The deadline for responses to the Core Strategy modifications is next WEDNESDAY 6th March (17.15)

All relevant documents and access to the consultation portal can be found at

BRAG will be making a full submission but it is important that as many residents a possible respond to show the strength of concern in Berkhamsted, so please do give your opinions and make sure that you respond to Dacorum Borough Council either by the consultation portal or by using a paper form that is also available to download at

We fully appreciate that there is a mass of paperwork to read through, so we have prepared a guide to the most important paragraphs in the modification documents along with a brief comment on the modification:

MM2 and elsewhere: Local Allocations should be held in reserve until after 2021 and then only used if required. They should not be brought forward to fill shortfalls.

MM28: The partial review should be carefully handled and not open the door to opportunistic developers.  The outcome should not be prejudged by anticipating higher housing need. There should be no assumption in a Green Belt review that some of the Green Belt is to be sacrificed and the importance of the Green Belt purpose ‘to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’  should be fully recognised.

MC42: The current Urban Transport Plan (UTP), which is out for consultation, is a very poor document that is unlikely to address current problems let alone problems generated by future developments.

MC61: It is important to reflect that the trend of declining household size has slowed significantly as this directly impacts on future housing need projections.

MC179: Support in particular for the pledge to protect “the green swathe between the town and the A41”. However, to further strengthen the paragraph suggest after “including the landscape setting of the castle” the phrase “and other heritage sites” is added.

MC180: Oppose the deletion of “The development is in a sensitive ridge top and edge of town location, adjacent to existing housing”.  Support the principle of funding improvements to the Shootersway/Kingshill Way and Durrants Lane/High Street junctions but the current UTP doesn’t offer a satisfactory solution in particular for the Shootersway/Kingshill Way junction. Until an adequate solution is proven then SS1 and any development (in particular the unnecessary LA4) along Shootersway should be held back.

MC182: LA4 not required and should not be included in the Core Strategy at all. However, given that LA4 is included, query why the word “funding” has been struck out. It should be made clear that no development cannot take place until appropriate improvements have been made to Shootersway/Kingshill Way junction. Unfortunately, the current UTP is promoting an inappropriate solution.

The MM and MC numbers refer to the relevant paragraphs in the consultation document.

The above by no means represents BRAG’s full submission but it does point you in the direction of what we believe are the most important paragraphs. You may well think other modifications are worth comment, which is great let DBC know, but PLEASE, at the very least, do take a look at the modification paragraphs referenced above and make your opinions felt to DBC.

Leave A Comment