Blunham

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 156

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: D Holderness

Representation:

There is already sufficient development and adding more to this location would be detrimental to the area and the loss of
Countryside. Strongly object to the proposal

Full text:

There is already sufficient development and adding more to this location would be detrimental to the area and the loss of
Countryside. Strongly object to the proposal

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 311

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Messrs &Ms N, I, R, L & E Gibson & Reynolds

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

The amount of land within zone2/3 has been incorrectly calculated. The amount of land within zone 1 is between 51% and 58%.
In addition to this the gross site area includes playing fields and open space which has result in a larger gross area being submitted than would usually be required. These additional benefits should not be used as a reason for discounting the site at this stage. We ask the Council to review this in more detail.

Full text:

We object to the site assessment of site ref: ALP 214 which did not pass through to the stage 2 of the site assessment process due to flood risk at the site.
This site submission was accompanied by a full FRA which has not been reviewed as part of the site assessment process.
The site submission form also made it clear that the net developable area was approx 0.8ha and the gross developable area was stated as 1.37ha (which includes open space and playing fields). This results in a percentage of 58% of the total site area being located within Zone 1.
For completeness we have also calculated the area within zone 2/3 using the new strategic flood risk assessment for Central Beds which correlates with the Environment Agency's floodmap for planning. This represents the worst case scenario and demonstrates that 51% of the site is within zone 1. We have attached a drawing showing these calculated percentages in relation to the gross site area for clarification.

On this basis, the site should therefore proceed to stage 2 of the site assessment process.

Of particular importance to this site is that the additional land within the gross site area is to become play areas and open space to allow the expansion of John Donne Lower School. This is a significant benefit to the local area and should be taken into account when assessing the site in more detail. This has been including within the site area to show the benefits of the scheme. If this were to be removed the ratio of land within zone 1 to the gross site area would be significantly increased.
The inclusion of this open space should not be a reason for the scheme to fail the site assessment process and we urge the Council to review this.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 345

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: K Quince & Son Limited

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

We welcome the Council's assessment of site ALP216 which demonstrated that there were no reasons why the site could not be considered further within the allocation process.
As noted in the site assessment framework, part of the site already has the benefit of outline permission (ref: 16/04657/OUT) for 9 dwellings. We have therefore produced a sketch demonstrating that the remaining land (approx 0.7 ha) can accommodate approx. 15 dwellings to warrant an allocation without the smaller parcel being included (if considered to be a suitable approach).

This is attached for your information.

Full text:

We welcome the Council's assessment of site ALP216 which demonstrated that there were no reasons why the site could not be considered further within the allocation process.
As noted in the site assessment framework, part of the site already has the benefit of outline permission (ref: 16/04657/OUT) for 9 dwellings. We have therefore produced a sketch demonstrating that the remaining land (approx 0.7 ha) can accommodate approx. 15 dwellings to warrant an allocation without the smaller parcel being included (if considered to be a suitable approach).

This is attached for your information.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2470

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: j Donnelly

Representation:

I object to this.

Full text:

I object to this.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2471

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: T Hirons

Representation:

I object to this.

Full text:

I object to this.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3565

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Edwards

Representation:

ALP376. This site is quality farmland. The only access would be via Old Station Court which, as a small cul-de-sac, would not be able to cope with the volume of traffic involved and would lead to a major degradation of the area. Blunham already has a number of disproportionate, large housing projects either completed or approved which are inappropriate for a small village which already has inadequate facilities and infrastructure.

Full text:

ALP376. This site is quality farmland. The only access would be via Old Station Court which, as a small cul-de-sac, would not be able to cope with the volume of traffic involved and would lead to a major degradation of the area. Blunham already has a number of disproportionate, large housing projects either completed or approved which are inappropriate for a small village which already has inadequate facilities and infrastructure.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3566

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Susan Stevens

Representation:

ALP376.This site is quality farmland. The only access would be via Old Station Court which, as a small cul-de-sac, would not be able to cope with the volume of traffic involved and would lead to a major degradation of the area. Blunham already has a number of disproportionate,large housing projects, either completed or approved which are inappropriate for a small village which already has inadequate facilities and infrastructure.

Full text:

ALP376.This site is quality farmland. The only access would be via Old Station Court which, as a small cul-de-sac, would not be able to cope with the volume of traffic involved and would lead to a major degradation of the area. Blunham already has a number of disproportionate,large housing projects, either completed or approved which are inappropriate for a small village which already has inadequate facilities and infrastructure.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5048

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: K Quince & Son Limited

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

ALP216

Please see attachment on site layout,
Can accommodate 15 dwellings,

Full text:

We welcome the Council's assessment of site ALP216 which demonstrated that there were no reasons why the site could not be considered further within the allocation process.
As noted in the site assessment framework, part of the site already has the benefit of outline permission (ref: 16/04657/OUT) for 9 dwellings. We have therefore produced a sketch demonstrating that the remaining land (approx 0.7 ha) can accommodate approx. 15 dwellings to warrant an allocation without the smaller parcel being included (if considered to be a suitable approach).

This is attached for your information.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5942

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jana Baldwin

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Historical importance, should be respected
Insufficient roads to accommodate 7000 homes/business
Issue of level crossing and existing congestion
Local roads are dangerous
Impact on wildlife, deer population in area
Traffic issues joining the A1 at Tempsford flyover, congestion at peak times at Black Cat, increased use of village roads
Impact on Blunham, increased traffic through village, past lower school
Existing traffic calming in Blunham makes traffic situation worse
Existing approvals adding to impact on Blunham

Full text:

Re plans for Tempsford Airfield

My husband and I wish to OBJECT to these plans on the following points.

This is an historical site of the Second World War and as such should be respected. Our agents flew into Europe from this air field.

The road leading to and from this site is not suitable for the heavy traffic 7000 homes and a business site will generate.
There is a railway crossing where it is not uncommon to wait 20minuites to cross which would lead to horrendous tailbacks.

The road has many sharp bends and a steep hill at the Everton end.

There are many deer around this area. On a winters evening at 5.30 pm I was travelling to Everton when a deer jumped over the hedge In front of my car. Obviously it was dark and I was very lucky not to have hit it. Further along this road at 10am my husband and I had a stag jump the hedge in front of us which was followed by the whole herd. Bearing this in mind the likely hood of this happening to traffic from the airfield is quite high.

There are many owls, birds bats and wild life in this area which will all be affected by removal of hedgerows trees etc.

Traffic wanting to join the A1 will all have to travel the same road to the A1 flyover at Tempsford. This will cause huge congestion at peak times. Traffic going north to the Black Cat frequently is tailed back to the Blunham turn. To avoid this many people now take the St Neots road through Little Barfod where at peak times they cause a tailback through and past the power station.

Those wanting to go to Bedford via Blunham will bring the village to a standstill. They will first have to negotiate the High Street where a row of parked cars is almost a perminate fixture. This makes getting to the bottom of the village a nightmare especially when Flamingo's flower establishment is changing shifts. Then they will have to pass the lower school where parents are trying to cross the road with their children. This is very difficult as there is no crossing or lolly pop person to help.

Their next obstacle is the rediculous traffic calming at the bottom of the hill. Although the road is open on the uphill side those comming downhill have right of way. There have been accidents here and the noise of blaring horns and screeching tyres is common place.

Then the traffic calming at the top of th hill allows people comming into the village right of way. This causes many problems now as those on Station Road are often unable to get out onto the hill. It can take 15minutes to get from Park View to Pound Close a distance of approx half a mile. The fact that planning permission has been granted for two housing developments just the other side of the traffic calming is already causing concern amongst the villagers. How long is it going to take to get out of the village in rush hour?

Apart from all the above a new village on such a large scale will not enhance the countryside.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6709

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Orchestra Land

Representation:

We do not agree with the initial comments of failing this site at phase 2 and kindly request our response and work to date is taken into account which illustrates this site is deliverable but also we have found a solution to designing sensitively around the listed buildings and conservation area. We appreciate this information was not sent to you previously but we have only taken over this site in the last few months hence why we are now requesting kindly the site is allocated for residential development.
see attachment

Full text:

We are currently preparing a planning application and are aware of the conservation and listed building constraints and have accordingly designed around these. For this reason we have designed an indiciative scheme that is sensitive to the conservation area as attached. As illustrated there is open space to the front of the site and the conservation area is only towards the frontage of the site, all the area within the conservation area shall be open space which shall only improve the existing conservation area and allow further enjoyment for the community of this area which is currently in poor condition.

Furthermore, an important point to mention is we are of the attached Blunham Conservation Area document which highlights the front off this site as an area where 'sites where enhancement is to be encouraged'. Allowing residential development on this site while achieve this conservation area goal as we propose to enhance the boundary with sensitive landscape design. I have attached a plan also of the exact site area which highlights in red the area the document wishes to be enhanced. Our proposed scheme and allocation or residential of this infill site in the heart of Blunham is a sustainable and logical housing scheme.

We do not agree with the initial comments of failing this site at phase 2 and kindly request our response and work to date is taken into account which illustrates this site is deliverable but also we have found a solution to designing sensitively around the listed buildings and conservation area. We appreciate this information was not sent to you previously but we have only taken over this site in the last few months hence why we are now requesting kindly the site is allocated for residential development.

There is no planning reason for not allocating this site, the only reason the landowner has not progressed this before for development is simply due to ourselves not being involved and this is a natural infill site which can provide adequate housing to meet the growing need for the Sandy Ward and the East West train line.

Attachments: