Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8459

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Summers

Representation:

*KEY ISSUE*

HARLINTON

INFRASTRUCTURE -We need infrastructure in Harlington to support the village growth.

07

Full text:

I am a resident of Harlington and not necessarily against homes being built in my village. I understand the need but am concerned by the quantity of homes in the village. The facilities of Harlington just wont support such a growth. Having gone through the infrastructure plan there is nothing planned in the near future to address amenities. We are currently trying to fund our own playground which doesn't support the village in its current size. We have tried to get a football/cricket pavilion for years. I've lived here for 17 years and the village has grown in that time. We can support a little more but the plans look to increase the village by over 50%. There needs to be a compromise. There needs to be something offered to support the growth. That is what I would like to see

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8850

Received: 20/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Judith Bougas

Representation:

*KEY ISSUE*

INFRASTRUCTURE - the plan has little reference to the additional pressure on the rail network with the increase in users. Arlesey Station has capacity issues, the design of the station needs reviewing. There is no clear and safe pedestrian crossing point at Arlesey Station.

07

Full text:

Arlesey: The plan does not acknowledge the additional pressure on the rail network with the inevitable large number of new users. Already even 12 carriage trains are usually full after leaving Arlesey towards London. Additional services will be needed at peak times to cope with the higher numbers of people. The design of Arlesey station also needs reviewing. There is no clear and safe pedestrian crossing point from the station to the public street at peak times when large numbers of cars arrive to collect passengers.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 10319

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Richard Landen

Representation:

*KEY ISSUE*

INFRASTRUCTURE - all critical infrastructure lack any details and costings. Concern in relation to the viability of development at Land East of Biggleswade.

TRANSPORT - concern in relation to the impact of development on the East Coast Mainline and the associated infrastructure at Biggleswade Station, in the context of the East Biggleswade Development.

TRANSPORT - concern in relation to the impact of development at East of Biggleswade on the road network including the A1 and the rural road network towards Cambridge.

07

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11250

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Highways England

Representation:

*KEY ISSUE*

Highways England

INFRASTRUCTURE - concern that the IDP has not identified the specific schemes required to mitigate impacts on the strategic road network and the contributions expected from developments. There is concern in relation to the deliverability of sites.

07

Full text:

See attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 12068

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: O&H Properties Ltd

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation:

GENERAL - Appendix I and B include infrastructure associated with Marston Vale strategic site, this presents a danger of confusing the picture of infrastructure requirements.

INFRASTRUCTURE - careful consideration is required to the apportionment of the costs of infrastructure having regard to the impact of the development of each site and the phasing of infrastructure delivery.

INFRASTRUCTURE - the infrastructure requirements for Marston Vale new villages needs to be necessary and proportionate to the development.

07

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments: