of MM 028, relating to sustainable transport. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the policy and attached to the Plan as Appendix 4 are unfit for purpose and will fuel increased levels of anti-social behaviour within communities for generations to come. On 30 November 2017, at the Public Examination, I raised the matter of current Car Parking Standards with the Government Inspector, who made clear his concern at the current standard and indicated that he considered the standard should be reviewed. To date, this has not been done - the standards remain the same at, inter alia, a minimum of 2 car parking spaces for dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms. The standard relies on survey work done almost ten years ago - much has changed since then and the Government Inspector agreed with that view.

It is ridiculous to think that two car parking spaces will be sufficient for 4/5+ bedroom houses. Families etc. living in such houses will typically use 4+ vehicles, which means that the additional cars will be decanted onto the public highway, or obstruct private property. One of the major causes of neighbour disputes resulting in anti-social behaviour is car parking. We are designing in the ingredients for increased anti-social behaviour in the future; this is entirely foreseeable and we should not abrogate our responsibility to future communities.

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. As a result, 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
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.

I also object to the wording of MM 028, relating to sustainable transport. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the policy and attached to the Plan as Appendix 4 are unfit for purpose and will fuel increased levels of anti-social behaviour within communities for generations to come. On 30 November 2017, at the Public Examination, I raised the matter of current Car Parking Standards with the Government Inspector, who made clear his concern at the current standard and indicated that he considered the standard should be reviewed. To date, this has not been done - the standards remain the same at, inter alia, a minimum of 2 car parking spaces for dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms. The standard relies on survey work done almost ten years ago - much has changed since then and the Government Inspector agreed with that view.

It is ridiculous to think that two car parking spaces will be sufficient for 4/5+ bedroom houses. Families etc. living in such houses will typically use 4+ vehicles, which means that the additional cars will be decanted onto the public highway, or obstruct private property. One of the major causes of neighbour disputes resulting in anti-social behaviour is car parking. We are designing in the ingredients for increased anti-social behaviour in the future; this is entirely foreseeable and we should not abrogate our responsibility to future communities.

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. As a result, 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
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.

I also object to the wording of MM 028, relating to sustainable transport. The Car Parking Standards referred to in the policy and attached to the Plan as Appendix 4 are unfit for purpose and will fuel increased levels of anti-social behaviour within communities for generations to come. On 30 November 2017, at the Public Examination, I raised the matter of current Car Parking Standards with the Government Inspector, who made clear his concern at the current standard and indicated that he considered the standard should be reviewed. To date, this has not been done - the standards remain the same at, inter alia, a minimum of 2 car parking spaces for dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms. The standard relies on survey work done almost ten years ago - much has changed since then and the Government Inspector agreed with that view.

It is ridiculous to think that two car parking spaces will be sufficient for 4/5+ bedroom houses. Families etc. living in such houses will typically use 4+ vehicles, which means that the additional cars will be decanted onto the public highway, or obstruct private property. One of the major causes of neighbour disputes resulting in anti-social behaviour is car parking. We are designing in the ingredients for increased anti-social behaviour in the future; this is entirely foreseeable and we should not abrogate our responsibility to future communities.