Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

Search Representations

Results for Woburn Sands & District Society search

New search New search

Comment

Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

Policy SP1: Growth Strategy

Representation ID: 11748

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Woburn Sands & District Society

Representation:

TARGETS - concern over housing proposed for north CBC especially since reliance on East/West Rail and Cambridge to Oxford Arc
CUMULATIVE IMPACT - north CBC has already contributed 17000+ new homes through existing Core Strategy, now expected to take larger number of new Local Plan homes
STRATEGY - not balanced, concern over Partial Plan Review

04

Full text:

We remain concerned about the numbers of houses allocated to CBC (North) especially since the proposed development of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc in particular the expansion of East West Rail and the construction of the Expressway is used to justify this allocation. CBC (North) has already contributed over 17,000 + dwellings under its existing CBC (North) Core Strategy and now is expected to take the larger number of new dwellings allocated across CBC under the Pre- Submission Local Plan. This is hardly the balanced strategy espoused in paragraph 5.3 there. We are particularly concerned about the proposed partial review 6 months after the adoption of the current Pre-submission Local Plan - with its emphasis on further development being allocated particularly in the north of the County.

Soundness
However for the purposes of this representation we will focus on our concerns in respect of the Soundness of this Pre-Submission Local Plan.
1. We consider that a partial review of the adopted Local Plan 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified, and deplore the options set out of: Option 1, the current allocations remains unchanged: Option 2, medium growth if some but not all the strategic infrastructure is delivered (with more homes allocated in CBC (North?): Option 3, high growth if strategic infrastructure is delivered by 2030 (yet more homes allocated in CBC (North?). Option 3 could see the housing total jump from 39,350 including the 23,845 homes already planned for or built (mainly in the north) to 54,000 + homes.
2. We support most of the planning policies, excluding the loading of the north with homes. In particular we would question the justification for the 5,000 dwellings in the form of two "villages" allocated between Lidlington (population1,300 voters and 500 homes approx.) and Marston Moretaine (population 4.556 residents) which has already had an additional 480 dwellings added between 2008 and 2010. The justification for this huge allocation in what are predominantly rural communities appear to be that both communities have the infrastructure to support such an allocation in particular the upgrade to the EW Bletchley to Bedford rail link due by 2030 (although only Lidlington is on this line - Stewartby is the nearest station to Marston Moretaine) and future delivery of the Expressway with future large development planned to deliver the UK silicon valley. We would question the basis of this in particular that this allocation appears to be a part of Option 3 and therefore should not have been considered until the partial review when the strategic infrastructure planned would have been more certain. In addition whilst both Lidlington and Stewartby (Marston Moretaine not being on this line) have a station that takes the hourly slow train between Bletchley and Bedford the most recent NIC report is suggesting reducing or ceasing the service. So the majority of new residents will be reliant on their cars for work etc. This is unsustainable and the increase in road traffic will have a purely negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area. This appears to us to be just a way of offloading further homes on the North of the county at a cost to the local productive farming land, the historical and natural environment and the local transport network. No consideration has been given to the possible non-delivery or reduced delivery of the strategic infrastructure and indeed to the stopping service of East West rail being reduced or ceasing. No account appears to have been given to the cumulative impact of 5,000 homes, the plans for a huge Incinerator at Stewartby, the gas electricity generating plant at Milbrook and the effect of thus reindustrialising the area on the Forest of Marston Moretaine and the Millennium Park and the effect of course on Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.
3. We question the justification of the allocation of site NLP 463 Land off Meadow View Aspley Guise for 37 homes i.e. a small to medium sized development. We would have no objection to this allocation if it delivers the minimum of 7 or more affordable homes required by Aspley Guise, identified in last year's survey by Grand Union. However the site sits within the Green Belt outside the settlement boundary and was ruled out of the Site Allocation Process. Therefore we would want the reason for the allocation clarified particularly as it could be used as a precedent for other Green Belt sites south of the railway line. The development is too large to qualify as a rural exception site taking into account the assessed need for 7 affordable homes in the area, so the reasons for this site coming forward needs clarification.

We note that CBC has removed the allocation in respect of Aspley Guise Land north of the railway line to be considered as part of the Partial Review when the more of the strategic infrastructure intentions are known - our objections concerning this allocation remain..

We trust that our comments are found constructive and helpful, and that the Pre-submission Local Plan will be amended accordingly

Comment

Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

1.5 Partial Plan Review

Representation ID: 11750

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Woburn Sands & District Society

Representation:

STRATEGY - consider Partial Plan Review 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified,
TARGETS - dispute housing numbers for the north of CBC
GENERAL - concerns over soundness

06

Full text:

We remain concerned about the numbers of houses allocated to CBC (North) especially since the proposed development of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc in particular the expansion of East West Rail and the construction of the Expressway is used to justify this allocation. CBC (North) has already contributed over 17,000 + dwellings under its existing CBC (North) Core Strategy and now is expected to take the larger number of new dwellings allocated across CBC under the Pre- Submission Local Plan. This is hardly the balanced strategy espoused in paragraph 5.3 there. We are particularly concerned about the proposed partial review 6 months after the adoption of the current Pre-submission Local Plan - with its emphasis on further development being allocated particularly in the north of the County.

Soundness
However for the purposes of this representation we will focus on our concerns in respect of the Soundness of this Pre-Submission Local Plan.
1. We consider that a partial review of the adopted Local Plan 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified, and deplore the options set out of: Option 1, the current allocations remains unchanged: Option 2, medium growth if some but not all the strategic infrastructure is delivered (with more homes allocated in CBC (North?): Option 3, high growth if strategic infrastructure is delivered by 2030 (yet more homes allocated in CBC (North?). Option 3 could see the housing total jump from 39,350 including the 23,845 homes already planned for or built (mainly in the north) to 54,000 + homes.
2. We support most of the planning policies, excluding the loading of the north with homes. In particular we would question the justification for the 5,000 dwellings in the form of two "villages" allocated between Lidlington (population1,300 voters and 500 homes approx.) and Marston Moretaine (population 4.556 residents) which has already had an additional 480 dwellings added between 2008 and 2010. The justification for this huge allocation in what are predominantly rural communities appear to be that both communities have the infrastructure to support such an allocation in particular the upgrade to the EW Bletchley to Bedford rail link due by 2030 (although only Lidlington is on this line - Stewartby is the nearest station to Marston Moretaine) and future delivery of the Expressway with future large development planned to deliver the UK silicon valley. We would question the basis of this in particular that this allocation appears to be a part of Option 3 and therefore should not have been considered until the partial review when the strategic infrastructure planned would have been more certain. In addition whilst both Lidlington and Stewartby (Marston Moretaine not being on this line) have a station that takes the hourly slow train between Bletchley and Bedford the most recent NIC report is suggesting reducing or ceasing the service. So the majority of new residents will be reliant on their cars for work etc. This is unsustainable and the increase in road traffic will have a purely negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area. This appears to us to be just a way of offloading further homes on the North of the county at a cost to the local productive farming land, the historical and natural environment and the local transport network. No consideration has been given to the possible non-delivery or reduced delivery of the strategic infrastructure and indeed to the stopping service of East West rail being reduced or ceasing. No account appears to have been given to the cumulative impact of 5,000 homes, the plans for a huge Incinerator at Stewartby, the gas electricity generating plant at Milbrook and the effect of thus reindustrialising the area on the Forest of Marston Moretaine and the Millennium Park and the effect of course on Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.
3. We question the justification of the allocation of site NLP 463 Land off Meadow View Aspley Guise for 37 homes i.e. a small to medium sized development. We would have no objection to this allocation if it delivers the minimum of 7 or more affordable homes required by Aspley Guise, identified in last year's survey by Grand Union. However the site sits within the Green Belt outside the settlement boundary and was ruled out of the Site Allocation Process. Therefore we would want the reason for the allocation clarified particularly as it could be used as a precedent for other Green Belt sites south of the railway line. The development is too large to qualify as a rural exception site taking into account the assessed need for 7 affordable homes in the area, so the reasons for this site coming forward needs clarification.

We note that CBC has removed the allocation in respect of Aspley Guise Land north of the railway line to be considered as part of the Partial Review when the more of the strategic infrastructure intentions are known - our objections concerning this allocation remain..

We trust that our comments are found constructive and helpful, and that the Pre-submission Local Plan will be amended accordingly

Comment

Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

Policy SA2: Marston Vale New Villages

Representation ID: 11755

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Woburn Sands & District Society

Representation:

IDENTIFIED SITES - question justification for 5000 dwellings in this location on top of existing developments, should not have been considered until Partial Plan Review not during this Local Plan due to unknown position of strategic infrastructure
INFRASTRUCTURE - concern over reliance on existing in this area, lack of consideration over delivery of strategic infrastructure
TRANSPORT - increased reliance on car travel, potential for reducing or ceasing the train between Bletchley and Bedford, impact on local road network
ENVIRONMENT - impact on agricultural land, historical and natural environment, impact of Incinerator and development at Millbrook

09

Full text:

We remain concerned about the numbers of houses allocated to CBC (North) especially since the proposed development of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc in particular the expansion of East West Rail and the construction of the Expressway is used to justify this allocation. CBC (North) has already contributed over 17,000 + dwellings under its existing CBC (North) Core Strategy and now is expected to take the larger number of new dwellings allocated across CBC under the Pre- Submission Local Plan. This is hardly the balanced strategy espoused in paragraph 5.3 there. We are particularly concerned about the proposed partial review 6 months after the adoption of the current Pre-submission Local Plan - with its emphasis on further development being allocated particularly in the north of the County.

Soundness
However for the purposes of this representation we will focus on our concerns in respect of the Soundness of this Pre-Submission Local Plan.
1. We consider that a partial review of the adopted Local Plan 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified, and deplore the options set out of: Option 1, the current allocations remains unchanged: Option 2, medium growth if some but not all the strategic infrastructure is delivered (with more homes allocated in CBC (North?): Option 3, high growth if strategic infrastructure is delivered by 2030 (yet more homes allocated in CBC (North?). Option 3 could see the housing total jump from 39,350 including the 23,845 homes already planned for or built (mainly in the north) to 54,000 + homes.
2. We support most of the planning policies, excluding the loading of the north with homes. In particular we would question the justification for the 5,000 dwellings in the form of two "villages" allocated between Lidlington (population1,300 voters and 500 homes approx.) and Marston Moretaine (population 4.556 residents) which has already had an additional 480 dwellings added between 2008 and 2010. The justification for this huge allocation in what are predominantly rural communities appear to be that both communities have the infrastructure to support such an allocation in particular the upgrade to the EW Bletchley to Bedford rail link due by 2030 (although only Lidlington is on this line - Stewartby is the nearest station to Marston Moretaine) and future delivery of the Expressway with future large development planned to deliver the UK silicon valley. We would question the basis of this in particular that this allocation appears to be a part of Option 3 and therefore should not have been considered until the partial review when the strategic infrastructure planned would have been more certain. In addition whilst both Lidlington and Stewartby (Marston Moretaine not being on this line) have a station that takes the hourly slow train between Bletchley and Bedford the most recent NIC report is suggesting reducing or ceasing the service. So the majority of new residents will be reliant on their cars for work etc. This is unsustainable and the increase in road traffic will have a purely negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area. This appears to us to be just a way of offloading further homes on the North of the county at a cost to the local productive farming land, the historical and natural environment and the local transport network. No consideration has been given to the possible non-delivery or reduced delivery of the strategic infrastructure and indeed to the stopping service of East West rail being reduced or ceasing. No account appears to have been given to the cumulative impact of 5,000 homes, the plans for a huge Incinerator at Stewartby, the gas electricity generating plant at Milbrook and the effect of thus reindustrialising the area on the Forest of Marston Moretaine and the Millennium Park and the effect of course on Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.
3. We question the justification of the allocation of site NLP 463 Land off Meadow View Aspley Guise for 37 homes i.e. a small to medium sized development. We would have no objection to this allocation if it delivers the minimum of 7 or more affordable homes required by Aspley Guise, identified in last year's survey by Grand Union. However the site sits within the Green Belt outside the settlement boundary and was ruled out of the Site Allocation Process. Therefore we would want the reason for the allocation clarified particularly as it could be used as a precedent for other Green Belt sites south of the railway line. The development is too large to qualify as a rural exception site taking into account the assessed need for 7 affordable homes in the area, so the reasons for this site coming forward needs clarification.

We note that CBC has removed the allocation in respect of Aspley Guise Land north of the railway line to be considered as part of the Partial Review when the more of the strategic infrastructure intentions are known - our objections concerning this allocation remain..

We trust that our comments are found constructive and helpful, and that the Pre-submission Local Plan will be amended accordingly

Comment

Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

Aspley Guise

Representation ID: 11757

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Woburn Sands & District Society

Representation:

ASPLEY GUISE HAS03

IDENTIFIED SITES - question justification for site, need clarification, could lead to further development in area
HOUSING - no objection if it delivers the identified affordable housing of 7+ for Aspley Guise, not a rural exception site
GREEN BELT - impact on green belt

09

Full text:

We remain concerned about the numbers of houses allocated to CBC (North) especially since the proposed development of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc in particular the expansion of East West Rail and the construction of the Expressway is used to justify this allocation. CBC (North) has already contributed over 17,000 + dwellings under its existing CBC (North) Core Strategy and now is expected to take the larger number of new dwellings allocated across CBC under the Pre- Submission Local Plan. This is hardly the balanced strategy espoused in paragraph 5.3 there. We are particularly concerned about the proposed partial review 6 months after the adoption of the current Pre-submission Local Plan - with its emphasis on further development being allocated particularly in the north of the County.

Soundness
However for the purposes of this representation we will focus on our concerns in respect of the Soundness of this Pre-Submission Local Plan.
1. We consider that a partial review of the adopted Local Plan 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified, and deplore the options set out of: Option 1, the current allocations remains unchanged: Option 2, medium growth if some but not all the strategic infrastructure is delivered (with more homes allocated in CBC (North?): Option 3, high growth if strategic infrastructure is delivered by 2030 (yet more homes allocated in CBC (North?). Option 3 could see the housing total jump from 39,350 including the 23,845 homes already planned for or built (mainly in the north) to 54,000 + homes.
2. We support most of the planning policies, excluding the loading of the north with homes. In particular we would question the justification for the 5,000 dwellings in the form of two "villages" allocated between Lidlington (population1,300 voters and 500 homes approx.) and Marston Moretaine (population 4.556 residents) which has already had an additional 480 dwellings added between 2008 and 2010. The justification for this huge allocation in what are predominantly rural communities appear to be that both communities have the infrastructure to support such an allocation in particular the upgrade to the EW Bletchley to Bedford rail link due by 2030 (although only Lidlington is on this line - Stewartby is the nearest station to Marston Moretaine) and future delivery of the Expressway with future large development planned to deliver the UK silicon valley. We would question the basis of this in particular that this allocation appears to be a part of Option 3 and therefore should not have been considered until the partial review when the strategic infrastructure planned would have been more certain. In addition whilst both Lidlington and Stewartby (Marston Moretaine not being on this line) have a station that takes the hourly slow train between Bletchley and Bedford the most recent NIC report is suggesting reducing or ceasing the service. So the majority of new residents will be reliant on their cars for work etc. This is unsustainable and the increase in road traffic will have a purely negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area. This appears to us to be just a way of offloading further homes on the North of the county at a cost to the local productive farming land, the historical and natural environment and the local transport network. No consideration has been given to the possible non-delivery or reduced delivery of the strategic infrastructure and indeed to the stopping service of East West rail being reduced or ceasing. No account appears to have been given to the cumulative impact of 5,000 homes, the plans for a huge Incinerator at Stewartby, the gas electricity generating plant at Milbrook and the effect of thus reindustrialising the area on the Forest of Marston Moretaine and the Millennium Park and the effect of course on Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.
3. We question the justification of the allocation of site NLP 463 Land off Meadow View Aspley Guise for 37 homes i.e. a small to medium sized development. We would have no objection to this allocation if it delivers the minimum of 7 or more affordable homes required by Aspley Guise, identified in last year's survey by Grand Union. However the site sits within the Green Belt outside the settlement boundary and was ruled out of the Site Allocation Process. Therefore we would want the reason for the allocation clarified particularly as it could be used as a precedent for other Green Belt sites south of the railway line. The development is too large to qualify as a rural exception site taking into account the assessed need for 7 affordable homes in the area, so the reasons for this site coming forward needs clarification.

We note that CBC has removed the allocation in respect of Aspley Guise Land north of the railway line to be considered as part of the Partial Review when the more of the strategic infrastructure intentions are known - our objections concerning this allocation remain..

We trust that our comments are found constructive and helpful, and that the Pre-submission Local Plan will be amended accordingly

Object

Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan (January 2018)

7.9 Identified Locations for Future Growth

Representation ID: 11758

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Woburn Sands & District Society

Representation:

ASPLEY GUISE

IDENTIFIED SITES - objections from Reg 18 still remain
STRATEGY - concern over Partial Plan Review
GENERAL - ambiguity regarding the scope of Partial review and the status of future sites. Concern that a mechanism for developing further homes in the north
DELIVERY - No consideration has been given to possible non-delivery/reduced delivery of strategic infrastructure

04

Full text:

We remain concerned about the numbers of houses allocated to CBC (North) especially since the proposed development of the Cambridge to Oxford Arc in particular the expansion of East West Rail and the construction of the Expressway is used to justify this allocation. CBC (North) has already contributed over 17,000 + dwellings under its existing CBC (North) Core Strategy and now is expected to take the larger number of new dwellings allocated across CBC under the Pre- Submission Local Plan. This is hardly the balanced strategy espoused in paragraph 5.3 there. We are particularly concerned about the proposed partial review 6 months after the adoption of the current Pre-submission Local Plan - with its emphasis on further development being allocated particularly in the north of the County.

Soundness
However for the purposes of this representation we will focus on our concerns in respect of the Soundness of this Pre-Submission Local Plan.
1. We consider that a partial review of the adopted Local Plan 6 months after adoption is unsound and unjustified, and deplore the options set out of: Option 1, the current allocations remains unchanged: Option 2, medium growth if some but not all the strategic infrastructure is delivered (with more homes allocated in CBC (North?): Option 3, high growth if strategic infrastructure is delivered by 2030 (yet more homes allocated in CBC (North?). Option 3 could see the housing total jump from 39,350 including the 23,845 homes already planned for or built (mainly in the north) to 54,000 + homes.
2. We support most of the planning policies, excluding the loading of the north with homes. In particular we would question the justification for the 5,000 dwellings in the form of two "villages" allocated between Lidlington (population1,300 voters and 500 homes approx.) and Marston Moretaine (population 4.556 residents) which has already had an additional 480 dwellings added between 2008 and 2010. The justification for this huge allocation in what are predominantly rural communities appear to be that both communities have the infrastructure to support such an allocation in particular the upgrade to the EW Bletchley to Bedford rail link due by 2030 (although only Lidlington is on this line - Stewartby is the nearest station to Marston Moretaine) and future delivery of the Expressway with future large development planned to deliver the UK silicon valley. We would question the basis of this in particular that this allocation appears to be a part of Option 3 and therefore should not have been considered until the partial review when the strategic infrastructure planned would have been more certain. In addition whilst both Lidlington and Stewartby (Marston Moretaine not being on this line) have a station that takes the hourly slow train between Bletchley and Bedford the most recent NIC report is suggesting reducing or ceasing the service. So the majority of new residents will be reliant on their cars for work etc. This is unsustainable and the increase in road traffic will have a purely negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area. This appears to us to be just a way of offloading further homes on the North of the county at a cost to the local productive farming land, the historical and natural environment and the local transport network. No consideration has been given to the possible non-delivery or reduced delivery of the strategic infrastructure and indeed to the stopping service of East West rail being reduced or ceasing. No account appears to have been given to the cumulative impact of 5,000 homes, the plans for a huge Incinerator at Stewartby, the gas electricity generating plant at Milbrook and the effect of thus reindustrialising the area on the Forest of Marston Moretaine and the Millennium Park and the effect of course on Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.
3. We question the justification of the allocation of site NLP 463 Land off Meadow View Aspley Guise for 37 homes i.e. a small to medium sized development. We would have no objection to this allocation if it delivers the minimum of 7 or more affordable homes required by Aspley Guise, identified in last year's survey by Grand Union. However the site sits within the Green Belt outside the settlement boundary and was ruled out of the Site Allocation Process. Therefore we would want the reason for the allocation clarified particularly as it could be used as a precedent for other Green Belt sites south of the railway line. The development is too large to qualify as a rural exception site taking into account the assessed need for 7 affordable homes in the area, so the reasons for this site coming forward needs clarification.

We note that CBC has removed the allocation in respect of Aspley Guise Land north of the railway line to be considered as part of the Partial Review when the more of the strategic infrastructure intentions are known - our objections concerning this allocation remain..

We trust that our comments are found constructive and helpful, and that the Pre-submission Local Plan will be amended accordingly

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.