Settlement Envelope Review

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7395

Received: 11/01/2018

Respondent: Mr John Nunn

Representation:

Feedback on the settlement envelope review for Potton - site POT03 - very pleased that this site, which includes our property, is to be recommended for inclusion in the settlement envelope.
Your narrative mentions a development site to the south, however, the south-western corner of the area you have marked in red is actually part of that site and not part of the residential curtilage of Eagle Farm - so you may wish to tidy up your lines in this respect.

Full text:

Feedback on the settlement envelope review for Potton - site POT03 - very pleased that this site, which includes our property, is to be recommended for inclusion in the settlement envelope.
Your narrative mentions a development site to the south, however, the south-western corner of the area you have marked in red is actually part of that site and not part of the residential curtilage of Eagle Farm - so you may wish to tidy up your lines in this respect.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7645

Received: 25/01/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sharon White

Representation:

METHODOLOGY - recommend revision of settlement envelope to include residential garden in Cranfield as shown in map



09

Full text:

We have lived at our address for almost 12 years, and the house and gardens were in place when the previous owners lived here for around 20 years. The Manor, immediately adjacent to our house has its back garden included in the envelope and this garden runs along the side of ours. The existing settlement envelope for Cranfield does not include any part of our 'back' garden. Our garden is used for residential purposes, ie play area, walking around cut pathways, gardening and outbuildings, hanging washing etc. It is entirely fenced in with wire fencing (not visible from google pictures). There is a line of trees down the middle which allows us to keep one area as formal and one (including the play area) as informal but this is still an open unfenced area. The 'wooded area' in the back corner is now mostly green around two sides, and very little growth at ground level, but we keep it as a feature and to encourage wildlife into the garden. As you are currently reviewing the envelope to reflect current uses on the ground, we would ask that the plan correctly reflects our use of our land as residential. We may wish to install a tennis court or pool at sometime in the 'informal' area, and would ask for recognition that our garden is residential to allow us to do so.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7791

Received: 05/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Brooks

Representation:

GENERAL - Settlement Envelope Review information should be an appendix to the Local Plan as the ICG and Allocation maps are, of interest to local communities

09

Full text:

It has to be said that placing the Settlement Envelope Review maps tucked away in the Technical Reports is a retrograde step. They should be in an Appendix to the main Plan, as are the ICG and Allocations maps in the Plan Appendices 5 and 6 respectively. The Settlement Envelopes are not merely technicalities but of considerable interest to local communities who might not have readily found them, in contrast to the Inset Maps of former Local Plans.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8018

Received: 13/02/2018

Respondent: Mr John Nunn

Representation:

Methodology - POT03 should be included in the settlement envelope, inclusion should not be dependent on commencement of construction of adjacent site

09

Full text:

POT03: The allotments now form the natural boundary (analogous to NPPF paragraph 85's, "readily recognisable physical feature") of the settlement / development - something which the approval for residential development of the site immediately to the south of POT03 has reinforced.
In terms of section 4.4 of the Settlement Envelope Review, POT03 meets the criteria for inclusion with the Settlement Envelope. It contains permanent structures, features residential curtilages and residential development similar to that immediately to its east; it follows the existing (east-west) line of the settlement along Myers Road, into Everton Road ; and the land to its south has planning consent for residential development.
Further, POT03 does not, in any significant respect, meet any of the criteria set in section 4.4 for exclusion from the Settlement Envelope. It does not feature Temporary Structures or permissions; it is well connected to the existing settlement envelope along its eastern boundary; whilst the land to its north and west can be characterised as open countryside that to its south and east (being the settlement and a residential development site) cannot.
Whilst the land to the south was agricultural land several decades ago, for the last 20 years it has been owned by developers and kept fallow awaiting the planning permission which was granted last year. Accordingly, this would now more accurately described be as a development site and its former status should not now be a significant consideration. Also this plot is now too small for economic agricultural use, following its separation from the neighbouring field by the formation of the allotments 20 years ago.
Accordingly, POT03 meets the criteria for inclusion in the settlement envelope now, irrespective of when the development site to the south begins construction.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8288

Received: 18/02/2018

Respondent: Mr John Nunn

Representation:

POTTON

IDENTIFIED SITE - Should be included within settlement envelope

09

Full text:

POT03: Regarding the narrative "... in order to remain consistent the site will not be included unless the adjacent planning permission begins construction". To be consistent POT03 would also have to be a site with recent planning permission that had also not begun construction. It is not, it is a residential site without any unfulfilled planning permission.
It has been suggested to me that this narrative is a consequence of the rule set for the update settlement envelopes to include recent planning permissions (section 4.6 of the Settlement Envelope Review document) i.e. as some sites don't get built out within the 3 year period the permission runs. I understand this rationale for not including the site adjacent to POT03 in the envelope until development has commenced - until they commence there is no reason to give them the extra freedom that comes with inclusion. However, POT03 is already a site of residential accommodation and not a site with unfulfilled planning permission - so using this criterion to exclude POT03 is not quite a natural extension of the rule.
POT03 does fit the stated requirements for inclusion (as per section 4.6 of the Settlement Envelope Review document); as such, the fact that the adjacent site may not have broken ground is not a material factor for POT03.
Since 2007 there has been additional development along the east-west axis formed by Myers Road / Everton road i.e. to the west of Common Road, reinforcing this east-west axis as the existing boundary line of the settlement; and making POT03 a logical extension to the new and pre-existing residential development.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 8941

Received: 21/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Ben Seward

Representation:

EVERTON

IDENTIFIED SITE - Should be included within settlement envelope

09

Full text:

This representation relates to Settlement Envelope Review Appendix Everton Site EVE01.
Site EVE01 is excluded from the Settlement Envelope. Reasons given are inconsistent with the criteria for determining if a site is included or excluded from the Settlement Envelope. The site does not extend away from the existing residential development into open countryside. It has adjoining sites with settlement related uses on all 4 sides. As stated, residential dwellings to the south are large, similar to development within the site. It has its own driveway which currently needs resurfacing. It is not reachable only by a small track.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9151

Received: 21/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Ben Seward

Representation:

EVERTON

IDENTIFIED SITE - should be included within envelope

09

Full text:

Settlement Envelope Review Appendix Everton Site EVE01
Site is excluded from Everton Settlement Envelope, contrary to the stated criteria. Site follows existing settlement line, is residential use of similar density and character to adjoining development and is wholly residential curtilage. Site is enclosed by areas of settlement related use on all 4 sides.
Site is not detached from the existing Church Lane settlement and does not extend away from existing residential development into open countryside on any side. Site is accessed directly from the main road by a private driveway.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 9901

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Dawsongroup plc

Agent: Q+A Planning Ltd

Representation:

ALTERNATIVE SITE -Include the Marston Gate Distribution Centre within a settlement envelope

09

Full text:

Dawsongroup plc are an asset rental company in the transport and distribution sector, with a base in Milton Keynes and the surrounding area. On behalf of our client, we are promoting the development of a site titled by the Council as 'land south of Highfield Farm' for employment development (reference ALP421 showing as 5.84 ha). This site is located near to Brogborough and adjacent to the Marston Gate Distribution Centre (which is located to the south east of our client's site on the opposite side of Bedford Road). The development would be occupied by our client as their head office and would comprise office space as well as open storage and warehousing.
On behalf of our client, we object to the approach taken for Brogborough. The settlement envelope includes the residential area of Brogborough, but excludes an area referenced 'BRO01' located immediately to the north of our client's site. The reason given is because that 'The site contains outlying dwellings that are not part of the continuous form of Brogborough, the site includes a small cluster of residential dwellings but these are detached from the main settlement envelope, the site is mostly agricultural land.' It is noted that the Marston Gate Distribution Centre is excluded in its entirety from the settlement envelope and we are not aware of a separate envelope being used for this area.
In terms of the plan itself, the base mapping is out of date. Marston Gate Distribution Centre has expanded to the west towards Bedford Road. Furthermore, we object to the omission of Marston Gate Distribution from the settlement boundary as we think this approach is entirely inconsistent with the approach explained within the Settlement Envelope Review document.
We note that paragraph 1.1.2 states that 'Settlement Envelopes are delineated boundaries that provide a distinction between the built settlement and the open countryside'. The implication therefore is that areas outside the settlement envelope are open countryside; we find it difficult to correlate this with the characteristics of Marston Gate Distribution Centre.
Paragraph 1.1.4 states that 'settlement envelopes do not reflect the administrative boundaries of towns or parishes nor do they define the extent of any town or village community.' Thus whilst we recognise there is a clear distinction between the residential area of Brogborough and the strategic employment at Marston Gate, they are physically extremely close, with just a narrow area of landscaping separately the two areas. Therefore, there is nothing precluding the inclusion of the Marston Gate Distribution Centre within the Brogborough settlement envelope. Indeed, paragraph 4.1.1 states that the review takes into account employment development.
It is noted that paragraph 4.1.2 states that 'Buildings or facilities that are located on the edge of the settlement and have a clear separation from the continuous built form will not be included within the settlement envelope'. Whilst there is a case for the Marston Gate Distibution Centre to be included in the Brogborough settlement envelope, were the Council to judge that the built form was not continuous due to the landscaping area, then a separate envelope should have been drawn. This is confirmed by the final sentence of paragraph 4.1.2, which states 'There may be exceptions where there is a cluster of buildings related to the main settlement and an additional separate envelope may be necessary'.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11487

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Mr B. Sherry

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

PULLOXHILL

METHODOLOGY - Envelope should be redrawn around new site

09

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 11945

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands

Representation:

ALTERNATIVE SITE - Cranfield

09

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 12342

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Key Land Estates

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

ALTERNATIVE SITE - Blunham
METHODOLOGY - should assess all land and all boundaries

09

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 13188

Received: 22/02/2018

Respondent: Mr C Burke

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

SETTLEMENT-Include land within the settlement envelope.

23

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments: