Cranfield

Showing comments and forms 1 to 21 of 21

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1653

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion for ALP109 that the land is worthy of further assessment, and has potential for development is noted. Linden Homes will be undertaking more detailed assessment of the land and its capacity to deliver homes, and what appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to address issues highlighted in respect of landscape, hedgerows, flood risk, archaeology, and education. This work will be shared with the Council as soon as possible in order to inform the next iteration of the Site Assessment, and the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Full text:

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion for ALP109 that the land is worthy of further assessment, and has potential for development is noted. Linden Homes will be undertaking more detailed assessment of the land and its capacity to deliver homes, and what appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to address issues highlighted in respect of landscape, hedgerows, flood risk, archaeology, and education. This work will be shared with the Council as soon as possible in order to inform the next iteration of the Site Assessment, and the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1704

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of our client, Mr A. Kinns, who is promoting land around Wharley End Farm, Wharley End, Cranfield (Site Ref NLR176) for sustainable residential development, as detailed in the Call for Sites submissions made in 2014 and 2016. Separate submissions having been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and other Technical Documents of relevance to our client.

Our client wishes to object to the conclusion reached in respect of site NLP176 (Now NLR176 following the correction of the Map identifying the site to include all of the land promoted) that it does not proceed beyond Stage 1B and has not been identified as a growth location, this is on the basis it is not of sufficient scale to be self-contained and does not relate well to the existing settlement of Cranfield as defined by the settlement envelope and is separated from it by the Airfield.

Robust representations have been submitted on the DLP itself arguing that Wharley End should be considered a settlement in its own right, separate from Cranfield Village, given the substantial built development that exists there as part of the Cranfield University Campus and Technology Park. The Masterplan for the University recently the subject of consultation details major expansion plans. The University and Technology Park are one of the biggest employment areas in Central Bedfordshire, as recognised in the DLP (Section 13), however, there is only a limited amount of housing within the University Campus, meaning students and employees at the University, as well as people working at the Technology Park, have to commute from further afield resulting in considerable traffic movements to and from the area daily.

The allocation of a reasonable amount of new housing to the area would complement the existing development at Wharley End, whilst encouraging more sustainable transport patterns by allowing people the opportunity to live in close proximity to where they work or study. This is in accordance with the key aim of the DLP set out at paragraph 7.2.1 of growing existing communities so that they are more sustainable, in this case by locating housing close to existing facilities and crucially jobs.

This seems eminently logical and the case is further strengthened when you consider that a large proportion of the land being promoted by our client (Site NLR176) is previously developed. Paragraph 7.3.4 of the DLP implies that the Council is committed to maximising the use of available previously developed land, but suggests there is only a limited amount of this available meaning a need to allocate greenfield sites to meet the housing target. However, here we have a situation whereby previously development land is available, being actively promoted by a landowner and located immediately adjacent one of the biggest employment areas in Central Beds, yet it has been overlooked in the DLP.

Paragraph 7.5.1 of the DLP sets out the 'Spatial Strategy Approach' and includes a commitment to maximising potential opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. This further reinforces the need for the Submission Local Plan to include an allocation for residential development at Wharley End if it is to be considered the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives as required by the NPPF.

Part of our client's land has already been deemed suitable for development by virtue of its inclusion as an employment allocation in the adopted Site Allocations Plan under Policy EA5. The Employment Land Review published with the DLP considered the site (Reference CM005) and is fairly unenthusiastic about the prospects of employment being delivered, concluding that it is 'hard to tell' if the site would be successfully developed were it offered to the market for employment use free of supply-side constraints. As already argued, residential development would be deliverable and would complement the existing substantial employment development already at Wharley End.

As further evidence supporting the appropriateness of Wharley End as a location for new housing, Gladman Developments Ltd has recently submitted an outline planning application for up to 300 dwellings with land for a new primary school, land for a local centre, allotments and public open space on land immediately adjoining that being promoted by our client. Were it permitted, it would increase the sustainability of Wharley End further through the provision of a primary school and the local centre. It would also result in our client's land being surrounded on all four sides by development.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2200

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Representation:

There are no technical constraints to development at the site. Development has been directed to Cranfield in the recent past precisely because it is a sustainable settlement.
We request that Land between Crawley Road and Bourne End Road in Cranfield (Ref. NLP266) is allocated for a residential development of approximately 222 dwellings. The site is suitable and available for residential development. The proposed development is deliverable within the short term and could provide up to 35% affordable housing and a much needed site for a new GP surgery. There is housebuilder interest in development sites within Cranfield.

Full text:

Site Assessment Forms Cranfield: Ref. NLP266 Land between Crawley Road and Bourne End Road, Cranfield

As set out in our representations to Policy SP1 and Paragraph 7.6.14, we request that in Area C: East/West that realistic and robust assessments of housing delivery are made for the Marston Vale New Villages in a future housing trajectory; and that the proposed strategic site at Wixams Southern Extension is deleted. We suggest that an appropriate level of growth should be allocated at Cranfield, as a sustainable location and a defined Minor Service Centre.

Land between Crawley Road and Bourne End Road in Cranfield was promoted through the 'Call for Sites' process in early 2016. Two planning applications have been submitted during 2016 and 2017 for residential development at the site, both of which were refused: CB/16/02039/OUT for 198 dwellings; and, CB/17/00976/OUT for 222 dwellings including a doctor's surgery. The planning applications were supported by a full range of technical reports.
The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion is that the site is not worthy of further assessment. We disagree with that conclusion.

We comment on the assessment of the site below, with a particular focus on the parts of the assessment where amendments are required.
* 1 (Provisional site capacity): The most recent planning application at the site was for 222 dwellings (Ref. CB/17/00976/OUT). The density would be 38 dph. The full description of development is as follows: to provide for up to 222 dwellings including affordable housing; land for a GP surgery; green infrastructure accommodating landscaping, allotments, public open space, children's playspace; new roads, car parking, cycleways and footways; associated infrastructure, including a sustainable drainage system; principal vehicular access to be secured from Crawley Road and a secondary pedestrian, cycle and public transport access from Bourne End Road.
* 10 (Controlled by developer): The site is controlled by our client, Hallam Land Management, who is an experienced national developer and committed to bringing the site forward for development. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 12 (Planning history): We acknowledge that two recent applications for residential development at the site have been refused, but the assessment required at plan-making stage is different in that sufficient land additional land must be identified to meet future development needs during the plan period and this includes land currently on the edge of existing settlements, notwithstanding their planning history.
* 20 & 21 (Cumulative impact): We disagree with the use of cumulative impact associated with previous levels of growth at individual settlements as an assessment criteria. The adopted development plan defines a settlement hierarchy based on the range of services and facilities contained within them and the emerging FDLP takes a similar approach. The adopted development plan also allocates sites in the larger and more sustainable settlements. It is precisely because Cranfield is defined as a Minor Service Centre, containing a good range of services and facilities and accessible by a variety of modes of transport, that significant amounts of development have been directed to it in the recent past. This approach is entirely in accordance with Paragraph 30 of the NPPF which encourages local planning authorities to support a pattern of development which facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport, and with Paragraph 34 which seeks to ensure that developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. We request that cumulative impact is deleted as an assessment criteria because it is meaningless in the delivery of sustainable development.
* 22 (Physical constraints): The assessment refers to the proximity of the site to Cranfield Airport and flight path. However, the Aviation Impact Assessment submitted with application (Ref. CB/17/00976/OUT) which identified mitigation measures including on construction management, lighting, emergency vehicle access, ecology and landscape features which are not attractive to bird-strike species. Those mitigation measures were accepted by Cranfield Airport and the Council during determination of the application - the consultation response from Cranfield Airport's consultant is attached to these representations. The design and layout of the proposed development, as shown on the Illustrative Masterplan (Dwg No. CSA/2591/111 Rev F) submitted with the recent planning application, has taken into account the proximity of the airport and demonstrates that development would not affect the operation of the runway. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 23 (Relationship to settlement): The assessment refers to development at this site extending into the open countryside. We note that the Landscape Officer did not object to the principle of development at the site for the recent planning application, but did request a reduction in the density at the site access to enable a greater depth of frontage landscaping to be provided to reduce the impact on the urban fringe. The Landscape Officer's consultation response is submitted with these representations. The proposed development can be revised to address the recent comments of the Landscape Officer. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 24 (Agricultural land quality): An Agricultural Use and Quality Report was submitted with the recent planning application, which confirmed that the site is Grade 3b and as such it is not "best and most versatile" land.
* 27 & 28 (Distance to bus stops and railway station): These criteria should consider the purpose of different journeys e.g. for shopping, leisure and commuting, and assess distances by cycling to various locations e.g. employment and railway stations. The acceptable distances for commuting on foot are as follows: 500m - desirable; 1km - acceptable; and, 2km - maximum. A maximum acceptable distance for commuting by cycle is 5km. The quality of the pedestrian and cycle routes, and the public transport services, are also relevant factors to the suitability of a potential development site. Therefore, distance should not be the only factor referred to in the criteria. Cranfield contains a good range of services and facilities, which are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. There is potential for buses to be routed/rerouted through the proposed development with conveniently located bus stops. We request that the scoring system for this criteria is amended, and the score for this site is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 30 & 31 (School capacity): We note that the Education Officer did not object to the recent planning application, but requested planning obligations to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school capacity. Therefore, school capacity is not a constraint to development at site and we request that the score for the site is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 35 (Adjoining uses): Noise is not a concern for the proposed development. A Noise Assessment was prepared for the proposed development and submitted with the recent planning application. The Noise Assessment demonstrates that the site is suitable for residential development, with minimal mitigation measures included at design stage. We request that the commentary is amended to reflect the findings of the Noise Assessment.
* 36 (Landscape character): We note that the Landscape Officer did not object to the principle of development at the site for the recent planning application, but did request a reduction in the density at the site access to enable a greater depth of frontage landscaping to be provided to reduce the impact on the urban fringe. The proposed development could be revised to address the recent comments of the Landscape Officer, and can be resolved. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 38 (Ecological assets): We note that the Ecology Officer did not object to the recent planning application. The site comprises predominantly arable farmland and as such is of low biodiversity value. The Ecological Appraisal submitted with the recent planning application demonstrated that the proposed development will not cause significant harm to biodiversity. The proposed development would provide new native species-rich hedgerow planting, species-rich grassland, the extension of woodland and scrub habitats; and the swales and basins would create other habitats. Therefore, the proposed development will increase habitats and enhance the biodiversity value of the site. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.

There are no technical constraints to development at the site. Cranfield is defined as a Minor Service Centre in the settlement hierarchy; it is a sustainable location for additional development because it contains a good range of services and facilities all of which are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Development has been directed to Cranfield in the recent past precisely because it is a sustainable settlement and it would be inconsistent with national guidance to direct development to less sustainable locations.

We request that Land between Crawley Road and Bourne End Road in Cranfield (Ref. NLP266) is allocated for a residential development of approximately 222 dwellings in the emerging Local Plan. The site is suitable and available for residential development. The proposed development is deliverable within the short term and could provide up to 35% affordable housing and a much needed site for a new GP surgery. There is housebuilder interest in development sites within Cranfield.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2351

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elinor Ashby

Representation:

Increase in Vehicles with more houses
GP surgery overwhelmed and not fit for purpose with increased housing.
Concerns re flight path over houses.
Building on Green Belt unacceptable
Better mix of housing if we must have more and who are they for anyway?

Full text:

Cranfield will be overwhelmed with cars on poor roads as not only do we have local traffic which will increase by anything from 2 to 4 cars per new home built in the village plus all the incoming traffic for the University and companies on their site and any diversions from Junctions 13 and 14 come through the village as well. I have already complained about the road surface on Crane Way and told it is suitable yet I have seen better roads in the countryside of Northern Cyprus so I am not convinced as that is a main route to the University area and also currently is on a diversion route in Cranfield itself.
My second concern is that the Doctors Surgery has struggled for years to support the community as it should and this will only get worse - we have more locums than resident GP's and with an ageing population in Cranfield this will only get worse - the promised surgery has not materialised.
Thirdly how can you continue to build houses on a flight path - we have had light aircraft crash and damage houses in the village in the past so if they are increasing finding more houses in the way on spots where people are learning to fly then the risks are higher.
Finally continuing to build on Green Belt is not acceptable - what happens when we need to grow more food after Brexit.
Who are we building all these large for?

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3224

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

An excellent and sustainable potential development site offering housing and potential community benefits.

Full text:

NLP198, ALP 386 and ALP 353

The site is in an ideal location for sustainable development, with good access to schools and services locally. Whilst physically the site might support up to 120 dwellings a development of around 60 or more dwellings might be a better 'fit' for the village and the more typical development mix of the village.

The site adjoins the village envelope but is not within a Conservation Area. The site offers a discreet development opportunity without significantly affecting views into the village and would have a very limited impact if any on the setting of heritage assets.

Preliminary desk based archaeological, ecological and landscape assessments demonstrate that there are no significant constraints to development on this site.

The scale of development proposed indicates that highway and services issues should not act as constraints to development.

The site has no known constraints and offers development with a good relationship to existing development at this point in the village.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4571

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

The Council will need to be sure it has sufficient small or medium scale sites identified in the Draft Plan to come forward to address any shortfall in delivery. ALP109 should come forward for inclusion as an allocation in the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Full text:

It is acknowledged that the Council are still gathering evidence in respect of the various strategic growth locations, however it is evident some will form part of the Draft Plan. As the Council have noted in its Growth Options studies and in the Draft Plan, transport and other infrastructure will be required to unlock many of these options. Such investment and infrastructure takes time to deliver and has implications for viability, and it will be important for the trajectories for such sites to be realistic and robust given these will be scrutinised through the Examination of the Plan.
In this context, the Council will need to be sure it has sufficient small or medium scale sites identified in the Draft Plan to come forward to address any shortfall in delivery in the early years of the Plan period, and as a contingency measure in the event of delays with delivery. Such an approach also has support from within the Housing White Paper (paragraph 1.29) which encourages planning for small and medium sized sites in order to provide greater choice for consumers.
Part of the land promoted by Linden Homes east of Cranfield (Site Reference: ALP109 - East End Farm) represents a suitable small or medium scale site that could come forward early in the Plan period without delay and deliver around 75 dwellings without causing adverse impacts to the character and setting of Cranfield. This is accepted within the Site Assessment for ALP109 which concludes the site is suitable, subject to satisfactory design and mitigation measures being included. Further evidence will be provided to the Council to demonstrate any potential harm identified can be mitigated through good design. Linden Homes are strongly of the view therefore that this land should come forward as a small or medium scale site for inclusion as an allocation in the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4694

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Savill

Representation:

There have been several extensions to the settlement envelope in Cranfield to allow further development of housing.
If the envelope is meant to denote countryside that should only be used to build community facilities, this is not the experience here.
In Cranfield the settlement envelope appears to be infinitely elastic.
I would like to see policy SP6 properly applied. There should be no need for any exceptions if the local plan is implemented properly and a 5 year housing supply is maintained.

Full text:

There have been several extensions to the settlement envelope in Cranfield to allow further development of housing.
If the envelope is meant to denote countryside that should only be used to build community facilities, this is not the experience here.
In Cranfield the settlement envelope appears to be infinitely elastic.
I would like to see policy SP6 properly applied. There should be no need for any exceptions if the local plan is implemented properly and a 5 year housing supply is maintained.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4702

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

NLP198, ALP386 and ALP353 - objects to site being excluded

Full text:

NLP198, ALP 386 and ALP 353

The site is in an ideal location for sustainable development, with good access to schools and services locally. Whilst physically the site might support up to 120 dwellings a development of around 60 or more dwellings might be a better 'fit' for the village and the more typical development mix of the village.

The site adjoins the village envelope but is not within a Conservation Area. The site offers a discreet development opportunity without significantly affecting views into the village and would have a very limited impact if any on the setting of heritage assets.

Preliminary desk based archaeological, ecological and landscape assessments demonstrate that there are no significant constraints to development on this site.

The scale of development proposed indicates that highway and services issues should not act as constraints to development.

The site has no known constraints and offers development with a good relationship to existing development at this point in the village.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4707

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Savill

Representation:

I am not sure whether this plan objective is achievable, but Cranfield has had to accept additional development as a result of the failure to maintain a 5 year housing supply. As a result I am supportive of the aims of it.

Full text:

I am not sure whether this plan objective is achievable, but Cranfield has had to accept additional development as a result of the failure to maintain a 5 year housing supply. As a result I am supportive of the aims of it.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4709

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Savill

Representation:

Cranfield has already had a 15% increase in housing in the last decade, and there is permission for a further 15% expansion with housing that already has permission. There are also two developments approximating to a further 300 houses waiting for a planning appeal plus a further large development proposed in Wharley End.
Cranfield does not have any classified roads leading to it and cannot take further large scale development such as this without major road improvements, plus medical and educational facility upgrades and assimilating the current houses first.

Full text:

Cranfield has already had a 15% increase in housing in the last decade, and there is permission for a further 15% expansion with housing that already has permission. There are also two developments approximating to a further 300 houses waiting for a planning appeal plus a further large development proposed in Wharley End.
Cranfield does not have any classified roads leading to it and cannot take further large scale development such as this without major road improvements, plus medical and educational facility upgrades and assimilating the current houses first.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4732

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

ALP109 Cranfield:
As the site is being considered further, Linden Homes will begin collating further information for the site.

Full text:

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion for ALP109 that the land is worthy of further assessment, and has potential for development is noted. Linden Homes will be undertaking more detailed assessment of the land and its capacity to deliver homes, and what appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to address issues highlighted in respect of landscape, hedgerows, flood risk, archaeology, and education. This work will be shared with the Council as soon as possible in order to inform the next iteration of the Site Assessment, and the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4913

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

Linden Homes are strongly of the view that ALP109 should come forward as a small or medium scale site for inclusion as an allocation in the Draft Plan, and that further consideration should be given to the potential of the wider area of land (NLP104) to come forward in the longer term.

Full text:

It is noted that some of the proposed growth locations are within the Green Belt.
In order to demonstrate exceptional circumstances necessary to redraw the boundary of the Green Belt, the Council will need to demonstrate (amongst other things) that it has taken account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development within the District (paragraph 84 of the Framework), and considered all other reasonable options for meeting the identified requirements (paragraph 1.39 of the Housing White Paper).
It is accepted that housing growth at Cranfield would promote a sustainable pattern of development given the range of employment (including the University and Technology Park), services and facilities that exist within the settlement, and given its proximity to Milton Keynes, the A421 and M1 corridors, and the planned section upgrade for East West Rail. It is therefore a reasonable option for the Council to consider when deciding how to meet the identified need, and one which should be carefully assessed before considering the removal of land within the Green Belt.
Any re-drawing of the Green Belt boundary in Central Bedfordshire could not be found sound unless it has been demonstrated that growth at Cranfield would not represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework.
Land promoted by Linden Homes lies to the east of Cranfield and is identified on the attached plan. It comprises all of ALP109 (edged blue), and also part of the wider area assessed as NLP104 (edged red).
This land forms part of a wider area referred to as Cranfield East in the Sustainability Appraisal that has been dismissed as not sustainable on the grounds of concern about landscape/topography, and capacity of education facilities (page 80).
In relation to landscape, the supporting evidence presented in the North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study confirms that Cranfield East is not a designated landscape, nor is it a locally sensitive landscape (page 33). In fact, it is noted from the Study that Cranfield East is identified as the option having the least number of secondary constraints and scores highly in all other areas. Its dismissal within the Sustainability Appraisal does not accord with this evidence.
The Site Assessments for this area find that development of areas ALP109 and NLP104 would impact on the setting of Cranfield when viewed across the Marston Vale due to its topography (page 73), although it is noted that the impacts in relation to ALP109 could be mitigated to address landscape impact. Whilst it is not disputed that development would have an impact on the landscape, it is not evidenced that this impact will have a significant adverse effect or have any greater impact than development elsewhere within the District around existing settlements or within the open countryside.
The Site Assessment does not appear to have been informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and such an assessment would enable a more informed judgement to be made as to the suitability and capacity of this area taking into consideration appropriate mitigation. It would also provide an opportunity to consider what compensatory measures might be able to be delivered by the landowners in this area that could enhance the wider landscape and ecological value of the Marston Vale to compensate for any residual impacts, for example creating new green infrastructure and areas for leisure as referenced in paragraph 7.6.13 of the Draft Plan and within the Initial Settlements Capacity Study for Cranfield (page 5). Such an assessment would be an important piece of evidence.
In respect of education, the Site Assessment states that land for a new lower school has been provided, but that the middle school is at capacity (page 72). The Local Plan is required to plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area, with strategic policies to deliver the provision of infrastructure necessary to serve development (paragraphs 156 and 157 of the Framework, and a test of soundness). Land cannot be held to be inappropriate for development based on a failure of the Plan to make provision for necessary infrastructure in the surrounding area, and there is no evidence that facilities for educating children generated by development at Cranfield could not be accommodated within or around Cranfield (at existing schools or at new locations), or in the surrounding settlements.
Although not identified within the Sustainability Appraisal, the Initial Settlements Capacity Study for Cranfield also identifies a potential constraint on capacity related to existing community facilities (page 5). It is not clear which facilities it is referring to, however, the Assessment identifies the absence of recreational facilities, such as allotments, facilities for young people, urban parks and formal large recreation areas. As with education, the evidence base has identified an issue that the Draft Plan at present fails to plan positively to address. As noted above, the allocation of land at Cranfield East could provide an opportunity to address this under provision and provide new facilities for the settlement.
Cranfield East should not therefore be discounted by the Council as unsustainable without further consideration being given to how these two issues (landscape and education) might properly be addressed through the preparation of the Plan, and prior to the Regulation 19 consultation, in order that this area might be considered as a small or medium scale site.
Furthermore, given the Council are considering removing substantial areas of land from the Green Belt, it is imperative that the Council fully consider and test all parts of Cranfield East before dismissing this as an option.
In this respect, Linden Homes will provide further evidence to the Council to demonstrate that any potential harm arising from the development of ALP109 (East End Farm) can be mitigated through good design. Linden Homes are strongly of the view that this land should come forward as a small or medium scale site for inclusion as an allocation in the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan, and that further consideration should be given to the potential of the wider area of land (NLP104) to come forward in the longer term.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5031

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Concerning land at Wharley End, Cranfield.

Full text:

In respect of the emerging housing target, our client is encouraged by the commitment in the DLP to allocate land for a minimum of 20,000 dwellings in addition to those expected to come forward from existing commitments over the Plan period. The pledge to provide 7,400 dwellings towards Luton Borough's unmet need on the back of 'duty to cooperate' discussions with neighbouring authorities is welcomed, and will hopefully resolve the issues that led to the withdrawal of the Development Strategy. However, in order to meet the housing requirement for Central Bedfordshire of 32,000 houses, along with this 7,400 dwelling contribution towards Luton Borough's unmet need our client is of the view that the Council needs to go further and the total amount of housing to be allocated in the Submission version of the Local Plan should in fact be at the upper end of the range set out in Table 7.2 of the DLP; i.e 31,822 dwellings.

This is so as to provide sufficient contingency to take account of lapse rates and in acknowledgment that not every site allocated will come forward on time, or even at all. One only has to look at the current adopted Plans for the north and south of Central Bedfordshire, which both include allocations that have yet to deliver any housing, for evidence of this issue.

Paragraph 7.7.2 of the DLP acknowledges that the next version of the Plan will need to include a certain level of growth as a contingency in case sites allocated fail to come forward, however, as already suggested this should be at the upper range of the level indicated in Table 7.2 of the DLP. This approach of allocating more land than is specifically calculated as being required will be essential in providing a safeguard to ensure the housing numbers needed do actually come forward, and in this respect the Plan can be considered to be positively prepared as is required by paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Our client does have major concerns with certain aspects of the emerging approach to the Growth Strategy outlined in Policy SP1 and the supporting text, however. Firstly, it is considered there is an overreliance being placed on the delivery of housing from a small number of new settlements (both towns and villages) and significant urbans extensions (2,500+ homes), which could ultimately lead to a failure to meet the housing target for the area, particularly in the early years of the Plan.

Strategic scale development schemes, such as those being considered for inclusion in the Local Plan, inevitably have lengthy lead-in times with greater risk of delays in delivery due to complicated landownership arrangements and the requirement for substantial new infrastructure to facilitate them. One only has to look at the time it took from inception for The Wixams new settlement to start delivering housing (Approximately 30 years) as evidence of this.

From a review of the potential strategic scale housing growth locations provided in section 8.5 of the DLP it is evident that all of these will be dependent on the provision of substantial new infrastructure, and in some cases this infrastructure would need to be funded and/or delivered by third parties and not the Council or the promoters of the site, meaning delivery timescales are out of their control and even less certain.

The table below highlights this point and the supporting text to Policy SP1 even acknowledges that delivery from some of these sites may extend beyond the Plan period.

Site Major Infrastructure Required
North of Luton Dependent on delivery of the M1 - A6 link road, which is partly being funded by the Government through SEMLEP
Tempsford South and Tempsford Airfield Requires a new train station to form an interchange between East-West Rail and the East Coast Main Line. This is dependent on the Government and Network Rail
New junctions on the A1 and A428 will be required, along with improvements to the A1
New Villages to the East of Bigglsewade A comprehensive scheme of highways works is required to mitigate the impact of increased traffic on the A1
Marston Vale New Villages A comprehensive scheme of highway measures is required to mitigate the impact of increase traffic on M1 J13 and the A421
Aspley Triangle A comprehensive scheme of highway measures is required to mitigate the impact of increase traffic on M1 J13 and the A421

Additionally, there is also a limit to the number of housing completions achievable from a single site in a year even in a prosperous economic climate. Were the final version of the Plan to rely on too small a number of allocation sites to meet the high housing requirement it would increase the likelihood of shortfalls in the housing supply occurring during the Plan period, meaning the Council would again be open to hostile planning applications for unallocated sites outside of Settlement Envelopes.

Our client would therefore encourage the Council to develop a final growth strategy that relies less on these new settlements and significant urban extensions and instead allocates more medium scale sites, which are generally less complicated and quicker to deliver, in order to ensure that the substantial housing need is met throughout the Plan period. The Submission Local Plan could still identify longer term growth locations as part of the strategy for facilitating their delivery, but it should avoid being reliant upon such sites to provide any significant housing numbers during this Plan period for the reasons outlined above in order to ensure the Growth Strategy and as a consequence, the Plan, are considered to be positively prepared, justified and effective in the sense required by the NPPF. Such longer terms strategic sites could instead be included in a review or a specific development plan document, once there is more certainty around delivery timescales etc.

Our client's second major concern with the proposed growth strategy is the failure to identify Wharley End, Cranfield as a location for new development. This is inexplicable given the opportunity it presents to deliver new homes in very close proximity to one of the biggest employment areas in Central Bedfordshire, whilst also making use of previously developed land, and by doing so creating a sustainable settlement its own right at Wharley End. As set out in the separate response on the Site Allocations Technical Document, the conclusion reached on our client's site (NLP176) that it should not progress for further consideration because it is separated from Cranfield itself is frankly illogical.

An option for major growth at Wharley End was considered as part of the North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study, although it should be noted that due to the misreading of the Call for Sites submission made for our client's land this failed to include all of their land as part of the option, with the Map of sites in Cranfield and Wharley End having subsequently been updated to correct this. The Study concluded Wharley End to have an overall deliverability assessment of high, notably better than some of the options included in the Growth Strategy in the DLP.

Wharley End was also considered to be at a medium level of accessibility in the existing scenario modelled and high in the future scenario. Again, this is better than some of the locations currently identified in the DLP for growth. It was also only considered to have only 3 secondary constraints, one of the lowest ratings of all of the locations considered, recognising the lack of impediments to delivery. As already pointed out above, allocating deliverable land is an absolute requirement if the high housing requirement in the Local Plan is to be achieved.

The area of Wharley End has already been substantially developed through the Cranfield University Campus and Technology Park. A Masterplan detailing substantial expansion plans at the University has been the subject of very recent public consultation. The University and Technology Park are one of the biggest employment areas in Central Bedfordshire, as recognised in the DLP (Section 13), however, there is only a limited amount of housing within the University Campus, meaning students and employees at the University, as well as people working at the Technology Park, have to commute from further afield. This results in considerable traffic movements to and from the area on a daily basis.

The allocation of a reasonable amount of new housing to the area would complement the existing development at Wharley End, whilst encouraging more sustainable transport patterns by allowing people the opportunity to live in close proximity to where they work or study. This is in accordance with the key aim of the DLP set out at paragraph 7.2.1 of growing existing communities so that they are more sustainable through the locating of housing close to existing facilities and crucially jobs.

This seems eminently logical and the case is further strengthened when you consider that a large proportion of the land being promoted by our client (Site NLR176) is previously developed. Paragraph 7.3.4 of the DLP implies that the Council is committed to maximising the use of available previously developed land, but suggests there is only a limited amount of this available meaning a need to allocate greenfield sites to meet the housing target. However, here we have a situation whereby previously development land is available, being actively promoted by a landowner and located immediately adjacent one of the biggest employment areas in Central Beds, yet it has been overlooked in the DLP and accompanying SATD.

Paragraph 7.5.1 of the DLP sets out the 'Spatial Strategy Approach' and includes a commitment to maximising potential opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. This further reinforces the need for the Submission Local Plan to include an allocation for residential development at Wharley End if it is to be considered the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives as required by the NPPF.

Part of our client's land has already been deemed suitable for development by virtue of its inclusion as an employment allocation in the adopted Site Allocations Plan under Policy EA5. The Employment Land Review published with the DLP considered the site (Reference CM005) and is fairly unenthusiastic about the prospects of employment being delivered, concluding that it is 'hard to tell' if the site would be successfully developed were it offered to the market for employment use free of supply-side constraints. As already argued, residential development would be deliverable and would complement the existing substantial employment development already at Wharley End.

As further evidence supporting the appropriateness of Wharley End as a location for new housing, Gladman Developments Ltd has recently submitted an outline planning application for up to 300 dwellings with land for a new primary school, land for a local centre, allotments and public open space on land immediately adjoining that being promoted by our client. Were it permitted, it would increase the sustainability of Wharley End further through the provision of a primary school and the local centre. It would also result in our client's land being surrounded on all four sides by development, strengthening further the case for it to be developed.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5038

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

NLP176

Site should be reconsidered,
Wharley End should be considered a settlement in its own right,
would compliment existing development at Wharley End,
availability of PDL,
recent application for 300 dwellings and associated infrastructure

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of our client, Mr A. Kinns, who is promoting land around Wharley End Farm, Wharley End, Cranfield (Site Ref NLR176) for sustainable residential development, as detailed in the Call for Sites submissions made in 2014 and 2016. Separate submissions having been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and other Technical Documents of relevance to our client.

Our client wishes to object to the conclusion reached in respect of site NLP176 (Now NLR176 following the correction of the Map identifying the site to include all of the land promoted) that it does not proceed beyond Stage 1B and has not been identified as a growth location, this is on the basis it is not of sufficient scale to be self-contained and does not relate well to the existing settlement of Cranfield as defined by the settlement envelope and is separated from it by the Airfield.

Robust representations have been submitted on the DLP itself arguing that Wharley End should be considered a settlement in its own right, separate from Cranfield Village, given the substantial built development that exists there as part of the Cranfield University Campus and Technology Park. The Masterplan for the University recently the subject of consultation details major expansion plans. The University and Technology Park are one of the biggest employment areas in Central Bedfordshire, as recognised in the DLP (Section 13), however, there is only a limited amount of housing within the University Campus, meaning students and employees at the University, as well as people working at the Technology Park, have to commute from further afield resulting in considerable traffic movements to and from the area daily.

The allocation of a reasonable amount of new housing to the area would complement the existing development at Wharley End, whilst encouraging more sustainable transport patterns by allowing people the opportunity to live in close proximity to where they work or study. This is in accordance with the key aim of the DLP set out at paragraph 7.2.1 of growing existing communities so that they are more sustainable, in this case by locating housing close to existing facilities and crucially jobs.

This seems eminently logical and the case is further strengthened when you consider that a large proportion of the land being promoted by our client (Site NLR176) is previously developed. Paragraph 7.3.4 of the DLP implies that the Council is committed to maximising the use of available previously developed land, but suggests there is only a limited amount of this available meaning a need to allocate greenfield sites to meet the housing target. However, here we have a situation whereby previously development land is available, being actively promoted by a landowner and located immediately adjacent one of the biggest employment areas in Central Beds, yet it has been overlooked in the DLP.

Paragraph 7.5.1 of the DLP sets out the 'Spatial Strategy Approach' and includes a commitment to maximising potential opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. This further reinforces the need for the Submission Local Plan to include an allocation for residential development at Wharley End if it is to be considered the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives as required by the NPPF.

Part of our client's land has already been deemed suitable for development by virtue of its inclusion as an employment allocation in the adopted Site Allocations Plan under Policy EA5. The Employment Land Review published with the DLP considered the site (Reference CM005) and is fairly unenthusiastic about the prospects of employment being delivered, concluding that it is 'hard to tell' if the site would be successfully developed were it offered to the market for employment use free of supply-side constraints. As already argued, residential development would be deliverable and would complement the existing substantial employment development already at Wharley End.

As further evidence supporting the appropriateness of Wharley End as a location for new housing, Gladman Developments Ltd has recently submitted an outline planning application for up to 300 dwellings with land for a new primary school, land for a local centre, allotments and public open space on land immediately adjoining that being promoted by our client. Were it permitted, it would increase the sustainability of Wharley End further through the provision of a primary school and the local centre. It would also result in our client's land being surrounded on all four sides by development.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5410

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: N Parrish

Agent: Kirkby Diamond

Representation:

NLP139

Agree with assessment of the site as being suitable for further consideration for housing development
Site is unconstrained and in a very sustainable location
Site available now, deliverable and can brought forward for development immediately
Not dependent on the provision of new infrastructure/service reinforcement
Can be expected to make a positive and full contribution to community infrastructure and housing delivery
Site owner has obtained all of the required technical reports to support a planning application
No legal impediments preventing developing the site

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5693

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mark Howe Trust

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

The land at Broad Green Farm (CBC Ref: NLP261/ALP185) and Wharley Farm (CBC Ref:
NLP260/ALP188)

Appendix D: Preliminary Assessment Results of the Site Assessment Technical Document assesses
both of these sites. In terms of the site at Broadgreen Farm, the site was considered worthy of further
assessment however a number of constraints were raised. Wharley Farm was not considered past
Stage 1B as it was considered that the site was poorly related to the existing settlement of Cranfield,
although it was well located to the university. see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6359

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Cranfield Parish Council

Representation:

Site Allocations
The Council discussed the site allocations in the area. The Parish Council supports the withdrawal of all the site allocations within its boundaries except the remaining two: East End Farm and the small development on Lodge Road. The Parish Council reluctantly supports these as it recognises the need to assist in taking some housing although a limited number considering the vast volume the parish has had over the past years

Full text:

Cranfield Parish Council Comments on CBC Draft Local Plan
The Parish Council welcomes the draft local plan and in principle welcomes the proposals relating to new settlements, housing and infrastructure
The Parish Council recognises for CBC not to have an up to date plan would risk government intervention and the resulting loss of control of the process. Having an up-to-date plan in place with a demonstrable 5 year land supply would mean that CBC would retain control over where development should be located rather than it being delivered in an ad hoc way as a result of speculative development, sometimes without sufficient benefit to local communities.
Housing
The Parish Council supports CBC flexible approach to housing provision however, the Parish Council is still opposed to the high volume of houses that are being built in Central Bedfordshire. It notes CBC needs to be flexible and therefore it's planning for a range of between 20,000-30,000 new homes. Further work will be undertaken to establish an exact amount when the next version of the Plan is planned in 2018. This is in addition to the 23,000 homes that are already allocated or have planning permission.
The options supported by PC put forward in the draft plan to deliver this housing growth are as follows:
*creating new attractive villages (It is better to support the establishment of new villages particularly close to major traffic routes rather than have an expansion of existing villages through speculation development
*creating a new market town
*expanding existing towns;
*growth in existing villages, but only where services can support it
Additional housing in CBC must come in a sustainable form. Additional houses have been taken by Cranfield and the contribution to the Health Service has come in the form of 'land for Health Centre'; this cannot continue because we are now struggling to access basic health care in the parish. The Parish is also aware that land given by a developer for a health centre that is not used returns to the developer and this will only mean more houses
The plan includes a range of different homes to rent and buy with a mixture of sizes including family homes, two bedroom homes, apartments and bungalows. And, to help people get on the housing ladder, this will include 30% to be provided as lower cost options such as affordable rent and shared ownership. The Parish Council wants to see developers provide 1 and 2 bedroom homes as well as larger properties
Employment
The Parish Council supports the policies providing a range of new jobs delivered through existing sites and the proposed growth locations. Additionally, the plan proposes the following key employment sites at strategic locations close to the M1 and A1:
*Winterwoods and Amazon sites were commented on if one site could be preferred the Parish Council would prefer the Amazon site as it is easier to contain
*In relation to Junction 13 it is hopelessly congested and should this go ahead then there should be a dedicated access to the site, thus hopefully preventing large lorries having to pass through small villages and travel on unsuitable roads.
Transport
The Parish Council comments
*If a large volume of houses are to be put in the Marston Vale then it is important that the proposed rail station at Ridgemont is delivered and this should be made a condition of the Plan
*Existing and potential new roads and rail have already informed the draft plan, such as the M1-A6 link road and the Ridgmont Station upgrade.
*Others include proposed East-West Railway and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway.
*A concern is the potential route of the Cambridge - Oxford Expressway
*The PC supports lobbying government for improvements to the A1 and A421 to support this growth
*It is not clear how CBC intend to deal with the additional traffic that will be generated in and around the villages in the Marston Vale. CBC needs to be clear and open in explaining how it intends to protect and safeguard the established villages and to improve the quality of all C roads. There is also a need to improve the road junctions in Salford

Health
The parish Council wishes to see the NHS provide a large and modern surgery in Cranfield

Environment
The parish welcomes improvements of bus services and train services. The Council supports policies to protect wildlife sites and an increase in woodland in Central Bedfordshire

Site Allocations
The Council discussed the site allocations in the area. The Parish Council supports the withdrawal of all the site allocations within its boundaries except the remaining two: East End Farm and the small development on Lodge Road. The Parish Council reluctantly supports these as it recognises the need to assist in taking some housing although a limited number considering the vast volume the parish has had over the past years

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6607

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Representation:

Richborough Estates bring to the Council's attention Land off Flitt Leys Close, Cranfield, as an appropriate location for future housing growth. This is not a new site to the Council, having been previously promoted through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The site plan below indicates the extent of the site which has an anticipated capacity of around 200 dwellings, with access to be taken from Flitt Leys Close. This is illustrated alongside the scheme to the east, which was approved for 230 dwellings in September 2015. see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6749

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: IPE Orchestra Land Ltd

Agent: Iceni Projects

Representation:

given the sustainability of Cranfield and the suitability of the site for residential
development, our client considers the land north of Bedford Road to be available, suitable and
achievable for development in order to assist in meeting Central Bedfordshire's housing requirement The site would particularly make a welcome contribution towards the supply of housing in the early
years of the Plan prior to larger strategic scale sites being delivered, and would contribute towards
housing growth, which has been identified as a key location
to concentrate future development. and implement the vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6951

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments Limited

Representation:

Appendix 1 - Land off Mill Road, Cranfield
Appendix 2 - Land at Wharley End, Cranfield
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 7332

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: IPE Orchestra Land Ltd

Agent: Iceni Projects

Representation:

we consider that the land south of Blunham Road represents a valuable opportunity
to assist in meeting Central Bedfordshire's housing requirement for the Plan period, and can make
a welcome early contribution within the first 5 years following adoption of the Local Plan. The site is
not subject to any significant technical constraints that would preclude residential development, and
thus would be capable of delivering a high quality development in this suitable and sustainable
location.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments: