Flitton & Greenfield

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 96

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 148

Received: 10/07/2017

Respondent: Mrs Angela Baylie

Representation:

NLP172 - I don't believe the site is suitable as this is a large scale development of 90 houses which will change the demographic of this small village and dwarf the existing settlement. There are already concerns regarding spaces in the local primary school. The site is home to a number of species of animals. There has also been a number of developments in recent years in Flitton. There are no amenities here and the doctors in Ampthill and Flitwick are already heavily subscribed.

Full text:

NLP172 - I don't believe the site is suitable as this is a large scale development of 90 houses which will change the demographic of this small village and dwarf the existing settlement. There are already concerns regarding spaces in the local primary school. The site is home to a number of species of animals. There has also been a number of developments in recent years in Flitton. There are no amenities here and the doctors in Ampthill and Flitwick are already heavily subscribed.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 195

Received: 12/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Campbell

Representation:

Flitton & Greenfield Housing Assessment Document mentions several times that Flitwick has a catchment Upper School this is not true and reflects lack of local knowledge.

Full text:

Flitton & Greenfield Housing Assessment Document mentions several times that Flitwick has a catchment Upper School this is not true and reflects lack of local knowledge.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 196

Received: 12/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Campbell

Representation:

NLP172 - Planning Ref (CB/16/02632/OUT) appeal dismissed on 19/06/2017
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/17/3166582

Full text:

NLP172 - Planning Ref (CB/16/02632/OUT) appeal dismissed on 19/06/2017
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/17/3166582

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 828

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: mr john smith

Representation:

the development would be;
Out of scale
poorly located
limited access
limited local services

Full text:

NLP203
the proposed site for development would result in a a development which would be visisble from the whole village of Flitton as the development would be on the top of the nearest hill. Also access onto Flitton hill would be difficult as the current road is not wide enough to support the addition of a pavement and street lighting.
In relation to the size of the village and the existing developments, this development would be the largest so far. The village has no facilities in terms of doctor, shop, limited public transport, the local school is over subscribed. The existing houses on the North western edge of Flitton hill would be overlooked by the development which would be above and behind them.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1311

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Flitton & Greenfield Parish Council

Representation:

In general object to the 6 sites and one in Pulloxhill.

Full text:

ALP240 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see 15 or 11 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village
Landscape
The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill
Traffic
Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed.
Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury
There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of bats and owls in the area which are protected species. Any development as proposed is likely to impact on the local colony. The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem

The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 203 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see 20 -40 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village
Landscape
The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill
Traffic
Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed.
Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury
There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of bats and owls in the area which are protected species. Any development as proposed is likely to impact on the local colony. The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services


NLP 172 Land off Sand Road Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.
Error in the statement as this site is 100% in Flitton. Recently refused planning consent for 18 dwellings on Appeal

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 90 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in this central part of the village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton from Pulloxhill and open countryside and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern.
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape
The site is in open countryside which is exposed, and will impact in terms of the wide reaching rural views from Sand Road and High Street Flitton as well as Silsoe Road and Wardhedges.

Traffic
Very busy road with high volume traffic and traffic calming measures being considered by the Parish Council to try to reduce speed.

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of farmland birds, reptiles and brown hares and is a site of ecological importance The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 272 Moat Farm Close Greenfield - Comment on site progress for the reason set out below

Would not wish to see up to 24 dwellings on this site which is currently Grade 2 agricultural land in an outlying part of the village


NLP 449 Land to rear of 96 Greenfield Road Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 25 dwellings on this site
Site currently used for equestrian business but in Grade 2 agricultural land which should not be lost

Landscape
The site is in open countryside, visible from all neighbouring properties in Sand Road and High Street and would be back-land development in a mainly linear setting.

Traffic
Very busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures already in place to try to reduce speed
Close to junction with Sand Road and another access to the Hedgerows and this will mean a third access in very close proximity with inherent highway safety issues, made worse by development opposite granted on Appeal

Wildlife & Environment

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 127 Land to rear of 58 High St Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 40 dwellings on this site
Site currently used for farming business and is primarily Grade 2 agricultural land which should not be lost to the Parish. There are quite often cows and sheep on this land which is preferable to more housing
Settlement is mainly linear in the High Street and this would change the pattern, despite smaller side roads nearby.

Landscape
The site is in open countryside, visible from all neighbouring properties in Sand Road and High Street and would be back-land development in a mainly linear setting. The site is part of a hill and the elevation would mean overlooking and blocking of views for existing residents
Development of site is not acceptable in landscape terms as it forms part of the rural landscape setting to Wardhedges and abuts the Flitton Conservation Area with Church and Mausoleum

Traffic
Busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures already in place on junction opposite to try to reduce speed.
Access near junction with Flitton Hill where there is a fast traffic flow. There is absolutely no option to gain access to site through Cobbett Lane which is too narrow and within the Conservation area with houses of interest along the lane.

Wildlife & Environment
Existing hedgerows / trees would need to be retained and enhanced,

Infrastructure
In terms of point 33 Drainage and flooding on the Site Assessment forms, the mark is a G meaning no assessment is required. However the stream to rear of existing properties on High Street already floods at times with runoff from site. This would be much worse if the field was developed.
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP353 - Hand-Post Field - Sand Road Pulloxhill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see anywhere near 69 to 105 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in this peripheral part of the village, which is closer to Flitton and Greenfield than it is to Pulloxhill. It is removed from the rest of the Pulloxhill settlement completely and will not have any impact on that village. The site should therefore only be seen as part of Flitton as it would have a huge impact on the village particularly due to its size and potential for further development
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton from Pulloxhill and open countryside and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern. Development of site not acceptable in landscape terms as it forms part of existing landscape buffer to village, containing development edge
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape
The site is in open countryside which is exposed, and will impact in terms of the wide reaching rural views from Sand Road and High Street Flitton as well as Silsoe Road and Wardhedges.
Direct impact on Greenfield Road Recreation Ground and Centenary Wood.

Traffic
Very busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures being considered by the Parish Council to try to reduce speed in Sand Road.
Access to the site is opposite the junction of Silsoe Road and Sand Road where a number of accidents have been recorded in the past. The junction is already well used particularly at the beginning and end of each working day. Flitton Road is a long straight road linking Pulloxhill and Flitton. Vehicles reach great speeds from Pulloxhill towards Flitton and additional traffic would have to pass the entrance to the site for access to amenities in neighbouring towns and villages

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of farmland birds, reptiles and brown hares and is a site of ecological importance The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services
Potential cumulative impact from this development as Pulloxhill sport and play facilities are restricted to a single site where expansion is not possible and this would put pressure on existing facilities in Greenfield without the benefit of any contribution. If this site is delivered a combined delivery of new land and facilities for sport, play and informal OS is essential preferably in Greenfield because it is closest.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1401

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Flitton & Greenfield Parish Council

Representation:

Site Assessment - General View

The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for Flitton, Greenfield and Pulloxhill is nearing completion and a first draft will be available in early Autumn 2017. This Plan outlines the type of 'place' which residents and local councils want to see in the future. The draft vision statement for the NP is as follows

see full text

Full text:

Local Plan Parish Council Response - August 2017

Local Plan document

In principle the Parish is supportive of the general proposals in the Plan in terms of the 4 main development areas and how the rural area D will have to contribute towards the remaining figure.

Community Plans page 39
* If Community Plans are 'continuing' to inform later stages of the LP, will they adopt NP's when they are ready or is this duplication based on a mis match of community areas - we don't really have many links with our Community Plan area, especially as we are part of the Flitwick Community Liaison Forum

Developing the Strategy page 46
* We would not wish to be part of the area marked 'Growth in Transport Corridors' - see map page 47 as the boundary of this area seems to include F&G?

The Spatial Strategy Page 59
* Some areas are recognised as having to take unplanned growth due to speculative development when there was not a five year land supply. Flitton is certainly one of these areas. The Plan states that 'continuing unrestrained growth in these areas is unsustainable' - yet if F&G is not classed as a small village, why are there are six sites being considered in the Sites Assessment document and another in Pulloxhill which is closer to Flitton than Pulloxhill
* Page 65 - paras 7.6.15 - 7.6.17 This is Flitton and Greenfield - the 'settlement pattern and constrained infrastructure' of Areas in D (Central) quote 'severely limits the options for growth in Area D, yet see point above and why are there potentially 6-7 new sites in the Flitton and Greenfield Site Assessment document?
* Para 7.8.2 small and medium sites have not been identified or given indicative capacity in this version of the Plan - why are there so many sites going forward to Stage 2 in Flitton and Greenfield in the Site Assessment Document?
* Para 7.10.2 What's the point of having so many windfall sites included in the Plan as these may end up being on top of any sites included in the Site assessment Document and could be a double penalty on small or large villages?

Green Belt, Coalescence and Settlement
* Importance of preserving gaps in the countryside and maintaining open nature of the countryside - agree strongly and this also needs to be applied to settlements such as our three areas. We do not want to see any coalescence of the settlements at a local level either

Settlement Hierarchy page 121
* We are unhappy in the Plan that F&G is classed as a large village and we have made the following suggestions which has resulted in re-designation as a small village.
o Everyone in the Parish is deeply concerned at the idea of the villages being classed as a large village. Flitton and Greenfield has always been a small village and we are fiercely proud and protective of this as it helps to keep a low key rural community feel and protect us from much larger scale development.
o We believe and I think you do too now that the three settlements should be treated separately for the purposes of the hierarchy. Flitton and Greenfield are officially separate Parts of the Parish in terms of the Boundary and warrant their own Councillors and Election processes and Wardhedges has always been considered to be a hamlet. There are other examples in the hierarchy where Parishes have been separated into settlements eg Cranfield and Wharley End, Eversholt and Church end, Upper and Lower Sundon and Haynes. So there is already a precedent within your own methodology to do this.
o We have produced a revised matrix to this effect
o Residents in the Parish also associate themselves with the village that they live in, so locally there is already a definite delineation between Flitton and Greenfield. We have also used this separation as a reason to object to planning applications which seek to allow any coalescence. Indeed the Local Plan makes it clear that it is important to preserve gaps in the countryside and maintain its open nature.
o There are also some anomalies within the matrix which seem to contradict the various scores allocated to settlements and if corrected, between them they would also have the effect of returning the whole Parish to a small village categorisation. These have been sent to you and resulted in the re classification as a small village
* We have made the above case and it has been accepted to continue as a small village
* We do not wish to be seen as a large village as we lack amenities and facilities and could not sustain any large scale development as suggested by the sites which have been initially assessed

Housing
* Para 12.5.4 - yes the NP should be able to make the decisions about affordable sites, exception sites as this is what the Parish Council is spending months working on at the moment


Retail and Town Centres
* Table 15.1 Large Villages - provide a small number of local shops serving a small catchment - there are no such facilities in the Parish
* Para14.3 - surely this is best left to the NP to set out as this will have been researched and tested at a Referendum. Farms are also important, yet Prior Consent to convert farm buildings into dwellings means that these are being lost rapidly to housing and will never be returned to agriculture. This is short sighted.

Historic Landscapes
* Para 19.3.1 - We support this because of the de Grey Mausoleum and need to take a holistic approach to any development which may impact on it
* Para 19.6 - as above for the Flitton Conservation Area - some pretty poor decisions already made on this and need to pay special attention to the 'special overall quality of the area'


Transport page 188
* The Parish in line with a lot of the rural area is served by unclassified country roads which were never expected or built to take the current volume of traffic.. This creates problems for rural villages in terms of speeding, being used as rat runs and sheer volume of traffic. Linking transport to development is critical as the roads do need to be considered when any new development takes place especially in the countryside.
* The Parish would support the creation and maintenance of cycle way networks to ensure safety and remove unnecessary traffic from the roads
* Agree that the main transport routes provide better areas to develop housing and employment
* Already HGV bans in the rural area are not adhered to and this causes local residents a problem, we need better/more enforcement and more consideration about alternative routes which should be publicised
* Traffic problems already prompt voluntary schemes such as Lorry Watch or Speed Watch, which mean local people are giving up their time and this should be taken into account in future planning

Development in the Countryside
* Surely this is what NP set out to test to ensure local communities thrive and grow through appropriate and sustainable sites


Site Assessment - General View

The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for Flitton, Greenfield and Pulloxhill is nearing completion and a first draft will be available in early Autumn 2017. This Plan outlines the type of 'place' which residents and local councils want to see in the future. The draft vision statement for the NP is as follows
'To enhance the parishes as an area of rural tranquillity by maintaining the character of the separate villages, their conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty whilst developing closer links with the nearby towns of Flitwick and Ampthill on whom the parishes are dependent for many amenities and to whose residents we have much to offer in terms of rural leisure activities.'

The NP is evidenced based, following a Housing Needs Survey and a first stage consultation. It contains a chapter on Policies in terms of Development to Meet Local Need. We would hope that this will be encapsulated as part of the Local Plan once it has been adopted.
Analysis of the data considered in the Housing Needs survey identified a need for affordable housing within Flitton & Greenfield and Pulloxhill from households resident in (or with strong links to) the parish, that is unlikely to be met by normal market provision. Most of this need comes from young adults living with their parents who want to move out (or young people who will be in this position in the future). Also there is some need from families who are in need of more space and some older people looking for properties more suitable in retirement.

Based on data supplied by respondents, there are already households with a local connection who would be suitable for housing within a rural exception site development, whether for rent or shared ownership. In order to have reasonable confidence that any new housing provided through a rural exception site will be taken up by people with a local connection to Flitton, Greenfield and Pulloxhill, the NP is likely to recommend that approx 11 units are required to meet the need identified over the next 20 years, and these could be broken down as follows:

2 x 1 bed house / flat (Shared ownership)
4 x 2 bed house (1x Starter home initiative / 1 x Affordable rental / 2 x Shared ownership)
3 x 2 bed bungalow (1 x Shared ownership / 2 x Affordable rental)
2 x 3-bed house (1 x Shared ownership / 1 x Affordable rental)

On top of the NP, the PC has recently set out its views in detail about the type of area which it and local residents desire for the future. This has been as a result of a number of predatory planning applications and Appeals during the formulation of the CBC Local Plan and these arguments have been persuasive in terms of decisions against development, although we accept there was one site where the arguments failed: however this was mainly based on the CBC failure to identify a 5 year housing supply.
Our vision for the future of the Parish includes
* Small scale development (less than 10 dwellings)
* Not allowing coalescence of the gaps between the three settlements
* Protecting, maintaining and enhancing the Flitton Conservation area
* Maintaining the setting of Listed and historic buildings
* Maintaining open space to keep a rural feel
* Maintaining agriculture to keep a rural feel
* Maintaining wildlife (trees and hedgerows) to enhance and protect the bio diversity of the Parish
* Ensuring any developments do not make land drainage or localised flooding problems any worse
* Not making the traffic problems (speeding and volume) any worse in the Parish which has original country (unclassified ) roads which were never expected to take the level of traffic which is experienced now as a result of development and the village being used as a rat run between the A6 and M1
* Providing local residents with the quality of life they expect and enjoy by living in a countryside village, even if this does mean there is a lack of local services or transport links, for example
o Seeing wild birds and animals
o Being surrounded by fields, woods and copses
o A feeling of open space because housing densities remain low and there is plenty of space for gardens, park and amenity land
o Being able to walk safely on quiet rural footpaths and roads to the local pubs, Church and School
o Beautiful country views from vantage points and allowing local residents to maintain their views and light
o Ensuring school places are available for local children
o Having a local church, hearing the bells ringing and a focus for the community
o Local events being held in the community managed halls, the Moor and playing field
o Benefitting from Flitton Moor, Centenary Wood, River Flit footpath and Information Centre and a plethora of public footpaths, cycle ways and bridleways to enjoy simple rural activities such as walking and cycling
o Feeling safe to walk out alone at night in the Parish
o Avoiding lots of unnecessary street lights
o Being able to access local roads without the feeling that traffic is oppressive
o Having local village pubs
o Unpolluted local air
o A sense of wellbeing living in a quiet and peaceful environment

On top of this, the Parish Council does not believe that the settlement needs six - seven potential development sites. We would want to see the historic settlement pattern maintained through a largely linear style avoiding back land and finger development. We would not want to spoil the approaches to the villages with any large scale monotonous housing developments which did not set the right tone or feel for the area and want people to realise that they are entering a rural community. We do not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land which is part of the Parish history in terms of market gardening and farming, so any development would have to ensure a balance to preserve this heritage. We want to maintain the quirky interesting feel of the Lanes and Closes in the Parish and not introduce further traffic or noise or allow access to new development.

We are horrified to see that the Site assessment document shows that 6 sites within the Parish could deliver 234 (taken as maximum), houses against a current 640 tax base which would be an increase of 36%+ and cannot see that this would be justified when we had believed that a small village such as ours may need to find an addition 25 - 30 houses as part of the Local Plan. In the Parish there are already a significant number of dwellings approved which could mean an additional 37 houses which we understand will be seen as historic in terms of the Local Plan.

We are also very unhappy about the site identified in Pulloxhill which is much closer to Flitton and the resultant strain on facilities within this Parish as local residents will find it more convenient to use facilities on their doorstep rather than travel to Pulloxhill.

We strongly support the decisions made on the sites which have not progressed to Stage 2 and would not want to see any of these decisions changed without further consultation

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1474

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Deborah Lawson

Representation:

General objections to sites as set out. May support Greenfield site if 10 or less dwellings

Full text:

Site Assessment - General View

The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for Flitton, Greenfield and Pulloxhill is nearing completion and a first draft will be available in early Autumn 2017. This Plan outlines the type of 'place' which residents and local councils want to see in the future from an evidenced base, following a Housing Needs Survey and a first stage consultation. It contains a chapter on Policies in terms of Development to Meet Local Need. We would hope that this will be encapsulated as part of the Local Plan once it has been adopted.

On top of the NP, we see the future of the Parish including
* Small scale development (less than 10 dwellings)
* Not allowing coalescence of the gaps between the three settlements
* Protecting, maintaining and enhancing the Flitton Conservation area
* Maintaining the setting of Listed and historic buildings
* Maintaining open space to keep a rural feel
* Maintaining the historical settlement patterns through a largely linear style avoiding back land and finger development
* Maintaining agriculture to keep a rural feel
* Maintaining wildlife (trees and hedgerows) to enhance and protect the bio diversity of the Parish
* Maintaining the important approaches to the villages and not spoiling them with any large scale monotonous housing developments which do not set the right tone or feel whilst entering a rural community
* Ensuring any developments do not make land drainage or localised flooding problems any worse
* Keeping Grade 2 agricultural land which is part of the Parish history in terms of market gardening and farming, and hence preserving heritage.
* Maintaining the quirky interesting feel of the Lanes and Closes in the Parish and not introducing further traffic or noise or allow access to new development.
* Not making the traffic problems (speeding and volume) any worse in the Parish which has original country (unclassified ) roads which were never expected to take the level of traffic which is experienced now as a result of development and the village being used as a rat run between the A6 and M1
* Providing local residents with the quality of life they expect and enjoy by living in a countryside village, even if this does mean there is a lack of local services or transport links, for example
o Seeing wild birds and animals
o Being surrounded by fields, woods and copses
o A feeling of open space because housing densities remain low and there is plenty of space for gardens, park and amenity land
o Being able to walk safely on quiet rural footpaths and roads to the local pubs, Church and School
o Beautiful country views from vantage points and allowing local residents to maintain their views and light
o Ensuring school places are available for local children
o Having a local church, hearing the bells ringing and a focus for the community
o Local events being held in the community managed halls, the Moor and playing field
o Benefitting from Flitton Moor, Centenary Wood, River Flit footpath and Information Centre and a plethora of public footpaths, cycle ways and bridleways to enjoy simple rural activities such as walking and cycling
o Feeling safe to walk out alone at night in the Parish
o Avoiding lots of unnecessary street lights
o Being able to access local roads without the feeling that traffic is oppressive
o Having local village pubs
o Unpolluted local air
o A sense of wellbeing living in a quiet and peaceful environment

We cannot see why the Parish needs six - seven potential development sites and are horrified to see that they could deliver 234 (taken as maximum), houses
We are also very unhappy about the site identified in Pulloxhill which is much closer to Flitton and the resultant strain on facilities within this Parish as local residents will find it more convenient to use facilities on their doorstep, like the Playing Field and School rather than travel to Pulloxhill.

We strongly support the decisions made on the sites which have not progressed to Stage 2 and would not want to see any of these decisions changed


Site Assessment Forms Specific

ALP240 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see 15 or 11 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village
Landscape
The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill
Traffic
Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed.
Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury
There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of bats and owls in the area which are protected species. Any development as proposed is likely to impact on the local colony. The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem

The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 203 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see 20 -40 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village
Landscape
The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill
Traffic
Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed.
Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury
There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of bats and owls in the area which are protected species. Any development as proposed is likely to impact on the local colony. The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services


NLP 172 Land off Sand Road Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.
Error in the statement as this site is 100% in Flitton.
Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 90 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in this central part of the village.
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton from Pulloxhill and open countryside and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern.
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape
The site is in open countryside which is exposed, and will impact in terms of the wide reaching rural views from Sand Road and High Street Flitton as well as Silsoe Road and Wardhedges.

Traffic
Very busy road with high volume traffic and traffic calming measures being considered by the Parish Council to try to reduce speed.

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of farmland birds, reptiles and brown hares and is a site of ecological importance The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 272 Moat Farm Close Greenfield
Would not object to up to 10 dwellings on this site

NLP 449 Land to rear of 96 Greenfield Road Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 25 dwellings on this site
Site currently used for equestrian business but in Grade 2 agricultural land which should not be lost

Landscape
The site is in open countryside, visible from all neighbouring properties in Sand Road and High Street and would be back-land development in a mainly linear setting.

Traffic
Very busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures already in place to try to reduce speed
Close to junction with Sand Road and another access to the Hedgerows and this will mean a third access in very close proximity with inherent highway safety issues, made worse by development opposite granted on Appeal

Wildlife & Environment

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP 127 Land to rear of 58 High St Flitton - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see up to 40 dwellings on this site
Site currently used for farming business and is primarily Grade 2 agricultural land which should not be lost to the Parish. There are quite often cows and sheep on this land which is preferable to more housing
Settlement is mainly linear in the High Street and this would change the pattern, despite smaller side roads nearby.

Landscape
The site is in open countryside, visible from all neighbouring properties in Sand Road and High Street and would be back-land development in a mainly linear setting. The site is part of a hill and the elevation would mean overlooking and blocking of views for existing residents
Development of site is not acceptable in landscape terms as it forms part of the rural landscape setting to Wardhedges and abuts the Flitton Conservation Area with Church and Mausoleum

Traffic
Busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures already in place on junction opposite to try to reduce speed.
Access near junction with Flitton Hill where there is a fast traffic flow. There is absolutely no option to gain access to site through Cobbett Lane which is too narrow and within the Conservation area with houses of interest along the lane.

Wildlife & Environment
Existing hedgerows / trees would need to be retained and enhanced,

Infrastructure
In terms of point 33 Drainage and flooding on the Site Assessment forms, the mark is a G meaning no assessment is required. However the stream to rear of existing properties on High Street already floods at times with runoff from site. This would be much worse if the field was developed.
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

NLP353 - Hand-Post Field - Sand Road Pulloxhill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below.

Density and Settlement
Would not wish to see anywhere near 69 to 105 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in this peripheral part of the village, which is closer to Flitton and Greenfield than it is to Pulloxhill. It is removed from the rest of the Pulloxhill settlement completely and will not have any impact on that village. The site should therefore only be seen as part of Flitton as it would have a huge impact on the village particularly due to its size and potential for further development
Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton from Pulloxhill and open countryside and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern. Development of site not acceptable in landscape terms as it forms part of existing landscape buffer to village, containing development edge
Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape
The site is in open countryside which is exposed, and will impact in terms of the wide reaching rural views from Sand Road and High Street Flitton as well as Silsoe Road and Wardhedges.
Direct impact on Greenfield Road Recreation Ground and Centenary Wood.

Traffic
Very busy road and high volume traffic with traffic calming measures being considered by the Parish Council to try to reduce speed in Sand Road.
Access to the site is opposite the junction of Silsoe Road and Sand Road where a number of accidents have been recorded in the past. The junction is already well used particularly at the beginning and end of each working day. Flitton Road is a long straight road linking Pulloxhill and Flitton. Vehicles reach great speeds from Pulloxhill towards Flitton and additional traffic would have to pass the entrance to the site for access to amenities in neighbouring towns and villages

Wildlife & Environment
There are a significant number of farmland birds, reptiles and brown hares and is a site of ecological importance The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure
Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services
Potential cumulative impact from this development as Pulloxhill sport and play facilities are restricted to a single site where expansion is not possible and this would put pressure on existing facilities in Greenfield without the benefit of any contribution. If this site is delivered a combined delivery of new land and facilities for sport, play and informal OS is essential preferably in Greenfield because it is closest.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1502

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sally Smith

Representation:

Objection site NLP 203
Objection ALP 240

Full text:

Sally Smith, [Address Redacted] Flitton, Beds MK45 5EA

ALP240 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Precedent

Development outside of the Village Development Limit for Flitton as yet has not been breached and should not now. Once this rule has been compromised it will be used as an excuse to approve numerous other planning applications, as the hard fact is that for a developer we are a prime development location because of our commuting distance to Flitwick station to commute into london, and the high value of properties in Flitton make this very lucrative for developers and large land owners, and a continual headache for everyone else who is resident in this settlement.

Visual Impact

The land is very elevated and therefore this proposed development would have a negative impact out of scale with its proposed size.

Health & Safety

Volume of traffic on Flitton Hill is already very high with high usage from HGVs and articulated long lorries, the road is crowded with traffic moving very fast. By the time the traffic gets to the top of the hill, where these properties and access would be, they are going very fast indeed. Adding to this unsafe situation is unwise and will surely cause death or injury. The added factor is the absence of a footpath and no room in which to place a footpath would mean that for any children in the proposed new housing a drive to school would be necessary, as walking down the hill would be far too dangerous.

Density and Settlement

Would not wish to see 15 or 11 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village. Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape

The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill Traffic Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed. Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

Wildlife & Environment

There are a significant number of bats and owls in the area which are protected species. Any development as proposed is likely to impact on the local colony. The countryside should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure

Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services


NLP 203 Land at Flitton Hill - Do not wish to see this site progress for reasons set out below

Precedent

Development behind existing dwellings of long standing thus far in Flitton (although not in Greenfield) has been a step too far and has not occured. Considering the very rural feel and style of Flitton should be resisted at all costs as it would change the nature of Flitton for ever more. Current developments at the rear of housing have been commissioned by the then owners of the land e.g. Burberry Drive & behind [Information redacted] old house in Wardhedges, or the housing is more contemporary than the development e.g. dwellings on the east side of Flitton, all post date significantly the development of Highfields. In the last twenty years the only planning that has been allowed is finger developments or infill - not backfill per se.
Development outside of the Village Development Limit for Flitton as yet has not been breached and should not now. Once this rule has been compromised it will be used as an excuse to approve numerous other planning applications, as the hard fact is that for a developer we are a prime development location because of our commuting distance to Flitwick station to commute into london, and the high value of properties in Flitton make this very lucrative for developers and large land owners, and a continual headache for everyone else who is resident in this settlement.

VISUAL IMPACT

The land is elevated with far reaching views across the village and countryside - in fact when you walk the footpath that runs north/south you can see most of this end of the village and therefore this proposed development would loom and dominate over the west side of Flitton HIll, as all our houses are set down at least 6 plus feet into the valley of Flitton Hill, and would be highly visible from Flitton High street, Brook Lane and Church Lane and therefore have a significant impact above of all the proposed sites for Flitton village. The proposed houses ground floor windows would be at the same height as our bedroom and bathroom windows thus eradicating privacy and causing undue hardship to existing residents.

Health & Safety

o There are five dwellings on the west side of Flitton HIll, in front of the proposed development site, before you leave the Village Development Limit - Sandwell House, Sandycroft, Treetops, Rose Cottage and Tracel - all have sandstone cliffs - ours is masked by a retaining wall which we built at great cost to ourselves. I would doubt that these cliffs would withstand the weight, vibration and disturbance that a large development would bring.
o Volume of traffic on Flitton HIll is already very high with a high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries, the road is overloaded with traffic moving very fast. By the time the traffic gets up to the top of the hill - where I presume the access road to this site would be - they are going very fast indeed - adding to this very unsafe situation is unwise and will surely cause death or injury.
o Adding to this unsafe situation is unwise and will surely cause death or injury. The added factor is the absence of a footpath and no room in which to place a footpath would mean that for any children in the proposed new housing a drive to school would be necessary, as walking down the hill would be far too dangerous. This in turn would compromise the autonomy of the children as they grow up and be contrary to the expectations and lifestyle that a child should enjoy in a village such as Flitton ie roaming and playing freely in our rich countryside.

Density and Settlement

Would not wish to see 20 -40 dwellings on this site as density would be far too high in outlying part of village. Will create built up first impression on entering Flitton and development would change the nature of the historic settlement pattern and also unnecessarily extend the village eastwards Site currently used for agriculture and would not want to lose Grade 2 agricultural land in this outlying part of the village

Landscape

The site is an open and elevated site which is exposed, and this could cause impacts in terms of wide reaching rural views and it would dominate over the west side of Flitton Hill Traffic Very busy minor (unclassified) country road with high volume traffic and high usage from HGV's and articulated lorries. Traffic calming measures already imposed to try to reduce speed. Poor visibility on the Hill where the additional access/egress will be and make already difficult vision, unsafe and likely to cause accident and injury There is no footpath on Flitton Hill meaning there is no safe access to the rest of the village

POINT 23 of the Assessment of this site -

'Relationship to Settlement 23 Would development of the site be complementary to the existing settlement pattern, and would it have an adverse impact on any historic, unique or distinctive characteristics of the settlement's built or natural form? G Whilst the site would extend the settlement eastwards, it would not vastly change the settlement pattern'

I disagree with the analysis in this case as the proposed site is entirely to the rear of longstanding development which is thereby different in nature to all that has gone on before in Flitton and as it is a very elevated site would have a distinct and high visual impact effect on the Village and changes the settlement pattern for ever.

Wildlife & Environment

There is a colony of tawny owls ( a protected species) that nest or breed in the sycamores down the footpath which no doubt would need to find a new home; the area since I have lived here since 1995 has been rich in bats due to the low settlement nature of the countryside and the tree cover attracting the bats food; the field in question is part of a continum of fields from Flitton Hill to the south - Flitton HIgh street to the west, down to the A507 and no real development to the Junction. This means we enjoy lots of skylarks, hare, deer and is countryside that should be preserved. It is also within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area.

Infrastructure

Local lower school is already at capacity and neither Flitwick middle school or Redborne upper school are in our catchment area. Children from F&G go to Arnold (Barton) then Harlington upper and the distance to get to these 2 schools is far greater than Flitwick and Ampthill. Also there is currently a threat to withdraw school coaches certainly to Arnold which would totally exacerbate the problem
The centre of Flitwick is well over 2 miles away in terms of supermarket and nearest health care services

PROPORTIONALITY

I am concerned that as we are a road of a limited number of dwellings particularly on the west side that it would be seen as a relatively low concern site - this is not the case. Of the five dwelling three of us object, one is under rebuild and not sure if they are hooked in sufficiently to object, and one is lived in and owned by [Information redacted]. All of us who are not related to the would be vendor of land - object - and will be communicating or feeding back that view, as well no doubt of other residents who live on the east side of the hill who will also be affected visually by the development looming over our road.
General points
Outside of the village development limit
Not brown site but good quality agricultural land which is currently leased to grow barley each year so in production
our services such as they are - one school - are already oversubscribed
Run off - during heavy rainfall we already experience problematic run off from the field above down to Flitton HIll through our gardens and drives, this would worsen if there was a development behind and cause erosion.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1540

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs N Thompson

Representation:

See major objections to site NLP 127 as above.

Full text:

NLP 127. I am amazed and shocked that this site is even being considered for development,and it most certainly isn't on the radar for our N.P.team - the draft of which is currently being written. Flitton is a small village which should be reflected in very limited growth and we are already constantly subjected to speculative and unsuitable planning applications.Flitton is in excess of 2 miles from Flitwick which is where the nearest facilities such as shops,doctors & dentists can be found.The buses in Flitton are infrequent at best and invariably are not where residents wish to go. As far as schools go,Greenfield Lower is full to capacity with no possibility of extending it any more.The assessment statement claims that the nearest middle school is Flitwick (correct) and the nearest upper school is Flitwick (incorrect as there is no upper school in Flitwick).Redborne in Ampthill is the nearest upper school. However these claims are irrelevant because the catchment for our children is via Arnold (Barton) middle school and Harlington upper school. Both Barton and Harlington are considerably further to travel. Also consideration is being given to withdrawing the bus service to Arnold. With regard to the site itself there are many reasons why it is palpably not suitable for development. It is currently a farming business and the field is often occupied by sheep and cows.Although it is mainly worked by a father and son there are on occasions casual contractors on the farm.Therefore it is not strictly correct to say that there is no employment connected with the proposed site.It is on a steep slope and would be overlooking the rear of existing houses in Flitton High St.One of the most worrying things though is that when the occupiers of one of these houses moved in some 2 years ago the pre purchase survey stated that there was a significant flood risk to their and their neighbour's properties as evidenced by a specific flood map from CBC. In fact they nearly withdrew from the purchase such was their concern. For the site assessment form to show a "G" meaning no assessment is required is therefore totally inaccurate and indeed irresponsible particularly as the stream at the bottom of the gardens in Flitton High St has on occasions flooded some of the gardens. Clearly if houses were to be built this would seriously exacerbate the situation with the run off from hard standing going direct into this stream. Houses along this road are primarily linear and any development of this field/site would most certainly change this pattern and would of course be backland as well as seriously overlooking existing properties. The traffic speeds along this stretch of the high st and sadly totally ignores the 30mph speed limit. Indeed the P.C.have spent a lot of parish money on traffic calming very close to the entrance to this site with only limited success. As it is the existing occupant has to edge very carefully out of his drive such is the speed of the vehicles. As for the possibility of access into Cobbett Lane this is both impractical and virtually impossible as a visit by highways would undoubtedly confirm. In addition to this the farmer owning this site does not even have his land adjoining this very minor narrow road.This site also abuts the Flitton conservation area and is relatively close to the mausoleum. We believe that the countryside in this area should be preserved as it is within the Greensand Ridge Nature improvement area. In summary therefore whilst appreciating the need for houses to be built in the Central Beds area (and even possibly in Flitton) we all truly believe that this is the most unsuitable of sites and we would urge you to remove it from the list of possible sites without delay. Thank you.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1596

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Gareth Ellis

Representation:

These two sites are not suitable for sustainable development. They are not a natural extension of the settlement of Flitton. They sit on top of a hill overlooking the conservation area and the Flit valley affecting important views. The nearest services are in Flitwick over 4 km away. There is no foot pavement on the nearest road which is a narrow unclassified country lane used a rat run with speeding traffic. The sites have been reviewed as part of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and rejected. A previous planning application on the sites was rejected on appeal.

Full text:

NLP203 and ALP240 are listed in Site Assessment Technical Document, Appendix D: Preliminary Site Assessment Results as being in Wardhedges Settlement. This is not correct. Flitton Hill is on the edge of Flitton Settlement.

Site Assessment Forms Flitton & Greenfield
ALP240 and NLP 203 Comments:
17 These sites have been reviewed as part of the emerging Flitton, Greenfield and Pulloxhill Neighbourhood Plan and rejected as not suitable for development.
18 There has been no consultation and the parish council opposes both these sites
23 These sites would extend the settlement envelope more to the North rather than the East. They would not relate well to the main settlement of Flitton being perched on top of the Hill above the conservation area. They will affect views of the church and also the Greensand Ridge.
25b The local catchment Middle School is in Barton
25c There is now Upper school in Flitwick. The catchment Upper School is in Harlington.
29 The access on to the road network is via a small unclassified country road which is already very busy and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Note access will not be easy with poor visibility and speeding traffic.
35 There is significant road noise from the A507 at the bottom of the hill.
37 The NLP 203 site sits on the hill above the conservation area affecting views of the church and the setting of the conservation area. Both sites would affect wider views of the Flit Valley and Greensand Ridge.
38 Flitton Hill is a fragment of Greensand on the opposite side of the Flit valley from the main Greensand Ridge. As such it has some geological significance. Which could be lost if the sites are developed.
39 The NLP 203 site impinges on a right of way.
41 An application was made for an irrigation shed, sitting within the site, to be converted into a house first as a normal planning application CB/15/00034/OUT which was rejected including rejection at appeal and then under Agricultural permitted development. This was also rejected as unsuitable.

Other comments
These two sites are not suitable for sustainable development. They are not a natural extension of the settlement of Flitton. The nearest services are in Flitwick over 4 km away. There is no foot pavement on the nearest road. The road is not suitable for pedestrians or cyclists and there are no bus services on Flitton Hill. The nearest bus stop for school transport is over 400 m away and other bus services are infrequent. Access for cars onto the road would be difficult given the limited visibility and speeding traffic.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1703

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Flitton & Greenfield Parish Council

Representation:

In support of our request to separate the three settlements in Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges, please find attached a re-worked matrix showing the results of three settlements which we hope you will take into account when making any decision on our comments

Full text:

In support of our request to separate the three settlements in Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges, please find attached a re-worked matrix showing the results of three settlements which we hope you will take into account when making any decision on our comments

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1778

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: mr Mark Austin

Representation:

Objection because
1) increase in traffic through the village
2) Nature and status of villages changed from small hamlet/villages.
3) Lack of/no local infrastructure to services
4) Local infrastructure not being able to cope with population increase.
5) Area of natural beauty/ wildlife being damaged.
6) impact on already stretched local services.
7) Increase of harmful emissions due to the increase of cars travelling through the villages.

Full text:

ALP240/NLP203 and surrounding areas.
I strongly feel that the development of areas within the villages of Flitton and Greenfield would be inappropriate and reckless. In particular, those adjacent to the hill in Flitton would seek to undo the work that local residents did to introduce traffic calming measures, including gathering evidence through the Community Speed Watch program. The villages and Flitton and Greenfield are being used as a convenient short cut route or 'rat run' and further development to the villages of Flitton and Greenfield (separate villages) would only undo existing work to improve the situation for residents. Using Siloe as a model, after extensive development which drastically changed to shape and nature of the village, new amenities and infrastructure had to put in place. The insertion of a leisure centre and additional school surely changed Siloe's status from a small attractive village. I certainly would not think this would be appropriate for Flitton and Greenfield. Many visitors come to enjoy the green sand church and the local Flitton Moor. Flitton and Greenfield has no shops, little in the way of employment opportunities and a popular, often oversubscribed school. Flitton and Greenfield are small settlements that back onto protected areas of moorland. I would be concerned what impact a large increase in population would have on the local animal life and environment. I do not object to the insertion of small 'infill' developments that enhance and strengthen the community. Having grown up in village that suffered from over-development and by observing the often reckless nature of development schemes, I am concerned that an area of natural beauty and one of the last genuine small hamlets that is left in the area will be dramatically changed and lost.
Furthermore, looking at the bigger picture, with a massive population increase in surrounding areas (developments in Flitwick, Ampthill and Maulden to name a few), how will the infrastructure cope? Over subscribed, popular, middle and secondary schools, doctor surgeries and dentists. Local residents will all need to access these critical services.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1934

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Jacqui Stevenson

Representation:

Objecting to NLP172, NLP449 & NLP353 due to the massive negative impact on the village of Flitton. Issues are increased traffic, harm to the character of the village, harm to wildlife, dangerous access road (NLP449), insufficient infrastructure to cope with any more houses & a strong desire to leave Flitton as a SMALL VILLAGE.

Full text:

OBJECTING
NLP172 - this site has undergone a planning application which residents fought hard, it went to appeal & planning was denied by the inspector. The character of the village would be affected, as would wildlife. I have seen brown hares in this field. It acts as a divide separating Flitton from Wardhedges. Traffic is a massive issue in the village, Silsoe Road is busy & cars travel fast. Flitton does not gave the infrastructure to support this development and being classed as a small village we do not need more infrastructure. This development should not be considered further.

OBJECTING
NLP449 - this land has recently been granted change of use to equestrian purposes. Residents were assured that this would not be an opening for development but here we are.... The access to the proposed site is dangerous, especially considering the new development already having received planning permission on Greenfield Road & it would be very close to The Hedgerows with just one house sitting in the middle of the two junctions; the additional traffic that would be expected to pull out onto Greenfield Road would be hazardous.

OBJECTING
NLP353 - this site is located in Pu.loxhill but would have little impact on that village, all impact would be felt by Flitton residents. This site is too close to Centenary Wood & would severely impact the nature of this woodland. Wildlife & flora are in abundance here, along with 3 ponds which are home to reptiles.

Flitton does not have space in the lower school for any more housing. Parking at the school is a severe problem already. The village's character would be harmed by more housing. Bus services are limited & frankly a waste of time for most residents. The construction of more housing will lead to more traffic & the infrastructure is not able to cope with more.
Flitton is a SMALL VILLAGE & I wish for it to remain so.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1935

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Jacqui Stevenson

Representation:

Objecting against NLP172, NLP449 and NLP353.
Comments were previously made under the heading "comments" but I wish my views to be lodged as an "objection

Full text:

Objecting against NLP172, NLP449 and NLP353.
Comments were previously made under the heading "comments" but I wish my views to be lodged as an "objection

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1942

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Julianne Wright

Representation:

Please see attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Full text:

Please see attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1943

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Graeme Wright

Representation:

Please find attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Full text:

Please find attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1944

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Miss Hannah Wright

Representation:

Please see attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Full text:

Please see attached documents outlining my objections to NLP203 and ALP240

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2327

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Woodland

Representation:

Plots NLP127 and NLP172 are adjacent to each other. Taken together could be a potential development of 130 dwellings, which is over 25% increase in the dwellings in Flitton. This is totally inappropriate for a small village.

Full text:

Plots NLP127 and NLP172 are adjacent to each other. Taken together could be a potential development of 130 dwellings, which is over 25% increase in the dwellings in Flitton. This is totally inappropriate for a small village.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2393

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr I. Clarke

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

This is an OBJECTION pursuant to NLP 172. The site clearly has some positive benefits and the appeal decision determined that no problem existed with education or surface water drainage. The land is owned by one person and that would consider a larger site and could offer further mitigation. No other technical impediment exists for development purposes.

Full text:

This is an OBJECTION pursuant to NLP 172. The site clearly has some positive benefits and the appeal decision determined that no problem existed with education or surface water drainage. The land is owned by one person and that would consider a larger site and could offer further mitigation. No other technical impediment exists for development purposes.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2400

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr I. Clarke

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

NLP 171. This was a site originally included in the SE, and then hastily taken out without any proper reference to the then local plan process (First Review Local Plan). When it was then included none of the criticisms now leveled were made. In simple terms it is well located and represents a rounding off of the settlement.

Full text:

NLP 171. This was a site originally included in the SE, and then hastily taken out without any proper reference to the then local plan process (First Review Local Plan). When it was then included none of the criticisms now leveled were made. In simple terms it is well located and represents a rounding off of the settlement.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2413

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr D Savage

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

NLP 052. This is a site that could provide some development as the conclusions comment. The form of development can be sensitive and the site is within the SE. The area is a garden area and laid to lawn and consequently no ecology issues will preclude development. The trees can be retained.

Whilst the lane is not built or designed to adoptable standards it should still be able to accommodate further residential development. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed no issue with education contributions.

Full text:

NLP 052. This is a site that could provide some development as the conclusions comment. The form of development can be sensitive and the site is within the SE. The area is a garden area and laid to lawn and consequently no ecology issues will preclude development. The trees can be retained.

Whilst the lane is not built or designed to adoptable standards it should still be able to accommodate further residential development. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed no issue with education contributions.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2542

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Holt

Representation:

ALP240

Full text:

ALP240

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2543

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Holt

Representation:

NLP203

Full text:

NLP203

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Holt

Representation:

ALP240

Full text:

ALP240

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Holt

Representation:

NLP203

Full text:

NLP203

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2764

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Brown

Representation:

NLP172
This site shows 20-90 dwellings in the draft local development plan, even though a more modest appliction for 18 dwellings was rejected on appeal.
Such a large development is entirely out of keeping with a "small" village, which is the current classification of Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges

Full text:

NLP172
This site shows 20-90 dwellings in the draft local development plan, even though a more modest appliction for 18 dwellings was rejected on appeal.
Such a large development is entirely out of keeping with a "small" village, which is the current classification of Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2788

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Brown

Representation:

NLP449
A development of 41 dwellings (CBC guidelines) for a "back fill" site is at variance with the "linear" nature of the village, would lead to much increased traffic congestion, apart from being outside the guidelines for a "small" village

Full text:

NLP449
A development of 41 dwellings (CBC guidelines) for a "back fill" site is at variance with the "linear" nature of the village, would lead to much increased traffic congestion, apart from being outside the guidelines for a "small" village

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2792

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Brown

Representation:

NLP203
At 43 Dwellings (CBC assessment) this site is much too large for a small village. Although it is on the edge of the settlement it is not well connected to it (no footways to Flitton Hill, which is steep), it would be in a conspicuous position on the crest of the hill. Entrance and egress to this site would add considerably to the traffic on Flitton Hill with a greatly increased risk of accidents, especially for children walking to the school.

Full text:

NLP203
At 43 Dwellings (CBC assessment) this site is much too large for a small village. Although it is on the edge of the settlement it is not well connected to it (no footways to Flitton Hill, which is steep), it would be in a conspicuous position on the crest of the hill. Entrance and egress to this site would add considerably to the traffic on Flitton Hill with a greatly increased risk of accidents, especially for children walking to the school.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2795

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Brown

Representation:

NLP171
though this site is not scheduled to go forward, it is worth pointing out that a significant proportion of this site was flooded when the River Flitt over- flowed some years ago, at a time when the footbridge at the end of Brook Lane was under water and impassable

Full text:

NLP171
though this site is not scheduled to go forward, it is worth pointing out that a significant proportion of this site was flooded when the River Flitt over- flowed some years ago, at a time when the footbridge at the end of Brook Lane was under water and impassable

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2800

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Brown

Representation:

General
In all the site assessments reference is made to "Flitwick has a middle school" and "Flitwick has an upper school" - the Upper School is Redborne School in Ampthill, and children from Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges do not go on to Flitwick when they leave Greenfield Academy but to Arnold School Barton then Harlingon Upper.

Full text:

General
In all the site assessments reference is made to "Flitwick has a middle school" and "Flitwick has an upper school" - the Upper School is Redborne School in Ampthill, and children from Flitton, Greenfield and Wardhedges do not go on to Flitwick when they leave Greenfield Academy but to Arnold School Barton then Harlingon Upper.