Design Guide SPD - Context and Identity - Chapter 5

Support

Representation ID: 16074

Received: 25/01/2023

Respondent: Miss Kathy Keeley

I feel that some consultations with for example students, community groups and ethnic minorities which break down the considerations under no more than twelve headings may produce some interesting results. Different ages, cultures and backgrounds all of whom have contributed to the way the county is today need to be included.
Personally I feel provision for household pets should be included in the design as these have always been an important part of my life in the county. For many their household pet is as important, if not more important than the human relationships in their household.

A01

Object

Representation ID: 16092

Received: 14/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Darren Brooker

(1) The document overly prescribes for urban and suburban areas without sufficient allowance or provision for rural and small village locations. This is likely to lead to inappropriate standards and guidelines being applied in rural and small village locations, which could ultimately lead to the urbanisation of these areas.
(2) Greater provision needs to be included for taking account of other local (e.g. town and parish) design guidance, such as that included in neighbourhood plans, local design codes, etc.

A05

Comment

Representation ID: 16121

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Chris Stevenson

5.5 "Tranquility". Unfortunately we'll become progressively less tranquil as more new roads are built. The A505 and A421 can be heard for miles around. Unless all new major roads are built in deep trenches the aim of tranquility will remain elusive I'm afraid. The A6-M1 link will only add to background noise.

A04

Comment

Representation ID: 16131

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: The Chiltern Conservation Board

See Attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16150

Received: 14/02/2023

Respondent: Mr John Day

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16168

Received: 13/03/2023

Respondent: Barton Willmore

See Attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16175

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Prof. Chris Brierley

Fig 36. I can understand how this image can be considered to provide a connection between the old and new. However, this is right above the section on sustainability in the PDF. The glass roof on this image must leak heat, and so should not be used as a good example, esp in such close proximity to the sustainability section.

A05

Comment

Representation ID: 16176

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Prof. Chris Brierley

I support the inclusion of a section on sustainability as 5.27. However, I feel that it reads as being insufficiently positive. This design guide will be in place during the time when the vast majority of the heritage assets must be retrofit to meet the council’s net zero aims. I feel that you start with by providing that expectation, along with stating the net zero target. The current text allows developers to consider sustainability as an extra, albeit an encouraged one.

A05

Object

Representation ID: 16190

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Cllr Victoria Harvey

This part of the design guide should be much stronger on the character of CLophill and Maulden where the fields come into the villages making the Greensand Ridge far more part of the countryside rather than a chunk of development. and the views form the main streets blocked by housing all the way along instead of having gaps. Old buildings that are used for businesses need to be preserved to keep the live work rural atmosphere rather than changing the whole area into gentrified suburbia

A05

Object

Representation ID: 16191

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Cllr Victoria Harvey

Space for communal meeting both inside and outside needs to be key to the design and there needs to be spaces for people to meet and sit and enjoy the landscape and the historic environment and stop along the way. This needs to be linked to the chapter on movement. There needs to be spaces so that people can meet and converse in new developments and along streets.

A05

Comment

Representation ID: 16233

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Greensand Trust

5.1.4: We welcome reference to Greensand Country but suggest this also references the ‘Greensand Ridge NIA’.
• 5.2 (Landscape Context) – we welcome reference to the Greensand Ridge and Greensand Country. However, this section should be accompanied by a map illustrating the location and extent of the various areas in the context of Central Bedfordshire, reinforcing the significance to Central Bedfordshire of the Greensand Country area. The map on the page below does not serve this purpose.
• 5.2.4 recognises the number of Registered Parks and Gardens in Central Bedfordshire. It should be noted that, for historical reasons, many of these are located within the Greensand Country area, which has a distinct sense of place in no small part as a result of this. It should be noted that, for historical reasons, many of these are located within the Greensand Country area. These Registered Parks and Gardens, along with other non-designated historic landscapes, strongly contribute to the area’s distinct sense of place.
• We welcome reference to Greensand Country and the Greensand Ridge in 5.28 onwards, but the text is dated and does not reflect the current picture (we recognize that it is difficult to keep anything like this ‘current’). Reference should be made to:
o The fact that a 5 year programme of National Lottery Heritage Fund supported activity has completed, but a strong partnership continues to operate, led by the Greensand Trust (no longer led by BRCC and the Greensand Trust). The Partnership is working to a ‘Forward Plan’, guiding our work over the next 5 years and including themes relating to the landscape, habitats, built heritage and the rural economy. The emphasis in the text should be on the Forward Plan, area focus and long-established partnership working (pre-dating the Lottery funding), rather than on the Lottery-funded programme. It is this desire to work in partnership to protect and enhance the area that is important, and has continued over a long period.
o The area is the same as that of both the Greensand Ridge NIA and NCA90 (National Character Area 90 – Wooded Greensand Ridge).
o Significant research has been carried out, including more detailed Landscape Character Assessment, Historic Environment Characterization, a Parkland Audit and assessment and a Sandstone Structures Audit. All of these reports are available at www.greensandcountry.com and provide a significant resource to help inform sensitive development.
• The boundary illustrated as the “Authority Boundary” in Figure 4 (LCAs) is incorrect – it shows the Bedfordshire boundary, not the Central Bedfordshire boundary.
• 5.4.2 references the Central Bedfordshire Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy. It is difficult to comment on the interface between this and the Design Guide because the G&B Infrastructure Strategy has not been published.
• 5.4.2 (and 4.1.1 in the introduction) should also reference the Natural England Green Infrastructure Framework (2023) and ensure that the principles within it are adopted within the relevant sections of this document.
• 5.21.1 – consideration should be brought to include the non-listed features that contribute to the historic setting of the building (e.g. sandstone boundary walls).
• 5.30.1 – 5.30.4 – this section needs to mirror 5.34.7, linking the presence and significance of historic designed landscapes back to overall landscape character (significantly contributing to the sense of place in Central Bedfordshire, not just Greensand Country, and as highlighted through the Greensand Country LCA and Parkland Audit), rather than just mentioning that they are numerous.
• 5.39 – Appraising a Site and its Setting – Table 1 (Natural Environment Appraisal) asks the question of whether watercourses are to be retained and incorporated (in development). This is not an option, and the culverting or diversion of watercourses should be avoided in all instances as this results in the loss of natural form and function, negatively impacts biodiversity and can increase flood risk. The question should be about how the form, function, aesthetic and biodiversity value of any watercourse will be enhanced through development, including its wider setting.
• 5.9.5 should be altered to include sandstone walls as a key boundary feature
• Figures 9 and 10 need to include coursed and uncoursed sandstone as well as coping.
• 5.35.2 – a less desk-based approach to encourage heritage statements to include some experience of the site itself should be pursued, allowing the appreciation of views, vistas and the wider setting.

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16240

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Cass Design

This chapter looks at context and identity through Landscape, Historic and Urban Design Context. This includes:
• How the landscape and built form has evolved into the special character found in Central Bedfordshire today and gives specific guidance to preserve and enhance this character;
• Advice on the Heritage context and key considerations for developments in the historic environment;
• Advice on appraising a site and its setting.
• We support the key headings listed on the divider page 6 (5.0 Context and Identity)
• We suggest the headings from page 6 are carried over the the next page, and /or subheadings grouped into these categories; as the information presented on page 7 can appear overwhelming.
• We suggest that Chapter 5.9 Local Build Form Characteristics would relate well referenced to Chapter 6 Built Form as it deals with individual typologies including locally used materials, whilst the Chapter 5.7 Built Form in Central Bedfordshire relates well the the ealier material on Context and Identity.
• Whilst we are of an opinion that 5.39 Appraising a Site and its Setting checklist is useful, it is not made clear how the headings relate to Chapters of the Design Guide.
Design Guide

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16249

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Barton Willmore

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16253

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Arrow Planning

See Attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16272

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Gladman Developments Limited

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16283

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Biggleswade Town Council

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16289

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: Bidwells

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16297

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: The Chiltern Society

Central Beds do have a section in the Development Briefs and Design Codes for Environmental Requirements and the Local Plan includes sections on Renewable Energy and Sustainability but you have to look hard to find it all. We would wish to see these matters featured more prominently in the Design Guide with clear guidance as to how these matters can be incorporated into the decision-making process.

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16299

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: The Chiltern Society

Section 5.1.4 of the Design Guide - (Key documents & resources that should be referenced) should include a requirement to achieve 3* or above Home Quality Mark (or similar) rating, or BREEAM Very Good/Excellent grades for commercial properties. If requirement is too strong a word, then something on the lines of additional consideration or weighting should be given to projects that achieve recognised Home Quality Mark/BREEAM classifications. Guides such as this really should be championing and incentivising green technology. It exists and needs to become mainstream.

We are also pleased to see reference to the Chilterns Design Guide in Section 5.2.6. This guide is an important part of protecting the special qualities of the AONB and it is likely that when it is revised it will contain further guidance on sustainability principles and sustainable design.

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16336

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Flitwick Town Council

See attachment

A03

Comment

Representation ID: 16349

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Adam Zerny

New properties should be in the style specified by Neighbourhood Plan not just meeting the quality of the worst previous local developments.
Public transport within 100m.
Cycle routes within 100m
Garden size at least as big as the footprint of the house.
Extensions which overlook not to be built within 15 metres of the applicant's boundary.
Preserve a 5m gap between properties.
Custom build should mean it not just 'pick one from a list of 3 ugly houses the developer offers'
All developments have to be adopted.
Keep all established trees/hedges and add to them
Not more planning by condition. Make sure the design guide covers off all that has been conditioned in recent years.
minimum of 2 off street parking spaces and 1 parking space per bedroom.
Materials to match those used in the long-established local area not just modern brick. See the Cotswolds.
Better drainage
Broad streets with traffic able to pass other vehicles if traffic is parked down one side.
Front gardens for all houses. No doors opening onto the pavement.
Social housing not to built more cheaply than the rest of the development.
Reduce density - 12/hectare (p.40)
Variation of design - not just one of 3 designs
Let people walk before paths are constructed. See where people go.
Bat/swift boxes for all houses.
Ability for all houses to have EV points.
Annual review of the plan
Bin storage off the pavement. No shadows cast over windows from adjacent properties.

A03