Site Assessment Technical Document

Showing comments and forms 61 to 88 of 88

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3827

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: 2017 Sarah West

Representation:

It would be more appropriate to develop to the north of Westoning closer to Flitwick than the south.

Full text:

I am writing to put forward my agreement with Westoning parish council that if there is to be housing development in Westoning it would be better if this formed part of the envelope of the village rather than being on a piece of land only just attached to the village. For this reason piece of land NLP 136 to the north would be more appropriate than NLP 317 to the south. 136 also has the advantage of less traffic on the road adjoining it and being closer to the major amenities of Flitwick, even being walking distance to the train station. There would also be an opportunity to improve the access on Flitwick Rd for all Westoning residents with improved pedestrian paving and cycle lanes to encourage fewer car journeys to use the services and shopping in Flitwick.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3831

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Axis Land Partnerships Ltd

Agent: LDA Design

Representation:

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached a representation on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships in support of an allocation at Site ALP033 Fairfield Farm, Land at Fairfield Road, Biggleswade. The representation comprises a main report in support of the site, a concept plan, heritage statement and minerals report.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached a representation on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships in support of an allocation at Site ALP033 Fairfield Farm, Land at Fairfield Road, Biggleswade. The representation comprises a main report in support of the site, a concept plan, heritage statement and minerals report.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3839

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Miss Sam Roberts

Representation:

I object to the proposed development around Caddington / Slip End which is in green belt land. There is not enough space for road developments needed which will increase traffic through Slip End and Caddington. Local roads do not have the capacity to support existing and proposed developments. Water supply and sewerage are at capacity already. The development is contrary to the neighbourhood plan.

Full text:

I object to the proposed development around Caddington / Slip End which is in green belt land. There is not enough space for road developments needed which will increase traffic through Slip End and Caddington. Local roads do not have the capacity to support existing and proposed developments. Water supply and sewerage are at capacity already. The development is contrary to the neighbourhood plan.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3872

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire

Representation:

No specific locations for proposals are given within the Local Plan document. This makes commenting on the impact they would have difficult. We have provided comments on some sites within the Local Plan; however, we still have concerns about NLP054 as it is adjacent to Marston Thrift SSSI, NLP416 as it is close to Duck End Marshy Grassland CWS and ALP116 given its proximity to Maulden Wood SSSI. There may also be other impacts in habitats and species which have not come to our attention.

Full text:

No specific locations for proposals are given within the Local Plan document. This makes commenting on the impact they would have on wildlife difficult. We have provided comments on some sites within the Local Plan; however, we still have concerns about NLP054 as it is adjacent to Marston Thrift Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), NLP416 as it is close to Duck End Marshy Grassland County Wildlife Site and ALP116 given its proximity to Maulden Wood SSSI. As area maps for any of the proposals do not form part of this stage of the Local Plan there may be other impacts in habitats and species which have not come to our attention. The Local Plan includes draft policies which would seek to protect and enhance these wildlife sites. It is, therefore, important that these policies are followed in the site selection process.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3881

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: J Price Williams

Representation:

Objection to site ALP465 on multiple grounds (essentially similar to ALP199 which was rejected by CBC) Unsustainable.

Objection to site ALP217 - on multiple grounds including not being a natural extension to Potton. Ecology, transport and general unsustainable nature

Full text:

Site ALP465.

This site is adjacent to and similar to site ALP199, which has been excluded from the Local Plan process for a range of reasons involving landscape, ecology and green infrastructure, that all apply equally to site ALP465 thus it should be excluded from further consideration.
Policy H3 in the CBC Draft Local Plan relates to support for older people, however both s ALP199 and ALP465 are on steeply sloping land, which is unsuitable for older people with mobility issues. Furthermore to access the town centre and other facilities would require a walk of approximately 1500 metres up the hill and back down to the town.
Currently this is an open green space which readily absorbs precipitation, thus any development would result in rainfall being channelled downhill into the existing Sheepwalk Close development with the potential for associated local flooding issues. This runoff may well contain contaminants from roads/gardens which would affect the water quality in the brook.
The site is on the south face of the Greensands Ridge Nature Improvement Area, so stage 1A Assessment, sections 4 and 5 should be answered 'Yes'.
There has been previous community consultation on this site when it was proposed in planning application CB/17/01096/OUT. The consultation resulted in 50 objections and over 1200 signatures on a petition opposing the proposed development of the site, and the planning application was rejected by CBC.
Stage 2 Assessment section 24. We believe that this should be designated R (Red) since The site is a former Land Settlement Area and is designated as Grade 1 Agricultural Land according to the Eastern Region Agricultural Land Classification map published by Natural England thus in the stage 2 Assessment section 24 it should be designated R (Red).
Statements regarding transport and busees are incorrect (stage 2 section 27) as the bus stop referred to does not have at least an hourly service at any time of the day .
The Water Cycle Study (April 2017) has identified that the Water and Waste Water infrastructure is currently under stress. Improvements to the infrastructure will only be in place towards the end of the Local Plan Period and the Stage 2 Water Cycle Study has not yet been prepared, thus this should be assessed as red in stage 2 section 32.


Site ALP217.

I believe that sections 4 & 5 of stage 1A Assessment, sections 4 and 5should be answered 'Yes' as the site is on Greensands Ridge Nature Improvement Area. Additionally, the site is a Significant Wildlife Area according to the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) in terms of species per km2.
I do not believe that this site is a logical extension to the settlement but should be considered an outlying development. The site is separated from the existing development by a hornbeam hedgerow that should be retained as an existing settlement edge. Removing or obscuring this hedge would have a negative effect as it would urbanise the approach to Potton and obscure the view of the established boundary hedge which defines the Western edge of Potton.
SIt is inaccurate to state that there has been no public consultation. There has been community consultation on this site that formed part of a proposed site in planning application CB/17/00296/OUT. The application was withdrawn it would appear when it became apparent that the application would be refused by CBC.
The land is designated as Grade 2 Agricultural Land according to the Eastern Region Agricultural Land Classification map published by Natural England so stage 2 section 24 should be RED
The transport link/infrastructure data is incorrect as the bus stop referred to does not have at least an hourly service at any time of the day.
Access to the site would only be possible off the already busy Sandy Road so any development of this site would increase traffic flow on this road and add to the dangerous nature of the road.
The Water Cycle Study (April 2017) has identified that the Water and Waste Water infrastructure is currently under stress. Improvements to the infrastructure will only be in place towards the end of the Local Plan Period and the Stage 2 Water Cycle Study has not yet been prepared, thus this should be assessed as red in stage 2 section 32.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 3955

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Tesco Stores Limited

Agent: Contour Planning Services Ltd

Representation:

The Council should review its position in relation to Site Ref. ALP408, having regard to additional flood analysis currently being undertaken by Tesco - see more detailed comments in relation to Site Assessment Form (Sandy).

Full text:

The Council should review its position in relation to Site Ref. ALP408, having regard to additional flood analysis currently being undertaken by Tesco - see more detailed comments in relation to Site Assessment Form (Sandy).

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4275

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Ros Keech

Representation:

Building on sites ALP011 and NLP054 would destroy the rural nature of the small village of Shelton. The many footpaths in this area of countryside are used by residents and others on a daily basis and there is abundant wildlife. The infrastructure could not cope with development of this size, particularly if using the existing access points from the village, which are already under pressure and feed onto dangerous bends on Lower Shelton Road. The linear nature of Shelton should be preserved within an area that is already being heavily developed.

Full text:

Building on sites ALP011 and NLP054 would destroy the rural nature of the small village of Shelton. The many footpaths in this area of countryside are used by residents and others on a daily basis and there is abundant wildlife. The infrastructure could not cope with development of this size, particularly if using the existing access points from the village, which are already under pressure and feed onto dangerous bends on Lower Shelton Road. The linear nature of Shelton should be preserved within an area that is already being heavily developed.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4391

Received: 19/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Ernie Bradley

Representation:

The fact that NLP433 is included in the draft plan appears to override the need to preserve good grade agricultural land it therefore seems pointless to show your intention on good ground as there are plenty of alternative site in your draft

Full text:

The fact that NLP433 is included in the draft plan appears to override the need to preserve good grade agricultural land it therefore seems pointless to show your intention on good ground as there are plenty of alternative site in your draft

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4394

Received: 19/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Ernie Bradley

Representation:

Limited extensions to gardens would be allowable provided no harm to character of area yet NLP186 & ALP017 would impinge right up to Deepdale gardens & certainly harm the character of the area. These sites should be removed.

Full text:

Limited extensions to gardens would be allowable provided no harm to character of area yet NLP186 & ALP017 would impinge right up to Deepdale gardens & certainly harm the character of the area. These sites should be removed.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4645

Received: 24/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Eric Large

Representation:

NLP302
Error with site name - Should be Gurney's Lane

Full text:

NLP302 Curneys Lane should read Gurneys Lane site map out of date as it shows our property included as part of site submitted. Site assessment deems the access 'not ideal' and quotes a possible access via Gurneys Lane, a single track lane between existing houses which cannot be widened. A 5' deep ditch runs the length of the track for land drainage. Last bus Biggleswade to Langford leaves 18.31 doesn't cater for commuters from London, leading to increases in traffic. Doctors surgery only open 8.30 to 11.30 and does not offer full service. School places limited. Noise from railway line.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4657

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Adam Perkins

Representation:

maps need to be shown highlighting where the boundaries of the sites are.
currently everything is too generic which doesn't allow for residents to know where housing will be.

Full text:

So where can we find a map of SPECIFICALLY where the proposed new housing around Lidlington will be? The only map on your website shows vast areas of land in and around the village that have been submitted for potential use, and then your documentation lists which of these broad areas have been approved for further review. However there is no map to indicate where specifically these areas are? It's all too generic currently which doesn't allow residents to get an idea of where the proposed housing would actually be.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4669

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Lovelock

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall and other towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall and other towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites still open for development consideration after the DLP has been ratified but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account 'actual' housing developments in towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site and therefore the suitability for further development.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in and area. Using out of date data will have an adverse effect on the character, services and amenities of existing settlements.

Evidence of the extent to which this data can 'skew' a decision for my own area can be seen below:
https://centralbedfordshire.jdi-consult.net/documents/pdfs_11/meppershall.pdf

Meppershall village across this period shows a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4675

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Johnson

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in Meppershall across this period is a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4735

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

Summary of sites passing for area D.

Full text:

Parish Summaries

The number of sites passing to the next stage for further consideration is summarised in the following table for all area D settlements:

pass total %age pass %age of total area d of pass
Blunham 2 11 18% 2%
Campton and Chicksands 2 5 40% 2%
Clifton 4 30 13% 5%
Clophill 2 12 17% 2%
Gravenhurst 3 6 50% 4%
Haynes 2 9 22% 2%
Henlow 8 28 29% 10%
Maulden 9 32 28% 11%
Meppershall 8 18 44% 10%
Moggerhanger 4 15 27% 5%
Northill 6 29 21% 7%
Old Warden 4 0% 0%
Pulloxhill 5 9 56% 6%
Shefford 3 16 19% 4%
Shillington 7 20 35% 8%
Silsoe 13 0% 0%
Southill 4 12 33% 5%
Stondon 14 21 67% 17%
AREA D TOTAL 83 290 29% 100%

Within Area D, only Meppershall and our neighbours Stondon are in the top 4 passes in both comparisons of the number retained to the next stage and the proportion of retained sites, and this despite the recent large increase in permissions in the last twelve months noted above.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 4739

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

completions data for question 20 is obsolete now that we are in 2017. Mepperhsall does not need to supply more houses.

Full text:

Site Assessment Criteria

The need to identify possible sites to achieve the county wide targets is recognised and the process used is clearly set out. However, MPC has identified two possible inconsistencies in the logic and application of the process used in the site assessments.

The site assessment technical document , paragraph 5.3.5 regarding Cumulative Impact states It is important to take into consideration how much pressure from new development a settlement has already seen, and is likely to see in the near future when assessing what impact new development could have.

1. The assessment process in question 20 takes recent housing completions data and provides a percentage increase for the last decade for each parish between 2006 and 2016 and question 21 identifies committed (i.e. additional) housing permissions as at 2016. Each question has the same assessment limits: Less than 5% growth (G), 5% to 20% growth (A) and More than 20% growth (R). A red assessment in both would require results in excess of 20% in both i.e. cumulative growth of 40%. The logic within the technical summary suggests that the total increase both past and committed should be added together before applying the RAG criteria.

2. The delay in producing the Local Plan has made the use of 2016 figures obsolete, and misrepresents the impact of permissions granted and developments started since that date. At present all individual sites for Meppershall assess questions 20 and 21 using the base increase from 2006 (655 homes) to 2016 (698 Homes), a 6.56% increase, and outstanding planning permission for 3 dwellings representing an additional 0.45% increase. This gives a cumulative impact of 7.01%, AMBER. These numbers fail to recognise the large number of developments started in Meppershall since 1 April 2016 but not included in the figures. As at the end of July 2017, developments of 6, 78, and 2, a total of 86 have begun (19.7% increase), and a further development of 9 has yet to start (1.4% increase). This is a cumulative 21.1% increase which reflects the true impact that Meppershall has suffered in the recent past and gives a RED assessment across all sites within the village. If the use of 2016 figures is continued the 95 houses given planning permission since 1st April 2016 would mean that Meppershall has already contributed substantially to its 20 year target and would require little more.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 5056

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Rawdon Crozier

Agent: mr james mcmurdo

Representation:

Specifically asks the council to allocate the available and appropriately located Green Belt site Ref NLP013 in Eaton Bray for development.
Specifically asks the council to allocate the available and appropriately located Green Belt site Ref NLP012 in Chalton for development.
6.2 On behalf of our client, we thank you for the opportunity to

Full text:

please refer to document attached

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 5160

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Greensand Properties LLP

Agent: Kirkby Diamond

Representation:

Consider Site Assessments to be unreliable and this adversely affects the soundness of the draft plan. Concern re: sites that might otherwise be suitable for development have been excluded from consideration due only to their GB designation - in full reliance of the GB Technical Study and apparently disregarding the limitations of that study. As a result, sustainable sites in locations that would be suitable in all other respects have been excluded from consideration.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 5435

Received: 16/08/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or intervisibility with, a potential site. Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 5526

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Historic England comments on SA criteria
Important to consider when assessing sites:
* Identify the heritage assets on/within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
* Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

Full text:

We thought it might be helpful to clarify that our comments submitted on 16th August, whilst relating primarily to the Local Plan, are also of relevance to the Site Assessment Technical Document which you are currently consulting on. We do not have capacity to consider every individual site in your report at this stage but as referred to in our Local Plan response letter in the section on chapter 8, we would remind you of our letter sent 11th April 2016 concerning site assessment methodology. All sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. Further details are given in our response letter.

We note that the site assessment criteria includes the following criteria with respect to the historic environment

Is more than 50% of the site covered by nationally significant designations? These are: Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens.

Heritage/ Archaeology
What would the impacts of development be on any heritage assets and their setting?
Are there any opportunities for enhancement of these assets?

As advised previously and in our most recent response on the Local Plan, in accordance with our Advice Note 3 - site allocations in local plans: it will be important that you consider the following broad steps in terms of assessing sites.

* Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
* Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

I have highlighted in bold the areas where I consider the assessment to date needs to be strengthened.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. Following our recent recruitment, we have now divided the region into patches to be covered by myself and my colleague. I will be covering Central Bedfordshire going forward. May I suggest that it might be helpful to have a meeting in the next few weeks to consider potential sites as you are developing the next iteration of the Plan prior to allocating sites. Perhaps you could offer some suitable dates for a meeting.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Arlesey Town Council

Representation:

CBC's own site assessments marks the sites at Tempsford (N10), East of Biggleswade (N17), Henlow Airfield (N25) and East of Arlesey (N29) as "Low" on a measure of deliverability but "High" on a measure of viability. All four of these sites have been singled out as strategic options in the draft Local Plan which suggests that CBC is prioritising profit for landowners (which include CBC) and developers over the deliverability of the site. see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 6545

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: CPRE

Representation:

The Site Assessment Technical Document does recognise Green Belt as a technical constraint where additional considerations are applied.
The Council has however automatically passed any sites designated as preforming weakly or relatively weakly within the Green Belt study - despite the Green Belt consultant's caveat that this classification does not count as exceptional circumstances.
Until we see the final site selection we cannot assess how the Council are justifying any selection decision.
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 6576

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Willis Dawson

Agent: HD Town Planning

Representation:

This document sets out an assessment of sites according to a range of criteria both in relation to constraints and also in relation to potentially sustainable positive factors. Willis Dawson note Paragraph 4.3.30 which indicates that notwithstanding a Green Belt designation sites may still progress if this meets three criteria - settlement has adequate service provision, the
site is adjacent to a main line railway or strategic road, and a size (more than 100 dwellings). see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 6631

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Willis Dawson

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

The document states that a full SHLAA will be available to accompany the
Regulation 19 consultation version of the plan. The methodology for the Site
Assessment study was a three stage process with stage one providing a screening
stage. Those sites meeting the criteria of Stage 1 would then progress on to
Stage 2 for detailed input from those within the Council concerning ecology,
heritage etc. At the end of Stage 2 a planning balance was applied to decide
whether there were too many constraints for a site top progress to Stage 3.
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 6724

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Wingfield, Jerram, & Monckton

Number of people: 3

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Representation:

ALP327 Land to the north of Snow Hill, Maulden and ALP327 Land to the west of Flitwick Road, Maulden
We object to the exclusion of these sites from the Local Plan process. It is claimed that these sites fail at Stage 1B, as development of it would cause coalescence between Ampthill and Maulden. The two settlements would not be connected by the development of this site. The proposals include strategic landscaping, which would be in keeping with tree belts and small linear woodland copses characteristic of the area, as noted in the Green Belt study. This has been ignored. see attachment

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 7264

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Representation:

West of Salford see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 7328

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: O&H Properties

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation:

The proforma below sets out comments to relevant categories of the CBC 'Site Assessment'. O&H
firmly object and disagree with some of the assessments made and provide alternative information
that should be utilised. The O&H information has been informed by rigorous assessment and master
planning and is therefore considered significantly more accurate.
Only those criteria where O&H provide alternative information have been included in the table. see attachment

Full text:

See attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 7363

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Representation:

General advice on potential allocations1
Whilst it is difficult for us to advise without seeing masterplan proposals or firmer allocations, we are able to provide the following principles for consideration in the further stages of Plan preparation:
1. Net-gain in biodiversity. We would expect strategic proposals2 to demonstrate how they will achieve net gain in biodiversity. We acknowledge that a country park may form part of some proposals (e.g. NLP054 and NLP191), together with woodland creation...see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 7364

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Representation:

Green Infrastructure and off-site recreational pressures. We advise that at an early stage the principles regarding quantity and quality of GI is agreed, and that this is considered together with plans for links to existing habitats and the known ecological networks. Such links would include the provision of early-successional habitats that can develop as proposals progress. The broad approach recommended is for master plans to retain the highest value habitats and create new habitats on- or off-site that allow species to utilise. GI provides a means to bring nature into every neighbourhood. see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: