Dunton

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 37

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 167

Received: 11/07/2017

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Surman

Representation:

This tiny village which has no facilities for residents other than a pub, village hall & sports hall cannot support extra transport links, residents or those requiring use of Biggleswades facilities - Dr's, dentists, police etc. These need to be expanded before the housing is.

Full text:

This tiny village which has no facilities for residents other than a pub, village hall & sports hall cannot support extra transport links, residents or those requiring use of Biggleswades facilities - Dr's, dentists, police etc. These need to be expanded before the housing is.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 590

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Martin Bastin

Representation:

The number of houses planned is way to many for this small village. It would virtually double the number of houses. There is a church, a pub, a very small school, no usable bus service and no other amenities. Any expansion anywhere off of boot lane is totally unsuitable because of the junction of boot lane to the high street. It is dangerous enough now even with the silly changes in road layout CBC did. Farmland will be lost and more land concreted over hardly environmentally friendly. Surely we don't need more housing but less people?

Full text:

The number of houses planned is way to many for this small village. It would virtually double the number of houses. There is a church, a pub, a very small school, no usable bus service and no other amenities. Any expansion anywhere off of boot lane is totally unsuitable because of the junction of boot lane to the high street. It is dangerous enough now even with the silly changes in road layout CBC did. Farmland will be lost and more land concreted over hardly environmentally friendly. Surely we don't need more housing but less people?

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 697

Received: 07/08/2017

Respondent: Carl Lee & Sons

Agent: Robinson & Hall

Representation:

ALP324

Would form limited extension that is proportionate/within the limits of historic housing growth in village, would aid sustainability of the village and be sustainable in its own context, without needing significant new infrastructure. Dunton Lower School would require enhancing should village experience significant housing growth in the future, this development on its own would not be of a sufficient size to provide on-site education facilities, however no anticipated viability issues associated with site that would restrict education planning contributions. See attachment for more detailed comments on issues raised at Stage 2 assessment, site design and risk of contamination

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 729

Received: 10/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Pearson

Representation:

Too much development in one area
Not enough infrastructure or LOCAL employment to need such a massive increase in housing.
Destroying village community life and farmland

Full text:

I wish to object to the unreasonable size of development planned for this village and surrounding area.
Having lived in Dunton for 40 yrs and seen the slow in filling
Of a small amount of housing needed ,to suddenly seeing the plans to rape the countryside to build a "new town" an uncontrolled free for all , to take farmland for profit with little thought of the communities this will devastate.
The school in Dunton already oversubscribed and causing parking chaos at collection time,shows that the roads are not able to cope with traffic increase.of this type.
To encourage commuters into the area withouteven the transport being upgraded is ridiculous,
It's not like there is a massive new employment opportunity here
To demand such a large increase in housing,I think there has been enough development in this area of Bedfordshire .
The villages should be left alone now Biggleswade has expanded to the edge and that is more than enough expansion for one area.
Future housing projects should be more evenly distributed around the county and where needed for local people
Once this land is lost to housing the whole nature of the village community will be lost to Biggleswade forever,in a sprawling
Mass of get rich quick housing without the infrastructure
To support such a scheme.of endless housing estates covering land that should be used for farming.






.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 895

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Jamie Pearson

Representation:

Destroying communities, livelihoods, Bedfordshire's rich agricultural history and the scenery.
Impact on roadways such as Dunton Lane & pollution
No maintained footpath/cycle route interlinking Dunton & Biggleswade.
building within the parish boundaries
Building on a site of historical importance.
Is the housing being fairly distributed across Beds and other counties?
Population

Full text:

NLP433, NLP324 and NLP047

With the rapid expansion of Biggleswade in the past couple of years and other smaller developments around the village, I do not think the infrastructure will be in place to cope with such a large influx of population in such a small period of time.

Firstly, there are poorly maintained footpaths between Dunton and Biggleswade so most of the population will be using roadways which at present are busy enough and riddled with potholes i.e Dunton Lane. This would also raise the risk of more accidents on this already dangerous road in which fatal accidents occur.

Will other utilities be able to cope with 20000 homes regarding water supply, sewage, electricity and broadband infrastructure (which OpenReach have stated that they will not be considering future investment in the area).

The Newton Bury Moat situated on Sutton Road is a site of historical importance the current plan would build on this site and not to mention build on thousands of acres of fertile farmland that has been used in such a way for thousands of years destroying communities, livelihoods, Bedfordshires rich agricultural history and the scenery.

The plan could potentially merge Biggleswade and Dunton completely, even though on the Central Beds website it states that a limited number of houses will be built in villages, Dunton has already seen its fair share of the development of 25+ houses. NLP433, NLP324 and 047
and the new traveller's site would greatly increase this and comparing this to other areas such as Chicksands where there is minimal development - have the council fairly distributed the load?

My final point is that the population of Central Bedfordshire has risen by 9% between 2001 - 2011. In 2014 - 2017 it has risen by 3.7% in just 4 years. I get the impression that areas such as Biggleswade are taking the brunt of the housing crisis because other areas of the country are failing to make housing affordable and that there is not enough budget given to the investment and upkeep of council housing in more densely populated areas like Luton which has been cut recently.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1059

Received: 15/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Darren Brooker

Representation:

The area to the north-west of Dunton is not suitable for further large
scale development, as it contains important natural assets, historic assets and high quality agricultural land. The infrastructure, including wider north-south transport infrastructure, must have suitable capacity enhancements established before further growth is considered. Some limited expansion of Biggleswade may be suitable in the longer term (15+ years),
this should be adjoining the existing Biggleswade settlement and avoid
taking prime agricultural land and natural assets. Sutton and Dunton must
be protected by a 'protected rural envelope' of one mile around the
existing villages where significant development is prohibited.

Full text:

The area to the north-west of Dunton is not suitable for further large
scale development, as it contains important natural assets, historic assets and high quality agricultural land. The infrastructure, including wider north-south transport infrastructure, must have suitable capacity enhancements established before further growth is considered. Some limited expansion of Biggleswade may be suitable in the longer term (15+ years),
this should be adjoining the existing Biggleswade settlement and avoid
taking prime agricultural land and natural assets. Sutton and Dunton must
be protected by a 'protected rural envelope' of one mile around the
existing villages where significant development is prohibited.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1213

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Tim Fowler Tim Fowler

Representation:

ALP323: Dunton Village has grown c. 11% in the last 10 years.

Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to ALP323 will be close to a busy roundabout on a popular route to the A1 creating additional risk.

Full text:

ALP323: Dunton Village has grown c. 11% in the last 10 years.

Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to ALP323 will be close to a busy roundabout on a popular route to the A1 creating additional risk.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1214

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Tim Fowler Tim Fowler

Representation:

NLP324: NLP324 is a planned development of 48 houses showing a 15% rise from today.

A 10% rise in Dunton population was shown from 2006-2016 the majority within 2016. A further 15% increase is unsustainable given the village / public amenities within Dunton.

Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to NLP324 will be via Cambridge Road which is a major commuter route introducing further risk.

Full text:

NLP324: NLP324 is a planned development of 48 houses showing a 15% rise from today.

A 10% rise in Dunton population was shown from 2006-2016 the majority within 2016. A further 15% increase is unsustainable given the village / public amenities within Dunton.

Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to NLP324 will be via Cambridge Road which is a major commuter route introducing further risk.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2483

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: j Donnelly

Representation:

I object to this.
Your report is also misleading. you state in another report in this survey that you want to develop the land between Biggleswade and Dunton/Sutton. That should also be mentioned here.
The development is concentrated in one area of Bedfordshire. The development needs to be spread out around the country. It does not meet the needs of the residents.

Full text:

I object to this.
Your report is also misleading. you state in another report in this survey that you want to develop the land between Biggleswade and Dunton/Sutton. That should also be mentioned here.
The development is concentrated in one area of Bedfordshire. The development needs to be spread out around the country. It does not meet the needs of the residents.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2484

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: T Hirons

Representation:

I object to this.
Your report is also misleading. you state in another report in this survey that you want to develop the land between Biggleswade and Dunton/Sutton. That should also be mentioned here.
The development is concentrated in one area of Bedfordshire. Ampthill desperately needs houses and no development is planned for there.

Full text:

I object to this.
Your report is also misleading. you state in another report in this survey that you want to develop the land between Biggleswade and Dunton/Sutton. That should also be mentioned here.
The development is concentrated in one area of Bedfordshire. Ampthill desperately needs houses and no development is planned for there.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2515

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Dr Christopher Bugg

Representation:

Re: Land south of Biggleswade Road Dunton

1. The footpath between Dunton and Millow through this site is already in a poor state; I trust it would be improved by the development.

2. This development would bridge around half of the distance between Millow and Dunton.

Full text:

Re: Land south of Biggleswade Road Dunton

1. The footpath between Dunton and Millow through this site is already in a poor state; I trust it would be improved by the development.

2. This development would bridge around half of the distance between Millow and Dunton.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2771

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: MRS ALISON CHALKLEY

Representation:

ALP323
Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Full text:

ALP323
Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2773

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: MRS ALISON CHALKLEY

Representation:

NLP324
Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to NLP324 will be via Cambridge Road which is a major commuter route introducing further risk.

Full text:

NLP324
Dunton does NOT have a travel service of at least hourly at peak. At best it is every 2 hours and within restricted hours.

Dunton has a Lower School that is already over subscribed.

Dunton has no other public amenities.

Access to NLP324 will be via Cambridge Road which is a major commuter route introducing further risk.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3792

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Katrina Leach

Representation:

I am against the proposed development - this area of Central Bedfordshire has already had large developments and the infrastructure is unable to cope with the current growth. There is no need to dump further houses which would ruin the rural character of the town and surrounding villages and place additional pressure on the already failing infrastructure. Listen to the residents and reconsider your unsustainable plan.

Full text:

ALP323, ALP324, NLP047 and NLP324

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing in Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3801

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Graham Leach

Representation:

I am against the proposed development - this area of Central Bedfordshire has already had large developments. There is no need to dump further houses which would ruin the rural character of the town and surrounding villages and place additional pressure on the already failing infrastructure. Listen to the residents and reconsider your unsustainable plan.

Full text:

ALP323, ALP324, NLP047 and NLP324

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing in Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3825

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Julie Hills

Representation:

NLP 324 - land north of Greenfield Way.
Proposed dwellings 48, this is a 17% increase in the current number of houses in Dunton. The site would also be on agricultural land and would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the countryside.

Full text:

NLP 324 - land north of Greenfield Way.
Proposed dwellings 48, this is a 17% increase in the current number of houses in Dunton. The site would also be on agricultural land and would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the countryside.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3888

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Jayne Watkins

Representation:

ALP323/324 - I agree that building behind the road frontage is not in keeping with the character of this part of the village. A few houses along the frontage of Biggleswade Road would suit. However the village has already grown significantly over the last few years. The village has little in the way of resources or infrastructure and being on the very edge of the county has limited access to most resources or investment. The land at Greenfield way is more suitable but the same argument applies to the number of houses and adverse impact on growth of total village.

Full text:

ALP323/324 - I agree that building behind the road frontage is not in keeping with the character of this part of the village. A few houses along the frontage of Biggleswade Road would suit. However the village has already grown significantly over the last few years. The village has little in the way of resources or infrastructure and being on the very edge of the county has limited access to most resources or investment. The land at Greenfield way is more suitable but the same argument applies to the number of houses and adverse impact on growth of total village.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3889

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Carys Langsdale

Representation:

ALP323 and NLP324 are appropriate sites around the village to put new dwellings, but the proposed number of dwellings at both sites are too high to be in keeping with the character of Dunton.

Full text:

ALP323 - Agree with the conclusion that only a portion of this site should be built on - namely the area adjacent to the road. The number of houses here should be minimal to be in keeping with the current housing pattern on Biggleswade Road. Dunton has grown by 10% in the last 10 years and this should be considered when proposing new developments in the village.

ALP324 and NLP047, agree with conclusion that due to the lack of current back land development and elevation constraints these plots would not be appropriate.

NLP324 - this is in keeping with the current growth in the village, however the proposed number of dwellings here would mean a further growth of 15% in the village which I believe is too high. It would put pressure on the current resources and become detrimental to the character of the village. Fewer dwellings on this site would be more appropriate.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4875

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: John Kirk

Representation:

NLP324 - Dunton

lack of services and facilities
too much development in one area
destroy village character

Full text:

I would like to object to the assessment of site nlp 324. You have passed this site for further consideration whilst failing sites alp 324 and nlp 047. It seems to me that the reasoning that you applied in blocking further consideration of alp 324 and nlp 047 applies equally to site nlp 324 so why block those two but not nlp 324? Dunton as a village is already poorly served with amenities and services ie. no fibre optic and appallingly slow internet. Why is it necessary to destroy the village character purely to the benefit of land owners and developers. It seems your proposals for the extra housing you need to supply have been largely concentrated around biggleswade, Dunton and Sutton. Why the inequity in the distribution? If you do go ahead with these massive new tracts of housing between Biggleswade Dunto and Sutton then why do you feel it is acceptable to alter the village character of Dunton with the disproportionately large development at nlp 324? I strongly object to this proposed developement

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4909

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Katrina Leach

Representation:

ALP323, ALP324, NLP047, NLP324 - Dunton:

coalescence issues with surrounding villages
impact on historic character of the village
not sustainable under planning law
Grade 2 agricultural Land
Impact on wildlife
lack of services and infrastructure
no sustainable transport
contribute to climate change

Full text:

ALP323, ALP324, NLP047 and NLP324

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing in Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4916

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Katrina Leach

Representation:

Dunton:

impact on open countryside
cause coalescence
impact on historic character of the village
not sustainable under planning law
Grade 2 agricultural land
impact on wildlife
not enough infrastructure to cope
no sustainable transport
contribute to climate change

Full text:

ALP033, ALP182, ALP194, ALP204, ALP221, ALP244, ALP382, ALP442, ALP470, ALP474, NLP067, NLP075, NLP213, NLP258, NLP265, NLP271, NLP407, NLP415, NLP433, NLP458 and NLP494

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing in Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4917

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Graham Leach

Representation:

Dunton:

impact on open countryside
cause coalescence
impact on historic character
not sustainable under planning law
Grade 2 agricultural land
impact on wildlife
no infrastructure
no sustainable transport
contribute to climate change

Full text:

ALP323, ALP324, NLP047 and NLP324

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing in Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4923

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Graham Leach

Representation:

DUNTON:

impact on open countryside
would cause coalescence
impact on historic character
not sustainable under planning law
Grade 2 agricultural land
impact on wildlife
not enough infrastructure
not enough sustainable public transport
cause climate change

Full text:

ALP033, ALP182, ALP194, ALP204, ALP221, ALP244, ALP382, ALP442, ALP470, ALP474, NLP067, NLP075, NLP213, NLP258, NLP265, NLP271, NLP407, NLP415, NLP433, NLP458 and NLP494

To make it very clear I am AGAINST the proposed plan for more housing on the outskirts of Biggleswade to Sutton and Dunton.

I believe there are several faults with the proposed plan and we object on the following grounds:


1. Development/housing works are inappropriate in the open countryside, where...

* They would contribute to coalescence between two different places with their own unique identity, namely Biggleswade Town and Dunton Village, this will lead to urban sprawl and is a no-no under planning laws between two clearly distinct different characters.

* Where the very historical intrinsic character of the rural open countryside would be changed.

* Where development would not be deemed sustainable under current planning law as currently there are no utilities or facilities or easy access to them on site or by foot.

* Where Class 2 high grade agricultural land currently worked by a farmer would be lost.

* Where rare protected species of wildlife (such as the Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Hedgehog, Badger, Horseshoe Bat, Grass Snake, Toad, Harvest Mouse, Barn Owl and Red Kite, all known to be in the area) would lose its habitat, especially the Great Crested Newt which cannot be moved from its home - (for example) if found in a wet ditch at the entrance of the proposed Site.

2. There are no schools, doctors, shops, or recreational facilities that are within easy access by foot. There is no footpath to Dunton approximately 1 kilometre away or Biggleswade approximately 3 kilometres away - with none of the above facilities in Dunton which is classed as a small village.

3. The site chosen is too close to a small village without the infrastructure and facilities required to sustain it, putting an unfair burden on the village, with non-existent facilities or the infrastructure, rather than choosing a place for a site where the facilities and infrastructure is in place to meet the requirements to the satisfaction of National and Local Planning Guidance.

4. Where there is no access to sustainable public transport systems, the local train station is approximately 5 kilometres away in Biggleswade Town and the bus service is infrequent through the week, virtually non-existent at the weekend not running at all on a Sunday or bank holidays. Therefore, public transport would be seen as unsustainable according to National and Local Planning Guidance. People will be forced to use cars which will result in there is not being enough parking at the train station to support the proposed developments.

6. There are not enough school places, doctors' surgeries, dentist etc to support proposed development size.

7. Where it will contribute to climate change which is against Government and Local Planning Guidelines as Class 2 high grade agricultural land that grows crops will be sacrificed to make way for a Site - which would contribute to greenhouse emissions by its very nature, being placed in the open countryside where a very heavy reliance on the motor car will be needed to access all the facilities and amenities needed in Biggleswade Town. This is contrary to National and Local Planning Guidance.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4981

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Goodyear

Representation:

NLP452

negatively change the character of the village,
too much growth in one specific area of CBC,
NLP450 would cause coalescence between existing settlements,
loss of open spaces,
loss of habitats,
loss of agricultural land,
pollution,
increased flooding issues,
current infrastructure will not cope,
homes should be for Bedfordshire residents

Full text:

Site NLP 452


i) I object to this proposal as it would result (if combined with its neighbouring proposed sites) in an urbanised area, and completely alter the character of central Bedfordshire. It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

ii) CBC state that the whole development planned for Central Bedfordshire would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land.

The proposed site along with its neighbours in the he Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county.

iii) The proposed site NLP 450 (along with its neighbouring sites: NLP452, NLP414, NLP249, NLP461, NLP084, ALP375, ALP319, ALP320) would create coalescence. This is will not retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

It does not limit the impact on the countryside and will not protect or enhance the existing settlements.

iv) This proposed development would result in the loss of open spaces.

This proposed development shows little respect for the countryside.

v) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of habitats.

vi) I object to this proposed site due to the loss of arable and pastural farmland, which I believe is a great resource and one which the country may need.

vii) I object to this proposed development due to the increase in pollution levels. I.E. Light pollution, noise pollution, industrial pollution, traffic pollution

viii) I object to this proposed development due to the likelihood of increased flooding in this and the surrounding area.

ix) I object to the proposed development site as the current infrastructure - road, rail and services cannot cope. There are no guarantees that any of these will be improved in the future.

x) I object to the proposed development as it is not clear who will benefit from increased housing in the area. Any homes should be for Bedfordshire residents.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4982

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Exley

Representation:

NLP452

over development of the area,
coalescence issues,
lose character of CBC,
negatively impact the countryside,
development should be spread evenly,
loss of open space,
loss of agricultural land,
pollution issues,
flooding issues,
current infrastructure will not cope

Full text:

Site NLP 452

A) General

i) This site, if adopted, would enable the Sandy - Tempsford - Everton area to become grossly over developed. Taking this area from a generally Rural location into a dense urban area.

I object to this proposal as it would see the Sandy - Tempsford - Everton area dramatically urbanised and this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

ii) The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 "Have Your Say" document states that "the number of homes we are required to build is significant, in total those homes, together with those that already have planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% of central Bedfordshire land."

This site, along with its neighbouring proposed sites in Biggleswade - Sandy - Tempsford corridor (including Dunton, Sutton, Everton and Potton) has proposed housing equalling approximately 10 times the amount of proposed housing than other parts of Bedfordshire.

I object to this proposal as it is not appropriate for this Rural area. Housing should be spread equally across the county and this does not appear to have happened.

If every settlement within the CBC area were to increase the housing stock by 16% we would not only be able to meet the majority of the current government housing target for Bedfordshire, but also enable those seeking affordable, or private housing a choice over where they live - standing a better chance of meeting the needs of the local community.

I appreciate that there will be, and always is, some natural migration through choice, however account should be taken of the fact that the vast majority of people wish to stay near their family, friends, and work i.e. they wish to stay within, or certainly near, the current communities. Without an equal spread of housing stock across the county people are unable to do this.

This creates problems - ranging from putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the current road infrastructure, and our services (Doctors, dentists, schools et cetera) to (worst case scenario) social problems where vulnerable people could be forced to locate to new communities where they may not be supported (i.e. leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation).

Spreading new build housing across the county would help to mitigate the problems detailed above and would have a small impact on the countryside, environment and existing communities.

B) Coalescence

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would help to enable the merging (all coming together) of separate towns or villages to form a single entity. (I.e. Sandy - Tempsford - Everton). This would result in a harmful loss of openness between these settlements, and goes against your promise to:

"Retain green space to prevent existing settlements merging, keeping their identity and the rule character of the area ".

I object on the grounds that this will not:
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

C) open spaces

This proposed site in the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035, if allowed to be adopted, would result in the loss of open space.

I object to this proposed site on the grounds of the loss of our open space.

D) birds and wildlife habitats

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 identifies that endangered species, would need to be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided.

I object to the proposed sites due to the loss of habitats. I do not believe that these habitats can be protected and a net gain for biodiversity be provided if development happens on this proposed site. Simply - the proposed development area is too large, and this development, coupled with the other proposed developments are too close together for species and the habitats to be adequately protected.

Development will not only see the loss of these habitats but an increase in pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the areas which are left.

E) arable and pastoral farmland

Good grade/quality farmland should be preserved for future generations. We do not know, at present, how many hectares of land we will need in the future to enable us, as a country, to be sustainable and to be able to produce the amount of food which we need. (What is the implication of Brexit?).

We should not allow good farmland to be lost to housing and development on this scale. I therefore object to these proposed sites on these grounds.

F) pollution levels

I object to this site, as if allowed to develop this would have very serious pollution implications for the area.

i) light pollution

Due to the A1, and the towns of Sandy/Biggleswade the vast majority of the area has between 8 to 32 nanowatts / cm2 / sr of light pollution.

The proposed development would see a significant increase in light pollution in this area. We should be trying to reduce light pollution not increase it.

ii) noise pollution

Noise pollution is currently at reasonably low levels in this area - albeit the A1 runs close by. The proposed development would see a significant rise in noise pollution - which should be kept to a minimum

iii) industrial/traffic/water pollution

The proposed area of development would suffer from a significant increase in industrial and traffic pollution. There may also be an increase in water pollution depending upon the types of industry which come into the area.


All of the above types of pollution would significantly increase having negative effects on the proposed development areas. Not only would this impact upon wildlife, habitats, and farmland but also upon those who live in the area.

Pollution, in all forms, has degrading effects on buildings and on flora and fauna alike - and significant health implications for those who live in the area. (Putting undue stress on our already floundering health provision in the area).

This again goes against;
- Keep the character of central Bedfordshire
- Limit the impact on the countryside
- Protect our villages, market towns, and beautiful countryside
- Enhance what we have

I object to the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 due to the inevitable increase in pollution in the area.

G) flooding

Developing the area to this extent will have negative implications on the natural run-off and drainage of the area.

The Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 shows only the one in 100-year flood plan from the environment agency. I understand that this plan is out of date.

The proposed development site contains within its boundaries a flood plain.

If we are to believe global warming and that the recent downpours will continue to be as heavy and as frequent this will prove to be a large problem for the area.

Plants and trees will be removed and replaced with tarmac which will not aid any natural run-off and drainage. Although this may not be a problem for the new development I believe it will create undue pressure and have negative implications on the neighbouring area. (I.e. Tempsford). This area already has problems with flooding and simply will not cope with any additional pressures.

H) infrastructure - road and rail

I have objections to the proposed sites with regard to infrastructure provision. The current road and rail network in the area will not cope with developments of this size. I understand that it is implied that no development will take place without the confirmation that the A428, A1 and East West rail networks will happen in this location. I am opposed to all of these routes going through this area.

However, my main concern with this draft central Bedfordshire local plan is what will come first? The roads or the development?

As previously stated the existing networks will not cope with this level of development, and there is no guarantee that they will be adequately enhanced in order to do so. Developers often fund these type of links as a proviso to developing - in order to improve the local networks. Often this money is spent elsewhere - leaving a transport nightmare.

I object therefore on the grounds that the existing infrastructure will not cope and there is no guarantee on this improving.

I) infrastructure - services

I understand from the Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 that new services (e.g. provision for doctors, dentists, police, schools et cetera) will be included in the area.

However, although provision may be made this does not guarantee the professionals will be attracted to the area to fulfil these roles.

Our local doctors, dentists, schools et cetera cannot cope with the levels we have already and are oversubscribed. This situation is only likely to deteriorate.

Policing in the area is also woefully inadequate. With a potential increase of thousands of new people I would expect crime to raise significantly. We do not have the provision to cope with this increase.

Other services like provision for the elderly and the ambulance service will also be impacted - again with no guarantees of additional funding et cetera.

I therefore object on the grounds that although we may be promised provision and funding this often doesn't come to fruition and the current level of provision for all simply cannot cope.

J) Finally, I object to the proposed plans as it is not clear who will benefit from these proposed developments. I would challenge levels of affordable housing proposed - developers do not always stick to these as it harms their bottom line.

My concern is that we will end up with very expensive houses which do not benefit the local community.

I believe that housing should be provided right across Bedfordshire on an equal basis and that these houses should be a mixture of both affordable and private - with the priority of ownership going to local people - not people from outside of Bedfordshire.

I do not believe that this draft central Bedfordshire local plan will benefit the local community or Bedfordshire as a whole in its current state.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4985

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: The Everton Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Representation:

NLP165

recommend for approval,
no primary constraints,
development will contribute to education facilities,
development would be sensitive to heritage,
site capacity to be set as 19 dwellings,
agricultural holdings tenancy on site can be resolved at the right time,
no cumulative impact on the village,
question 30 should be changed to 'G',
no evidence of road traffic noise pollution as a concern, should be changed to 'G',
importance of the site's landscape is overstated, character would be unaffected, should be changed to 'G',
A new ecological survey will take place, do not anticipate constraints

Full text:

Site Assessment Forms Everton: (Ref. NLP165) Land at Manor Farm, Everton
Land at Manor Farm in Everton was promoted through the 'Call for Sites' process in early 2016, and the submission included a Site Location Plan.

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion is that the site is to be considered further, and states:
* There are no primary constraints to development on the site.
* It is considered that the development will have no adverse impact on the settlement pattern or character of the village.
* Any development will need to contribute to the education provision in the village.
* Development would need to be sensitive to the heritage assets in the village.

We agree with those conclusions. 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 site has been promoted for 15 dwellings through the 'Call for Sites' process. The dwelling capacity assumes a density of 20 dph, and takes into account the status of Everton as a Small Village, the character of the site and surrounding area, and the Listed Building adjacent to the site. The Councils methodology indicates that the site can accommodate 19 dwellings. We are content for the site capacity to increase to up to 19 dwellings, provided it is acknowledged that the number of dwellings may be less than this once design matters, the type and size of affordable dwellings, and a plot for custom build housing has been taken into account in the layout.
* 11 (Legal or ownership problems): We acknowledged in our submission to the 2016 'Call for Sites' process that there is an agricultural holdings tenancy for the site. At the appropriate time, and when development is ready to commence, notices can be served on the tenant to terminate the agricultural holdings tenancy. We confirm that the existence of an agricultural holdings tenancy on the site is not a constraint to development and the process to terminate the tenancy would not delay development. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 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, despite the fact that it makes no difference to the site score for land at Manor Farm. 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; Everton is defined as a Small Village and suitable for a small number of new dwellings. The adopted development plan also allocates sites in villages to meet the previous district-wide and local housing need, including two sites in Everton: at Sandy Road for 7 dwellings (Ref. HA20) and at The Heath for 8 affordable dwellings (Ref. HA21). This policy approach is in accordance with Paragraph 28 of the NPPF which supports economic growth in rural areas, and Paragraph 55 which encourages housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Everton contains a public house, lower school and recreation ground. The village is on a bus route with services to Sandy, Potton, Biggleswade and Hitchin. All of the existing services and facilities would be supported by additional development in the village. We request that cumulative impact is deleted as an assessment criteria because it is contrary to the delivery of sustainable development.
* 27 & 28 (Distance to bus stops and railway station): The assessment acknowledges that the site is within close proximity of the bus stops within the village. Everton is on a bus route, providing services to Sandy, Potton, Biggleswade and Hitchin. All of these centres provide employment opportunities and higher order services and facilities. Sandy, Biggleswade and Hitchin also contain railway stations, providing access to high quality rail services. We consider that these criteria should also 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. Sandy is approximately 4km from Everton and Potton is approximately 3 km away. A maximum acceptable distance for commuting by cycle is 5km. The quality of the 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.
* 30 (School capacity): Everton contains a lower school. There are middle and upper schools in Potton and Sandy, both of which are within close proximity of Everton. There will be a need for additional family housing in Everton to provide pupils for the school in the future and maintain capacity. The existing housing commitments in Everton and an allocation at the Manor Farm site would provide a combined total of an additional 30 dwellings (or 34 if the site accommodates 19 dwellings) in the village, and would generate a requirement for approximately 1 pupil place per year group which represents a limited change in capacity. Everton Lower School would not need to expand to accommodate a minor change in pupil numbers. In these circumstances planning obligations could be made to mitigate the limited impact of development in Everton on school capacity. Therefore, school capacity is not a constraint to development at the site, and we request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 35 (Adjoining uses): The assessment identifies noise from road traffic as a concern. There is no evidence that road traffic noise is a particular concern in Everton, or that the village experiences higher levels of road traffic or noisier vehicles compared with other villages. There are existing residential properties fronting Sandy Road and Potton Road in the village, which is a typical situation that arises in most villages, and as far as we are aware has not resulted in any noise complaints associated with road traffic. Therefore, noise is not a concern for the proposed development, and we request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 36 (Landscape character): The assessment concludes that the site is important for village context, and it provides views of farmland and garden trees. We consider that the importance of the site is overstated. The site is part of the village. The site frontage contains a hedge and brick wall. The site mostly contains dilapidated farm buildings. The character of the surrounding landscape would be unaffected by a small scale development at the site. The setting of the village would be maintained by the retention of the adjacent recreation and play areas. We anticipate that ant development at the site would be high quality to reflect the character of the village. We request that the score for this criteria is amended to 'G for Green'.
* 38 (Ecological assets): An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in 2009. The results and findings of the survey have now expired. A new survey will be prepared for the proposed development, and would include a survey of protected species that may occupy the existing buildings and structures in the site. We do not anticipate that trees, hedges or protected species would be a constraint to development at the site. An opportunity exists to enhance the existing hedgerows on site, and provide bird and bat boxes within the development if appropriate, all of which would be beneficial to wildlife. The score for this criteria is assessed as 'A for Amber' to reflect the fact that up to date ecological surveys need to be completed, but once the findings are known we anticipate that the score would change to 'G for Green' with appropriate ecological mitigation and enhancement measures included within the proposed development.

There are no technical constraints to development at the site, as acknowledged in the Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion. Everton is defined as Small Village in the settlement hierarchy, making it suitable for small scale development. It is well related to Sandy and Potton, and it is accessible to those towns by public transport and cycling.

We request that Land at Manor Farm in Everton (Ref. NLP165) is allocated for a residential development of approximately 15 dwellings (potentially increasing to 19 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. If required, and subject to demand within the village, the site could accommodate one or two plots for custom-build housing.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5273

Received: 18/09/2017

Respondent: Mr John Pritchett

Representation:

Objections to NLP433 on coalescence, agricultural land quality, and heritage grounds

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 18/09/2017

Respondent: Joan Denyer

Representation:

Objections to NLP433 on coalescence, agricultural land quality and heritage grounds

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5380

Received: 20/09/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs M Scott-Worthington

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Objections to MLP433 on lack of facilities and services, infrastructure, wildlife, agricultural land quality, scale and public health grounds

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5453

Received: 21/09/2017

Respondent: Miss Patricia Robertson

Representation:

Objection to NLP324 and ALP323
Building another 48 dwgs on agricultural land would dramatically effect the character of the village and ruin the rural landscape.
Village roads could not cope with extra traffic
School is already over-subscribed
Dunton will be overwhelmed by migration into the village

Full text:

Objection to NLP324 and ALP323
Building another 48 dwgs on agricultural land would dramatically effect the character of the village and ruin the rural landscape.
Village roads could not cope with extra traffic
School is already over-subscribed
Dunton will be overwhelmed by migration into the village
Objection to NLP433
Development on agricultural land will change the character of this rural part of Central Beds forever. Infrastructure can not cope with more development.
The proposed development will create a huge housing sprawl which villagers do not want to be a part of.
Local village road s would not cope with the additional traffic this development would cause.

Attachments: