Caddington

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 79

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 142

Received: 08/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Sutton

Representation:

Object to area 5 town extension growth of 2000 homes on green belt abutting Luton towards Caddington as special reason given for development isn't valid and development contradicts the national planning policy framework. There is an emerging neighbourhood plan for Caddington and Slip End that has been carefully constructed and offers an alternative proposal and is a much better plan for area 5 development.

Full text:

The sum effect of developing 2,000 homes in the green belt abutting Luton would be the immediate or eventual coalescence of Caddington, Slip End and Woodside with the town and therefore contrary to the national planning policy framework objectives. I don't understand why many more of the proposed sites in area 5 have not been rejected at the first draft stage on these grounds? Unmet Luton Housing need seems to be listed as the "special reason" for developing on this part of the green belt but only a tiny proportion of housing is now allocated according to housing need i.e. social rented of which next to none is built anymore and has been replaced in development terms by affordable or shared ownership that have market-led allocation criteria. The proposed solution isn't addressing the problem that is claimed to exist. The vast majority of housing is allocated according to price paid in a market and will continue to be allocated thus until the Govt intervenes in the market which seems a very remote possibility. Everyday Luton homes are advertised for sale in the papers circulating on the train lines running in and out of London This free market mechanism trumps local housing need assessments hands down destroying the validity of the "special reason" stated for these sites. This isn't to say "no building , no where, not ever". There seems to be some acknowledgement that some of the sites listed in the area 5 plan are aligned to the emerging neighbourhood plan for Caddington and Slip End. This well researched and carefully crafted plan has considered how to promote sustainable growth in the Caddington and Slip End area and has a focus at the local level that whilst not appropriate for the more regional plan of Central Beds should be respected and the concluding growth proposals mirrored in the larger regional plan. A better plan for area 5 would seem to be the Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood plan. Whilst it is completely inappropriate to determine what a neighbouring local authority should do to sustainably grow itself, there must be a frustration that low rise luton has so little population in the areas next to its greatest attractions and assets and seems to be seeking urban sprawl as a solution to its own errors of judgement of how it has tried to address its "needs" when the solutions could be to regenerate sites close to the valued assets it has.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 146

Received: 09/07/2017

Respondent: Lyanne cumbo

Representation:

I do not want the housing application for the development near caddington as part of luton expansion to go ahead. There are many sites in luton that have been left empty for years that could be used rather than taking from the greenbelt and ruining village life. I came to the village to live in a village and not be part of luton town.

Full text:

I am concerned about the housing development that is c going to be built near to caddington for the following reasons.

We moved from luton to caddington because we wanted to live in a village. We do not want to be connected to luton.

Over recent months traffic through caddington has been a nightmare due to more developments on the village and I do not believe it could sustain more traffic coming through the village.

The developments will affect the beautiful countryside surrounding the village another reas on why we moved to the village

The developments are likely to affect the house prices in the village if we become connected to luton


There is a danger if developments are allowed of the Caddington being a village no longer like what happened to stopsley village. Sadly this is where we moved from as we felt it was no longer a safe place for our children to grow up in due to the increased crime in the area and my son being threatened.

The impact this will have on local services such as schools and gp surgery which is already over subcribed x

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 193

Received: 12/07/2017

Respondent: Roy Lathwell

Representation:

Caddington already has a neighbourhood plan to provide housing expansion.
Destruction of large amounts of green belt land and loss of natural habitat should be avoided at all costs.
Redevelopment of existing brownfield sites in and around Luton should be prioritised.
The proposed development west of the M1 will lead to an inadequate buffer between the villages and Luton leading them to become suburbs and no longer rural communities.
The development will lead to an increase in noise and pollution and a reduction in the quality of life for those in the village communities.

Full text:

Having moved from an urban environment specifically to a rural one the Central Beds plan would destroy everything we hoped for. Building thousands of homes to the west of the M1 as proposed will destroy the rural communities of Caddington, Woodside and Slip End and instead turn them into suburbs of Luton.

We have already accepted hundreds of new homes at the Caddington Woods site along with months of disruption. We have a neighbourhood plan which is already more than generous in terms of sites in and around the village proposed for development to increase housing stock without destroying the village in the process. The Central Beds proposal is in no way aligned with this.

Clearing huge swathes of green belt land for such a development is, in my view, unacceptable. As well as losing valuable countryside and natural habitat for wildlife, building on it will create additional pollution, additional noise and additional social problems which the villages will not be immune from given the close proximity to the proposed development. Increased noise and pollution is likely to have an adverse effect on both the mental and physical health of people living nearby. I for one suffer from stress and anxiety and the very mention of these proposals and the prospect of hundreds of buildings being visible from my home rather than the countryside we moved here for is a cause for genuine depression.

The village is already used as a bypass by many travelling from Dunstable to Luton and vice versa, adding thousands of new homes and vehicles to this is not viable with the existing road infrastructure. There have been numerous instances of the village grinding to a standstill if roads are closed due to developments, bad weather or accidents on the A5 or M1. Adding thousands of additional vehicles passing through the village is likely to make this far more commonplace.

Currently every route in and out of the village is prone to flooding. Concreting over huge amounts of adjacent countryside will only make this situation worse.

If the objective is to provide additional housing for Luton then it would be better to look at redeveloping existing brownfield sites within or closer to the town, there are certainly plenty of areas in need of it. Housing in these areas is more likely to help in the regeneration of the town by drawing people in rather than pushing them to the outskirts. Rather this than destroy huge areas of countryside and consign thousands of villagers to living in a suburb or a major town that they have no desire to live in.

Unfortunately if these proposals succeed, and I pray they do not, we feel we would have no option but to sell our home and leave a village we had hoped to spend the rest of our lives in rather than see it destroyed. It's upsetting. It's unnecessary. Unfortunately many already feel it is inevitable and that this consultation is nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. Clearly I hope this is not the case. I hope that the council will take into account that our village communities should be cherished and protected, that our neighbourhood plan is ample in terms of housing development opportunities and that alternative sites more suited to the needs of the Central Beds plan can be found.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 211

Received: 16/07/2017

Respondent: Mrs Frances Burton

Representation:

Local neighbourhood plan is working towards this. It takes into account the views of the residents of Caddington. After the appauling shambles of the Redrow development and it's definite lack of affordable housing within the deployment (they originally stated they would be building 2 bed starter homes but they have now said min 3 bed and too expensive for young people in this area) The development has caused major inconvenience to the Residents of Caddington and any future development but only be allowed if it meets the local neighbour hood plan. People want Caddington to stay a village.

Full text:

Local neighbourhood plan is working towards this. It takes into account the views of the residents of Caddington. After the appauling shambles of the Redrow development and it's definite lack of affordable housing within the deployment (they originally stated they would be building 2 bed starter homes but they have now said min 3 bed and too expensive for young people in this area) The development has caused major inconvenience to the Residents of Caddington and any future development but only be allowed if it meets the local neighbour hood plan. People want Caddington to stay a village.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 740

Received: 11/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Lois Tomlin

Representation:

Caddington - increased pollution, strain on infrastructure, traffic issues, loss of village feel

Full text:

I would like to submit a comment on the proposed plan of joining Caddington and Slip End to Luton. I am against this proposal as having been born in the village I have experienced many changes. It has gone from a friendly village where we all new one another and had friendly greeting when passing in the streets to being developed as far as it could be with many new small estates to houses being built in gardens of houses. Many people have moved into the village and have been dictating how our village should be run and almost to judgements on how residents are supposed to live. Children are being told that they are not able to walk the streets and today is so different to how we were bought up that many do not even go out anymore. Everything should be done to encourage our youth to get out in the fresh air.

Other concerns are the amount of people putting a strain on the surgeries around the area, the schools capacity and local shops. Refuse collection is also a consideration as are already collected fortnightly. It goes without saying that we are loosing all our green belt areas which are supposed to be protected, which appears to be over-ruled if buildings want to be built. Traffic is becoming an issue now as many vehicles use the village as a bypass with many speeding. I also understand sewage and water supplies are becoming an issue.

As a Caddingtonian , I felt that I should raise our concerns to try and protect our villages and make a stand. I understand housing is an issue for population increase but our children cannot afford these houses and so have to move further a field and so the family units are starting to break down. If no-one says anything, these buildings will be passed with no objections and so I strongly feel that we should try to make a difference.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 851

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Bernardo Amador

Representation:

A part of the land is in the Green Belt

This would increase in traffic through Caddington and Slip End

This development is contrary to Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood Plan

It will destroy the sense community, the calmness and tranquility around, may have a surge on crime as it gets linked to Luton.

This will have a major negative impact on the price of the property purchased and the tranquility we currently have.

Full text:

A part of the land is in the Green Belt

This would increase in traffic through Caddington and Slip End

This development is contrary to Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood Plan

It will destroy the sense community, the calmness and tranquility around, may have a surge on crime as it gets linked to Luton.

This will have a major negative impact on the price of the property purchased and the tranquility we currently have.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 866

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: mrs heather palmer

Representation:

I strongly object to the proposal of 2000 or more houses to be built on land to the West of Luton.I feel that this proposed development will stretch local infrastructure beyond breaking point and would be unsustainable.With the flats proposed the other side of the motorway in Newlands Rd Luton and Newlands Park retail proposal this is potential gridlock for the roads.These new houses would also necessesitate a new sewer system, also our water supply is limited.

Full text:

I strongly object to the proposal of 2000 or more houses to be built on land to the West of Luton.I feel that this proposed development will stretch local infrastructure beyond breaking point and would be unsustainable.With the flats proposed the other side of the motorway in Newlands Rd Luton and Newlands Park retail proposal this is potential gridlock for the roads.These new houses would also necessesitate a new sewer system, also our water supply is limited.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 870

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Andy Palmer

Representation:

a larger number of dwellings? The road infrastructure of the area will not take the volume of traffic from the proposed new site. There exists planning permission to build flat in Newlands Rd. Luton. Newlands Park has a proposal for a retail/leisure outlet so to get to the M1, airport or railway station via Newlands Rd.will be virtually impossible so most of the traffic will go through Caddington and Slip End which is unacceptable.A new sewer pipe to East Hyde will be needed.
I strongly object to 200 words You are stopping me from having my rightful say.

Full text:

2000 new houses proposed to the West of Luton is unsustainable.There are rumours that the land proposed is not all owned by the proposer. I don't understand how we cannot be shown the proposed land layout, all we have is a blob and a 5 on a map.So if the site is accepted I have no possible comment on the land or the site after this point of consultation. Is 2000 houses a viable number financially? By the time houses are built on the site housing costs will have risen to a point that would make 2000 unviable.So does this mean

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1068

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Louis Kaye

Representation:

As a resident of caddington I have received a leaflet asking should caddington and slip end become a suburb of Luton.
My response to this would be categorically no.
We moved to caddington to enjoy a village lifestyle which will be ruined with the extra housing and traffic.

Full text:

As a resident of caddington I have received a leaflet asking should caddington and slip end become a suburb of Luton.
My response to this would be categorically no.
We moved to caddington to enjoy a village lifestyle which will be ruined with the extra housing and traffic.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1154

Received: 17/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Conner

Representation:

Green Belt issues, impact on wildlife, coalescence issues, contradictory to neighbourhood plan, loss of quality of life, noise issues from flight path.

Full text:

I have lived in Central Bedfordshire for over 30 years. I moved to Caddington in 2002.
I am horrified to learn of proposed local plans to develop the land west of Luton.
If these plans go ahead this will mean that my right to choose to live in a rural village will be taken away from me.
The land surrounding Caddington is GREEN belt and full of wildlife which I don't want to see destroyed. I do not want to see the countryside churned up and spoilt, this should be something we should maintain at all costs and not erode just to line and satisfy the pockets of greedy developers!!!!
These proposals are not part of the AGREED Caddington neighbourhood plans!
I do not want to see my village turned into a suburb with increased volumes of traffic and the chaos and dangers this will bring to surrounding local roads. I note there is NOT even plans to offer a ring Road to bypass the villages affected........
Local village roads currently suffer from being 'rat runs' and too many accidents have occurred as a result - and thus will only get worse and will put even more pressure and financial costs on all the emergency and ancillary services.
There are plenty of other run down sites where development ought to take place instead.
This local plan is ill conceived and will no doubt destroy local residents quality of life. It will also not be conducive to any new home developments as who wants to live under the Luton Airport flight path with the constant noise from low flying aircraft.
I urge Central Bedfordshire to strongly reject this proposal. The developers I understand have continued to submit plans for this development for quite some time and each time the plans have been rejected. Good sense must prevail and I consider it to be a huge waste of all Central Bedfordshire resources to continually have to debate plans that are simply not feasible just because the developer will not take no for an answer.
I do not support this local plan and hope it will be rejected once and for all.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1185

Received: 16/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Maggie Murray

Representation:

1. Green belt should NOT be built on
2. If you propose to build 4600 homes, then there will probably be 2 cars to each household, which means another 9200 cars on the road in the local area.
3. Caddington, Slip End, Pepperstock and Aley Green are countryside village locations and should NOT be turned into an extension of Luton Town

Full text:

I have tried to leave comments regarding the proposed local plan online, but it is EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible. I wish to OBJECT to the proposed local housing.
1. Green belt should NOT be built on
2. If you propose to build 4600 homes, then there will probably be 2 cars to each household, which means another 9200 cars on the road in the local area.
3. Caddington, Slip End, Pepperstock and Aley Green are countryside village locations and should NOT be turned into an extension of Luton Town.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF MY OBJECTIONS AND SEND ME CONFIRMATION THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Ms Gisela Michaels

Representation:

West of Luton
Concerns re:
Development contrary to Caddington & Slip End Neighbourhood Plan
Land is entirely Green Belt and would destroy valuable farm land, ancient hedgerow and Oak trees
Too many dwellings
Increase in size of villages, loss of identity, coalescence with Luton
Insufficient space for road improvements to support this development
Traffic increases through Caddington & Slip End and no extra capacity
Water supply and sewerage at capacity, low water pressure at peak times
30% of site will be under Luton Airport Flight Path, airport expansion bring increased noise pollution

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1223

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Black

Representation:

Objects to Land West of Luton
New properties attractive to London overspill - urbanising the area
Luton property prices impacting on younger families
Expansion would destroy culture of Caddington, Slip End and Woodside
Need new schools, doctors, dentists, roads and sewers
Need more parking
Will unacceptably change village life

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1240

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Ward

Representation:

Objections
Green belt
Caddington has a neighbourhood Plan and oppose the Draft Local plan
Proposals conflict with Neighbourhood Plan
Plan would join Caddington and Slip End destroy their character
Transport infrastructure pressure
No room to improve roads
Water supply and sewerage at capacity
Quality of life of residents will suffer

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Motson

Representation:

Totally opposed to all of the development proposals put forward under the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr E & Mrs L Dervish

Representation:

Objections to Large development West of Luton
Caddington would become a suburb of Luton
Local Plan is contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
Site is within Green Belt
Increased traffic
Water supply and sewerage at capacity
Detrimental impact on local community

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs H King

Representation:

I am raising a response, local roads do not have the capacity to support existing and already proposed developments.
There is a large development proposed to build up to 4600 houses on land West of Luton is out of the question. this development must not go through.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1252

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr C & Mrs P Oldham

Representation:

We totally oppose this massive development on Land West of Luton. We do not want this huge sprawl to be hoisted on the last few village gems and beautiful Green Belt. Our lovely villages and fields would become concrete jungle, overloading all out facilities, services and roads. We paid a premium property price to get out of Luton.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1376

Received: 20/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Kris Ferguson

Representation:

As a resident of Caddington, I have a number of concerns regarding this proposal:
- this development is contrary to the Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood Plan
- the land is in the Green Belt
- there is insufficient space for road improvements, and the traffic and highway report has demonstrated that local roads do not have capacity to support existing and already proposed developments
- we have woodlands on our property, which is home to badgers, pheasants, a variety of birds and other animals and those homes would be damaged by development

Full text:

As a resident of Caddington, I have a number of concerns regarding this proposal:
- this development is contrary to the Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood Plan
- the land is in the Green Belt
- there is insufficient space for road improvements, and the traffic and highway report has demonstrated that local roads do not have capacity to support existing and already proposed developments
- we have woodlands on our property, which is home to badgers, pheasants, a variety of birds and other animals and those homes would be damaged by development

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1378

Received: 20/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Kris Ferguson

Representation:

The document states that section NLP436 is "owned by a consortium of owners who have expressed intention to development the site".

I own a property of two and a half acres situated in section NLP436, I am not part of a consortium and I have not expressed intention to develop the site. The document is inaccurate on that element.

Full text:

The document states that section NLP436 is "owned by a consortium of owners who have expressed intention to development the site".

I own a property of two and a half acres situated in section NLP436, I am not part of a consortium and I have not expressed intention to develop the site. The document is inaccurate on that element.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1427

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: MR david goodridge

Representation:

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AN OVER DEVELOPMENT OF LAND IN THE GREEN BELT, WHERE LOCAL SERVICES CANNOT SUPPORT AN INCREASED POPULATION.

Full text:

Sites NLP436,NLP174,NLP422,NLP436,NLP240,NLP230,NLP227,NLP386,NLP380,NLP284,ALP110,ALP069

the plan includes a proposed development to build up to 4,600 houses on "land west of Luton" between the parishes of Caddington and Slip End.
I object to this proposal on the following grounds:
1. The development is contrary to the Caddington and Slip End neighbourhood plan;
2. The land is entirely in the green belt;
3. there is insufficient space for road improvements to support this development which will result in a massive increase in traffic through Caddington and Slip End;
4. a traffic & highway report has demonstrated that the existing local roads do not have the capacity to support existing and already proposed developments;
5. water supply and sewerage are at capacity now. The cost of upgrading is prohibitive;
6. 30% of the site is under the Luton airport flight path.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1460

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Bedfordshire Land Promotions

Agent: JLL

Representation:

We consider that land at Caddington Brickfields (Ref: NLP148 and ALP143) has been unfairly excluded during the site assessment process.
We therefore submit formal representations on this element of the plan evidence base and provide detailed assessment of the site and potential for development in support of this case, as set out in the Masterplan document produced by Rummey Design and the Ecology Technical Note issued by Peter Brett Associates.
We ask that the land at Caddington Brickfields be reassessed, based on the further evidence provided, as part of the next stage of the local plan process.

Full text:

We consider that land at Caddington Brickfields (Ref: NLP148 and ALP143) has been unfairly excluded during the site assessment process.
We therefore submit formal representations on this element of the plan evidence base and provide detailed assessment of the site and potential for development in support of this case, as set out in the Masterplan document produced by Rummey Design and the Ecology Technical Note issued by Peter Brett Associates.
We ask that the land at Caddington Brickfields be reassessed, based on the further evidence provided, as part of the next stage of the local plan process.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1559

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Daryl Allsop

Representation:

Objections to Area 5

On Green belt
Create a community not connected to Luton or Caddington
Reduce quality of life for current residents
Reducing Green Belt to a Green G string
Contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1560

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Ms Claire Sutton

Representation:

Objection to Area 5

Contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
In Green Belt
Will lead to Coalescence with Luton, Caddington and Slip End
On a steep slope
Cause traffic problems
Cut off community with no access to the town
Under the flight path
Unwanted by neighbours

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1562

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Doris Sutton

Representation:

Objections to Area 5
On Green belt
Create a community not connected to Luton or Caddington
Reduce quality of life for current residents
Reducing Green Belt to a Green G string
Contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1577

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Susan Sturgeon

Representation:

Objection to Land West of Luton
Contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
On Green Belt
Local roads have no capacity
Water and sewerage at capacity
Under flight path
Huge development will destroy village communities
Should build on Brownfield first
Use empty housing

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1578

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan Runnette

Representation:

Objection to Land West of Luton
Contrary to Neighbourhood Plan
No Space to improve roads to take extra traffic
Water supple and sewerage over capacity
Development under flight path

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1588

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S Garnett

Representation:

Objections
Contrary to Caddington Neighbourhood Plan
On Green Belt
Adjacent to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Affects wildlife
Access to Luton restricted
Pressure on roads
Site under flight path
Noise from airport

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1589

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Keech Hospice

Representation:

see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1603

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: M Brown

Representation:

Should go East of Luton not West be less congestion
East would be less affected by noise from airport
Would have no effect on Caddington Neighbourhood Plan

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments: