Settlement Capacity Initial Study

Showing comments and forms 31 to 57 of 57

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 4659

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Hunterhill Estates Ltd

Agent: Hunterhill Estates Ltd

Representation:

Campton has all the services within or adjacent to it to qualify as a "Large Village" using the LPA scoring system and should be reclassified as such.

Full text:

My objection is to the fact that Campton is classified as a "Small Village". It should be classified as a "Large Village".

Using the LPA assessment system it should earn points being adjacent to a Middle School and even has an underpass serving the school from the village.
Allow either 18 points or just 50% at 9 points for this.
The Public House includes a Restaurant which earns 6 points and there is also a children's play area earning another 4 points.
There is a Tesco Express attached to the Fuel Filling Station within approximately .5 miles of the village which is a proper Convenience Store allowing 50% for this at 6 points takes the total points scored by Campton to 69 points or 34% comfortably over the 26% needed to be a "Large Village"

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 4957

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: GPS Estates Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See Full comment attached

Full text:

See Full comment attached

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5064

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes Strategic Land

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Settlement Capacity Study

Supports Fairfield Conclusions

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Linden Homes Strategic Land ('Linden'), who are promoting a site on the western edge of Fairfield (Parcel ALP439) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission. Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') itself and also in response the Site Assessments Technical Document and the conclusion on Parcel ALP439.

Linden supports the conclusion reached in respect of Fairfield that it has medium capacity for growth; i.e. for 50 - 500 dwellings. They also support the comments made in the overview of Fairfield included at Appendix B of the Settlements Capacity Initial Study. This flags up potential constraints to the north and south of the village because of heritage and biodiversity and to the east due to the proximity of a sewage treatment works. No such constraints are identified to the west of Fairfield and there is also suitable land available, being promoted by Linden, a housebuilder with a track record for delivering successful housing schemes, including the existing development at Fairfield, adding to its deliverability. The availability of land to the west of Fairfield that is both suitable and available for new development adds further to the justification for the conclusion reached in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5065

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Gareth Ellis

Representation:

Flitton and Greenfield consists of three settlements
Only one community centre/ recreation ground which is shared
Parts of settlement further than 1 mile from Flitwick superstore
Agree HGVs are issue and lack of pavements
Narrow country lanes used as shortcut, experience speeding
Bus service is not frequent or suitable.
Pulloxhill industrial estate inappropriately located
Congestion

Full text:

Appendix D: Area D Assessments
The section on Flitton & Greenfield does not read well. The introduction implies that Greenfield is the dominant settlement in the parish and that "Greenfield and Flitton" are one settlement. This does not reflect the reality that Flitton & Greenfield parish consists of three settlements: Flitton and Greenfield, which are two small villages of equal size, and Wardhedges a hamlet.
There is only one community centre which is located in Flitton but shared with Greenfield. The recreation ground is in the same location and incorporates a children's playing area. It is not true to say that the nearest superstore is only 1 mile away. Parts of Greenfield are within one mile but parts of Flitton are three miles from the centre of Flitwick. If you wish to use one number then I would be fairer to say over 2 miles.
You are right to identify HGVs as an issue and the lack of pavements. However you also mention that the narrow country lanes which characterise the parish are also blighted by speeding traffic using them as a short cut from the A6/A507 to the motorway.
Under "Capacity" item 6 references is made to bus services. These are not frequent and are not suitable to serve people who are commuting to work or making short visits to the nearest service centre in Flitwick.
Pulloxhill Industrial Estate is on the edge of Greenfield settlement and is an example of a lack of strategic planning. Warehousing in this location is completely inappropriate. It has resulted in HGVs travelling on the narrow road through the village of Greenfield at all hours of the day and night. It has also exacerbated congestion outside the village school.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5069

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

settlement capacity study does not consider that Wharley End, Cranfield is a part of the settlement in its own right and should identify opportunities for growth there.

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of our client, Mr A. Kinns, who is promoting land around Wharley End Farm, Wharley End, Cranfield (Site Ref NLR176) for sustainable residential development, as detailed in the Call for Sites submissions made in 2014 and 2016. Separate submissions having been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and the Site Allocations Technical Document.

Our client wishes to object to the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study insofar as it has failed to consider Wharley End as a separate settlement in its own right and to identify the opportunity for it to accommodate a high level of residential growth to compliment and balance the large scale employment and Higher Education facilities there.

Separate submissions have been made on the DLP in support of Wharley End being identified separately to Cranfield in the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and arguing the case for it to be identified as one of the growth locations in the Submission version of the Local Plan. Failure to do so would be a huge opportunity missed to create a sustainable settlement at Wharley End.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5070

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: City & County Projects

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Support findings from Settlement Capacity Study

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of City and County Projects, who are promoting a site east of Chauntry Way, Flitwick (Reference NLP245) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission for it. Separate representations having been submitted on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') and Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests. These include a Green Belt Statement prepared by James Blake Associates (JBA) in response to the conclusions of the Green Belt Review and comments on the Site Assessment Form for this land included in the Site Assessments Technical Document.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Flitwick that it has medium - high capacity for growth were land released from the Green Belt. They are also in agreement with the assessment that environmental constraints can be avoided through the appropriate siting of development in the north east of the settlement where they are promoting land east of Chauntry Way.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan suggesting that a higher target than the current one of 2,000 dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt needs to be included in the Submission version of the Local Plan and that land should be allocated to the north east of Flitwick, including that being promoted by City and County Projects.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5071

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: J Gudgin

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Supports findings of the Settlement Capacity Study in regard to Shefford

Full text:

J Gudgin supports the approach adopted in the Initial Settlements Capacity Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Shefford that it has medium capacity for growth i.e. for between 50 and 500 dwellings.

The conclusions of the study states that Shefford can avoid significant constraints by appropriate siting of development, specifically referring to scope for development to the north east of the settlement. This would need to be carefully considered. Overall, it recognises that there are opportunities for development that is well linked to the urban area can deliver development gains including a range of housing to support the local community.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5072

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Toddington Mews Developments Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

In support of the Settlement Capacity Study in regards to Toddington. Local Plan should allocate sites in Toddington.

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Toddington Mews Developments Ltd, who are promoting a site at Luton Road, Toddington (References NLP138 and NLP264) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission for it. Separate representations having been submitted on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') and Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests. These include a Green Belt Statement prepared by James Blake Associates in response to the conclusions of the Green Belt Review and comments on the Site Assessment Form for this land included in the Site Assessments Technical Document.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Toddington that it has medium capacity for growth (50 - 500 dwellings) were land released from the Green Belt. Given the status of Toddington as a Minor Service Centre, the excellent range of facilities there and how well served it is by public transport, the Submission Version of the Local Plan should allocate the upper end of this housing range to Toddington reflecting its inherent sustainability.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan suggesting that a higher target than the current one of 2,000 dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt needs to be included in the Submission version of the Local Plan and that land should be allocated at Luton Road, Toddington.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5073

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: GPS Estates Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Support ALP252
Support approach of Settlement Capacity Study, particularly conclusion on Barton.
Minor service centres such as Barton have capacity to accommodate expansion which will help maintain viability of existing/new/improved facilities.
Barton can absorb more growth.
Expanding Barton to the east would not cause coalescence or significant loss of valued landscape.

Full text:

Representations on Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 and Technical Evidence
to support the promotion of Land at Manor Close Barton Le Clay (ALP252)
Representations on the Settlements Capacity Initial Study
Our Clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly
the conclusion reached in respect of Barton Le Clay in that it has medium capacity for growth (50 -
500 units) provided some land is released from the Green Belt.
Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself endorsing the principle
of releasing sufficient land around the larger settlements in the Green Belt, but commenting that the
target should actually be higher so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its
high housing target.
Minor Service Centres such as Barton-Le-Clay have the capacity to accommodate expansion which
will help to maintain the viability of existing facilities and the overall vitality of the settlement as well
as assisting in the delivery of new and improved facilities. The technical evidence in the support of
the Local Plan confirms that over the last 10 years Barton-Le-Clay has only seen a growth rate of
3.5%. Our Clients are of the view that the town is capable of successfully absorbing a much higher
level growth. If all current outstanding commitments are built out it will only increase the housing
stock by a further 0.48%. This level of growth falls significantly short of the amount that should be
directed towards a Minor Service Centre such as Barton-Le-Clay to ensure the housing requirements
are met over the plan period.
Barton-Le-Clay is surrounded by Green Belt some of which would need to be released to allow new
development. In terms of the Land at Manor Road, whilst within the Green Belt no other significant
constraints are identified that could not be avoided or mitigated. By focussing the expansion of
Barton-Le-Clay to the east of the settlement there would be no coalescence with the adjacent
villages or significant loss of valued landscape.
The further expansion of Barton Le Clay affords the opportunity to deliver a range of housing for the
local community with the potential for infrastructure improvements in settlement that is sustainable
in terms of location and facilities.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5076

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Connolly Homes

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Support findings of the Settlement Capacity Study for Westoning,
would benefit from an appropriate level of development,
suitable land is available to the south of Westoning

Full text:

Connolly Homes supports the approach adopted in the Initial Settlements Capacity Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Westoning that it has medium capacity for growth were land released from the Green Belt i.e. for between 50 and 500 dwellings.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself and the Green Belt Review endorsing the principle of releasing sufficient land around the Large Villages in the Green Belt to deliver 2,000 houses collectively, but commenting that the target should actually be higher so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its high housing target.

Settlements such as Westoning have had their growth restricted by the existing Green Belt boundaries for some considerable time and would benefit from an appropriate level of new housing to help maintain the viability of existing facilities and the vitality of the village generally. The technical evidence in the support of the Local Plan confirms that if all current outstanding commitments in Westoning are built out it will only increase the housing stock by 0.59%.

Furthermore, there is suitable land available to the south of Westoning, as confirmed in the Green Belt Review Stage 2 and the Site Allocations Technical Document, that is under the control of a developer (Connolly Homes) and is therefore deliverable.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5078

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Messers Olney, Willis & Butterworth

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Support the approach of the Settlement Capacity Study in regard to Steppingley. Some capacity for growth were the land released from the Green Belt.

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of ours clients, Messrs Olney, Willis and Butterworth, who are promoting land south of Rectory Road, Steppingley (Site reference NLP085). Separate comments are being submitted on the Draft Local Plan and other Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests, particularly the Site Assessments Technical Document and the conclusion reach on site NLP085.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Steppingley that it has some capacity for growth (up to 50 dwellings) were land released from the Green Belt.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself and the Green Belt Review suggesting that the target for new dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt should be increased from 2,000 so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its high housing target. The release of land around the Small Villages could make a meaningful contribution towards meeting the housing targets whilst providing small scale rural housing

Small settlements such as Steppingley have had their growth restricted by the existing Green Belt boundaries for some considerable time and would benefit from an appropriate level of new housing to help maintain the viability of existing facilities and the vitality of the village generally. It is not positive planning to apply a blanket restriction to new rural housing in small villages confining their natural growth.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5082

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: All Land Investments (Stotfold 1) Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Object to medium-low capacity for Stotfold
Recent growth should not preclude further growth
Stotfold should be Major Service Centre.
Support view that there are opportunities for development in west and south, which could support additional services, but disagree that the scale of development needed to deliver these would detrimentally impact on landscape setting and settlement character.
Landscape Statement attached demonstrates that the site is screened from most external viewpoints and views over it could be screened effectively.
No visual connection to Arlesey
Mitigation possible for Etonbury Wood
GI aspirations could be delivered

Full text:

All Land Investments (Stotfold 1) Ltd objects to the conclusion reached in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study in respect of Stotfold that it only has medium - low capacity to accommodate growth during the Plan period.

This appears to be at least in part driven by virtue of Stotfold having grown considerably through new development in the past 10 years, however, this should not in itself be a reason to preclude further growth taking place there. Indeed, despite nearby Arlesey already having substantial commitments it has not stopped the Council identifying a potential strategic growth option there.

Furthermore, as outlined in the separate representation on the Draft Local Plan itself, our clients are of the view that Stotfold should be re-classified as a Major Service Centre given the existing facilities and services it offers are comparable to other Major Service Centres in Central Bedfordshire. The opportunity should be taken to build on its recent growth and reinforce the sustainability of Stotfold through further development that includes community benefits.

The Settlements Capacity Initial Study also indicates the presence of constraints to the north and east of the Stotfold, but acknowledges that there are opportunities for development in the west and south, which would be well connected to the existing urban area, in close proximity to rail connections, that could support the provision of additional services and facilities in the town, a view supported by All Land Investments (Stotfold) Ltd.

However, it goes on to suggest that the scale of development needed to deliver these is likely to detrimentally affect landscape setting, and the character of the settlement. This point is refuted by our Clients, who are promoting land to the west of Stotfold (Parcels referenced ALP282, NLP106 and NLP160). Enclosed is a Landscape Statement prepared by James Blake Associates which robustly demonstrates that in landscape terms, the site is well screened from most external viewpoints and those views over it that do exist could be screened effectively through mitigation planting.

In respect of coalescence it confirms that the site is completely screened by trees from views from Arlesey to the west. There is no visual connection between the two settlements. This visual barrier will be strengthened by the proposed landscape masterplan for the Arlesey East development. There is scope also for additional tree-planting on the western section of the site to further reinforce the visual separation of Stotfold and Arlesey. Although the physical gap between the settlements may narrow because of the development, the visual separation will increase in scale and permanence.

Mitigation planting can be carried out to buffer the impact on Etonbury Wood of developing the land between it and the existing settlement. This can involve the creation of a Green Corridor along the Pix Brook, with a permissive footpath and habitat enhancements such as tree-planting and meadow creation to create a more bio-diverse belt linking Etonbury Wood with Stotfold.

A number of other Green Infrastructure aspirations from the Etonbury Green Wheel Masterplan could also be delivered as part of a landscape led housing development.

In light of the above, our client would argue that Stotfold has in fact got capacity for Medium to High levels of growth, especially with the right investment in new infrastructure provision. This offers opportunities to encourage sustainable development with good connections to major road and rail links and could deliver a range of housing for the local community with the potential for major infrastructure improvements.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5085

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Legal & General Capital

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Please see attached covering letter which refers to various aspects of the Plan in relation to Slip End.


Settlement Capacity Study - has capacity for 50-500 homes based on lack of existing infrastructure, Slip End should constitute as having 'Medium' capacity for expansion.

Full text:

Please see attached

Attachments:

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5091

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Legal & General Capital

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Please see attached document for comments regarding the Settlement Capacity Study and how it relates to Slip End

This includes:

Capacity should be increased to Medium with opportunities for growth thus making it high-medium,
Emerging neighbourhood plan suggests a site adjacent to the school that could provide expansion to the school or provide healthcare,
Study refers to no employment in the area but neighbourhood plan highlights some areas of employment,
Better transport infrastructure than suggested,
Green Belt around Slip End is actually scoring relatively weak.

Full text:

Please see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5161

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Greensand Properties LLP

Agent: Kirkby Diamond

Representation:

Concerned that study is 'desk-based' and that this affects reliability of assessments generally, in some cases limitations of such a study will significantly affect planned provision. Description of areas A-D referred to in para 1.8 doesn't correspond exactly with the character areas identified in Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (2016). Initial Capacity Assessment for Aspley Guise appears to be incorrect, suggests capacity of settlement without GB release is higher (Medium-Low) than with GB release (Low). More appropriate methodology/sequencing needed, GB study should have been informed by Settlements Capacity Study, to focus on settlements where capacity was most significantly constrained by GB

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5402

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: D & E Buckingham

Agent: Kirkby Diamond

Representation:

Concerned that study is 'desk-based' and that this affects reliability of assessments generally, in some cases limitations of such a study will significantly affect planned provision. Description of areas A-D referred to in para 1.8 doesn't correspond exactly with the character areas identified in Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (2016)
Notwithstanding limitations of the study, we do agree the assessment of Houghton Regis as having a high capacity (subject to GB release) and that it is a sustainable location for growth

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5419

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Houghton Regis Town Council

Representation:

Object to approach taken as it uses an arbitrary approach to its analysis by not following the established parish boundaries (including parts of Houghton Regis parish in the assessment for Dunstable)

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Representation:

We agree that Toddington is a sustainable location, and that there are no significant constraints to the capacity of the settlement to accommodate additional development. Accordingly the settlement should be a focus of sustainable growth. It is considered that the proposals for development represent an important opportunity to support the existing community and its facilities.

Full text:

See attachment for comments made on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in respect of the Draft Local Plan and land in Toddington

Attachments:

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5524

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Representation:

We agree that Barton-Le-Clay is a sustainable location, and that there are no significant constraints to the capacity of the settlement to accommodate additional development. Accordingly the settlement should be a focus of sustainable growth. It is considered that the proposals for development represent an important opportunity to support the existing community and its facilities.

Full text:

See attachment for comments made on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in respect of the Draft Local Plan and land in Barton

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5749

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Land Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See attachment for detailed commentary
The availability of land north of Sandy that is both suitable and available for new development adds further to the justification for the conclusion reached in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6087

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Representation:

The Initial Settlements Capacity Study (May 2017) has undertaken an assessment of
the overall sustainability of settlements within Central Bedfordshire. The study
concludes that Arlesey has medium-high capacity for accommodating additional
development. With regards to development to the east of Arlesey, the study concludes that:"Any development around the eastern settlement edge would need to be sensitively designed to respond to the heritage settings of Listed Buildings. Development could also contribute towards coalescence with Stotfold in the east, Henlow in the north-west and Fairfield in the south-east.
see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6104

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Representation:

The Initial Settlements Capacity Study (May 2017) has undertaken an assessment of
the overall sustainability of settlements within Central Bedfordshire. The study
concludes that Ampthill has low capacity for accommodating additional development.
With regards to development to the east of Ampthill, the study concludes that:
"Development in the rest of the land surrounding the settlement would be subject to the lifting of Green Belt restrictions. Development would need to be carefully sited to avoid contributions to coalescence with Flitwick in the south and Maulden in the east. see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6539

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: CPRE

Representation:

CPRE Bedfordshire is concerned that the above study has been conducted with far too high numbers of homes in each category e.g. "High" (>500 new homes), "Medium" (50-500 homes) and "Low" <50 homes.

This means that the there is a lack of finesse possible when judging the capacity of a settlement to accommodate new housing and allocating numbers.

To take the example of Potton and Biggleswade both of which have been classified as having potential to take a "Medium" number of homes.
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6575

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Willis Dawson

Agent: HD Town Planning

Representation:

We are aware that CBC commissioned Enfusion to undertake a Study of the housing capacity of individual settlements using available information and professional judgement in respect of each of the 75 settlements across the Council area. Paragraph 2.2 nonetheless emphasises that even if settlements were assessed as having medium or high potential, this does not necessarily mean that they will ultimately be taken forward for development purposes. see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6630

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Willis Dawson

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

This study identified the capacity of Eaton Bray to accommodate new
development as 'Low', ie: that is has the ability to accommodate up to 50 new
dwellings, it was also shown to be have a 'Low' capacity without a Green Belt
release, indicating that the study considers the settlement has the services and
facilities to serve a further 50 dwellings with, or without, a Green Belt release.
7.24 The study made, 'no assumption with regard to the performance of the Green
Belt, nor any recommendations regarding the desirability of its release in any
given location'. see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6722

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Wingfield, Jerram, & Monckton

Number of people: 3

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Representation:

Settlements Capacity Study: Initial Study (July 2017)
At Paragraph 2.1 it is stated that 'settlements were grouped according to the Council's 4 options for the overall development strategy for the new plan: Area A; Area B; Area C; and Area D'. In this report Maulden has been classified as being in Area D, contrary to the Local Plan document (see above). Notwithstanding this discrepancy, Maulden has been identified as having 'Medium capacity' of between 50 - 500 homes. see attachment

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6988

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: GVA

Agent: GVA

Representation:

Without the provision of a new market town it is deemed unlikely that Central Bedfordshire can
reach its housing target, without substantial release of Green Belt Land.
4.5 Central Bedfordshire has divided the Local Authority Area into 4 separate areas (Appendix II):
* Area A - South
* Area B - A1 Corridor (Including site)
* Area C - East -West
* Area D Central
see attachment page 11

Full text:

Please see attached