Important Countryside Gaps Study

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7394

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Mr Ian Martin

Representation:

I whole support the protection of countryside gaps to maintain the individuality of the towns and villages and the importance of them to protect the free movement of the wildlife in the area

Full text:

I whole support the protection of countryside gaps to maintain the individuality of the towns and villages and the importance of them to protect the free movement of the wildlife in the area

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7457

Received: 13/01/2018

Respondent: Mr John Nunn

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - CG20 is too small, recommend extending further north to Everton Road/Heath junction

09

Full text:

Cg20 is too small, it should extend further north to the junction of Everton Road with the Heath, and beyond I.e so as to run from the gravel pit in the south to the quarry by Jay Farm.
This gap is important to the character of Potton and has been put at risk by the recent suggestions about a new village between Everton and Potton.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7516

Received: 16/01/2018

Respondent: Cllr Roger Smith

Representation:

As well as land between Shefford and Clifton, that between Shefford and Meppershall should also be protected. Pressure is building for development around Meppershall Nursing Home.

Full text:

As well as land between Shefford and Clifton, that between Shefford and Meppershall should also be protected. Pressure is building for development around Meppershall Nursing Home.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7617

Received: 22/01/2018

Respondent: Martin Bastin

Representation:

POLICY - level of development proposed will negate the impact of Important Countryside Gaps to villages due to their scale

09

Full text:

This completely unnecessary level of development will still have a massive impact on the villages despite leaving a small amount of farm land as a so called barrier.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7677

Received: 27/01/2018

Respondent: Mr Tim Wiles

Representation:

Generally a very good idea - especially CG13.
However I note that in the case of CG14 (Clifton/Shefford gap) the land either side of the indicated gap is currently part of Clifton?

Full text:

Generally a very good idea - especially CG13.
However I note that in the case of CG14 (Clifton/Shefford gap) the land either side of the indicated gap is currently part of Clifton?

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7910

Received: 08/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Brooks

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - Aspley Guise ICG should be extended east of Salford Road to protect village from development

09

Full text:

All identified Important Countryside Gaps defined in Appendix 5 are strongly supported. However, the ICG proposed at Aspley Guise should be extended to the east of Salford Road. The need to protect the village from development here is just as great as that west of Salford Road. This was recognised in the Central Beds Development Strategy June 2014 (where it was to be designated Local Green Space) and that proposal should not have been dropped. Notwithstanding para 8.9.3 of the Pre-Submission Plan, it is too late to leave it until a development brief is produced for the Land North of Aspley Guise Future Growth Area (if indeed it ever is). The identification of an ICG here would be consistent with para 8.9.2 (3rd bullet-point).

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8139

Received: 15/02/2018

Respondent: Joe Lawrence

Representation:

ENVIRONMENT - concern over extent of Important Countryside Gap, impact on countryside
HOUSING - alternative ways to provide housing should be considered

09

Full text:

We live in Station cottages down the bottom of Tempsford Station Road (by the level crossing), and it appears as though we are not even considered. Is this some kind of joke? Countryside gaps? These are tiny little pockets. Where are we supposed to enjoy our rural life we currently enjoy? I'm getting fed up of the countryside being constantly pushed aside for houses. Why not build on top of supermarkets or flats in urban areas? There is such little respect for ignoring the important countryside gap where we live.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8638

Received: 20/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Briony Giddings

Representation:

POLICY - Green areas should surround the villages and towns and should be of such a size that it exceeds a small row of trees and should be laid in plans so that no future houses can be build in the areas.

09

Full text:

Green areas should surround the villages and towns and should be of such a size that it exceeds a small row of trees and should be laid in plans so that no future houses can be build in the areas.

Why should people who have brought houses looking out onto open fields suddenly just see rows of houses

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8864

Received: 20/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Darren Brooker

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - site is not appropriate in scale
ALTERNATIVE SITE - Needs to be much larger

09

Full text:

The Countryside Gap (CG2) to the south of Sutton is too small to be effective and does not meet the criteria set out in section 5.2.2 of the Technical Report on Countryside Gaps "5.2.2 To achieve this, the boundaries of these allocated sites reflect existing defensible boundaries where appropriate. This can include: field boundaries, hedgerows, roads, settlement envelope boundaries, parish boundaries and rivers."

In accordance with paragraph 5.2.2 the Countryside Gap GC2 should at least be extended to the field boundaries, where hedgerows and streams/ditches exist, and to the road boundary at it's eastern edge (as per the attached proposal); ideally the Countryside Gap should extend to the parish boundary.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8868

Received: 20/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Darren Brooker

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - CG2 is too small to be effective, against criteria at 5.2.2, boundaries should follow existing defensible boundaries

09

Full text:

The Countryside Gap (CG2) to the south of Sutton is too small to be effective and does not meet the criteria set out in section 5.2.2 of the Technical Report on Countryside Gaps "5.2.2 To achieve this, the boundaries of these allocated sites reflect existing defensible boundaries where appropriate. This can include: field boundaries, hedgerows, roads, settlement envelope boundaries, parish boundaries and rivers."

In accordance with paragraph 5.2.2 the Countryside Gap GC2 should at least be extended to the field boundaries, where hedgerows and streams/ditches exist, and to the road boundary at it's eastern edge (as per the attached proposal); ideally the Countryside Gap should extend to the parish boundary.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9195

Received: 21/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Claire Brooker

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - site is not appropriate
ALTERNATIVE SITE - Site needs to be much larger

09

Full text:

I support the concept of Important Countryside Gaps, but the Important Countryside Gap area (Map 7.2) allocated for Land South of Sutton (CG2) is not big enough in order to be fit for purpose. It needs to be bigger. Also it does not meet the criteria stated in section 5.2.2 of this technical document, which states that "the boundaries of these allocated sites reflect existing defensible boundaries where appropriate. This can include: field boundaries, hedgerows, roads, settlement envelope boundaries, parish boundaries and rivers." The area on the map does not appear to follow any natural or hedgerow boundary to the south; it should be increased in area to at least twice its current size to follow existing hedgerows, or ideally be increased in size to follow the Sutton Parish boundary to the south (and protect the Grade 1 agricultural land south of Sutton village right down to the Sutton Parish boundary as well), the boundary of which follows a natural watercourse. Also the eastern boundary should go up to Sutton Road (which it currently doesn't).
This would then make this Important Countryside Gap fit for purpose and correctly meet the criteria of Section 5.2.2 of this technical document.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9362

Received: 21/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Philip Joyce

Representation:

POLICY - concern over CG19 and area

09

Full text:

the area does not represent a countryside gap. Kiers is private land and the balance of the land is farmed with no access to it.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9707

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Dr Stefan Senger

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - CG2 is too small, will not protect settlements, identity and character

09

Full text:

The proposed Countryside Gap 'CG2 Land South of Sutton' is far too small to be able to achieve the objectives of Policy SP5, i.e. "maintaining the individual identity of towns and villages". It will not be possible to "retain the character of these settlements and prevent loss of their individual identity" (section 8.9.1 of the Local Plan).

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9794

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Fairfield Parish Council

Agent: CSA Environmental

Representation:

COALESCENCE - coalescence with other settlements
METHODOLOGY - is incorrect

09

Full text:

We would note that the land between Arlesey and
Fairfield represents just such a case, however, this
area has not been considered for allocation as an
Important Countryside Gap, as the methodology
for the identification of potential gap allocations
specifically excluded draft allocation sites. There is thus a fundamental discord between Central
Bedfordshire Council's method of identifying potential
Important Countryside Gap sites (which automatically
excludes allocated development sites) and the
purpose of the Important Countryside Gaps policy,
which will be used to prevent coalescence and to
retain the separation of towns and villages so that their
individual identities are maintained. As set out above,
the proposed development area between Arlesey and
Fairfield represents a clear case where development
has the potential to cause coalescence between
existing settlements, and where the individual identity
of towns and villages should be maintained. However,
it was not even considered as a potential area for the
allocation of an Important Countryside Gap, as it is
to be allocated for development. It would seem that
the land between Arlesey and Fairfield represents
one of the most important locations to consider the
designation of an Important Countryside Gap, as
it represents a sensitive and narrow countryside
gap which is at risk of coalescence as a result of
development pressure.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9839

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Matt O'Keefe

Representation:

Supporting Countryside gaps policy, Appendix 5 particularly in relation to CG8 Land between Maulden Main Village & Maulden Green End.

Full text:

I am writing to support the proposed important countryside gaps in Maulden, CG8 Land between Maulden Main Village & Maulden Green End.

These gaps are outside the settlement boundaty and provide an important geographical distinction between the main village centre of Maulden and Maulden Green End/Clophill end. They contribute a great deal to the open & countryside feel of Maulden and the area as a whole. These sites have been the subject of a very many planning applications and have on several occasions been refused on appeal, given the important nature of these sites.

I very much hope that these important gaps remain protected as the Local plan progresses.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9844

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Matt O'Keefe

Representation:

Very supportive of Appendix 5- Important countryside gaps - site CG8 Maulden.

Full text:

I write in support of the proposed important countryside gaps in Maulden, CG8 Land between Maulden Main Village & Maulden Green End.

These gaps are outside the settlement boundaty and provide an important geographical distinction between the main village centre of Maulden and Maulden Green End/Clophill end. They contribute a great deal to the open & countryside feel of Maulden and the area as a whole. These sites have been the subject of a very many planning applications and have on several occasions been refused on appeal, given the important nature of these sites.

I very much hope that these important gaps remain protected as the Local plan progresses.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11156

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: Campton & Chicksands Parish Council

Representation:

POLICY - propose ICG on the pasture land in Campton (ALP287) to prevent coalescence with Shefford

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11218

Received: 02/02/2018

Respondent: Stotfold Town Council

Representation:

POLICY - agree with CG7 although a part hasn't been coloured in, disagree with CG12 due to the omission of land currently subject of a Judicial Review, this should be included as part of ICG and is important to retain green corridor
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES - propose two additional ICGs

09

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11576

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Maulden Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation:

IDENTIFIED SITES - support identification of ICGs in Maulden but believe there is scope for these to be extended, these extensions will be identified in the forthcoming Maulden NP GI Survey

09

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: