Langford

Showing comments and forms 1 to 25 of 25

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1429

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Messrs & Ms Lee & Mawson

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

We wish to submit an alternative, smaller site to that proposed within site NLP280. This new alternative site involves the residential development of part of the land which was put forward.

We believe this smaller section of land could form a logical extension to Langford and complete the built form pattern in the vicinity of the site.

We wish for the Council to consider this site further and welcome a further discussion in due course.

Full text:

We understand from the technical site assessment that site NLP280 (Land at Langford Triangle) has been dismissed as a potential site for allocation due to concerns over the impact that a site of the size proposed would have on the character and pattern of development of the village.
The land which is submitted as part of this representation formed part of NLP280. We believe this smaller section of land, surrounded by development on three sides, should be considered as a sensible extension to the existing built form of Langford. We wish for it to be considered on its own merits.
The site has its own access onto Station Road which can form a new access point into the proposed development. We have attached details of this access arrangement along with a site submission form to provide the Council will further information.

Attachments:

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1738

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: mr Rob Larman

Representation:

ALP451 Land at Loft Farm

This site offers additional benefits to enhancing the Council owned 3.2ha area around the riverbank. It is well related to the village and screened by existing mature tree lines. It is in a central part of the village allowing walking access to all major services. Access will be through an existing adopted road requiring no additional junctions onto Church Street. The site is an ideal soft extension to the village and has no impediments for releasing housing supply to small, medium or large developers in a 0-5 year timescale.

Full text:

ALP451 Land at Loft Farm

This site offers additional benefits to enhancing the Council owned 3.2ha area around the riverbank. It is well related to the village and screened by existing mature tree lines. It is in a central part of the village allowing walking access to all major services. Access will be through an existing adopted road requiring no additional junctions onto Church Street. The site is an ideal soft extension to the village and has no impediments for releasing housing supply to small, medium or large developers in a 0-5 year timescale.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: mr Rob Larman

Representation:

NLP280. This is a disproportionate size development area in the end of the village with least facilities. I envisage most new residents would drive and park at the School, village hall, shop, pub and other facilities at the Central North end of the village and drive through to Biggleswade. I recommend that any development be focussed nearer the main facilities and the northern/ central end of the village if the development is to be sustainable. I also urge for soft extensions to the village to be considered as these have least impact on existing residents.

Full text:

NLP280. This is a disproportionate size development area in the end of the village with least facilities. I envisage most new residents would drive and park at the School, village hall, shop, pub and other facilities at the Central North end of the village and drive through to Biggleswade. I recommend that any development be focussed nearer the main facilities and the northern/ central end of the village if the development is to be sustainable. I also urge for soft extensions to the village to be considered as these have least impact on existing residents.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2116

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Langford Triangle Owners Consortium

Agent: J & J Design

Representation:

The Site Assessment for the Langford Triangle (Reference NLP280) is seriously flawed for the detailed reasons set out. We promote the allocation of this site as a Housing Site which would complement and consolidate the existing pattern of development in Langford.

Full text:

The Site Assessment for the Langford Triangle (Reference NLP280) is seriously flawed. We respectfully draw attention to the following matters:

PROVISIONAL SITE CAPACITY

The grant of planning permission CB/15/02419/FULL reduces the Site Area to 8.74ha or thereabouts. The likely outturn from the site should be reduced to 160 units. This is clearly in excess of 10 dwellings.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The Shaping Central Bedfordshire Community Plan for Area 4 : Biggleswade, Edworth and Langford was published in July 2017. This records strong support for further development in the Langford Triangle.

SUSTAINABILITY OF STATEMENT

The proposal would NOT result in the loss of services and facilities. There is no public access to the proposed site and no public footpaths within the site.

RELATIONSHIP TO SETTLEMENT

The proposed site has never been identified as 'Important Green Space' and in particular is undesignated on the Langford Green Infrastructure Plan (April 2011) with the exception of limited areas described as 'Permanent Grasslands', some of which have been under arable cultivation.

The "triangle" has a limited public value and is largely inaccessible to the general public. Public views are limited to those from neighbouring properties and due to the local topography there are limited locations where the entire site can be seen. As noted above there is no public right of access and no public footpaths within the site.

AGRICULTURAL LAND QUALITY

The ALC Grade 3 is accepted. However, this observation fails to reflect NPPF paragraph 112 which advises a sequential approach to BMV. In the case of Langford, other surrounding areas are for the most part Grade 1 or Grade 2 with the exception of land adjoining the River Ivel. The Langford Triangle therefore represents the least valued agricultural land in and around the village.

Central Bedfordshire hosts around 80% of BMV and for this reason there is likely to be significant new development required on higher grade agricultural land. Allocation of this site would represent an opportunity to reduce the loss of Grade 1 or 2 land on alternative potential sites within the East Bedfordshire Corridor.

Ongoing active agricultural use of the proposed site is currently declining due to the general decline in local market gardening and the absence of a safe and convenient point of access for modern farm machinery, compounded by the multiple ownership of relatively small land parcels. These factors also limit the agricultural value of the proposed site.

ACCESSIBILITY TO ROAD NETWORK

It is accepted that the site is almost wholly landlocked. However, the landowners control three properties with direct frontages to Station Road, Cambridge Road and High Street.

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

The "triangle" is not identified in the LCA as 'unique' or 'crucial for landscape and townscape'. Landscape objections were put forward but were not given weight in the 2015 application for land north of Flexmore Way. This proposal would not represent "piecemeal" loss of land but would enable a landscape led approach to development without extending the village into true open countryside, whilst including local objectives as identified in the Langford Green Infrastructure Plan. It is misleading to refer to the "triangle" as "farmland". Only limited ongoing cultivation exists following the recent retirement of a local market gardener. The majority of the proposed site is now utilised as equestrian grassland.

The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) for Central Bedfordshire places Langford in the Upper Ivel Clay Valley - Type 4C. The LCA draws attention to the historic centres of fairly dense settlements including Langford. It goes on to draw attention to the traditional form of a number of Ends now joined together by buildings strung along roads. These include Water End, Flexmore End and Boot End. In each of these former 'Ends' there has been significant modern development including the current development east of Station Road and land north of Flexmore Way.

The LCA identifies features of past changes and potential future change. It is concluded that Langford has the capacity for further modest development to meet the ongoing needs of the district without contributing to major expansion of the settlement or coalescence with neighbouring villages and towns.

ECOLOGICAL ASSETS

Much of the land has been under active arable cultivation and market gardening with row crops and is largely devoid of internal hedgerows and other habitat as shown on the site photographs. The Ecological Appraisal dated October 2014 in support of the 2015 application found:

* Grassland generally species poor but some evidence of greater diversity including indicators of calcareous grassland and old hay meadow.
* One hedgerow of high conservation value.
* Records of protected species in the wider area but no significant impacts from the proposed development.
* Limited potential for bat roost in existing building.
* Evidence of hedgehog activity indicating need for permeable boundary features.

For all these reason, we do not anticipate high wildlife interest on the wider site.

OPEN SPACE/LEISURE AND GI ASSETS

The proposals will not conflict with any open space, leisure designations or Rights of Way. There is capacity to provide the required levels of open space and green infrastructure within the proposed development including local aspirations for open space/allotments and a play area, within the development. Langford Parish Council is on public record as supporting comprehensive development of the area in order to secure these local benefits.

CONCLUSION

We are promoting the allocation of this site as a Housing Site which would complement and consolidate the existing pattern of development in Langford.

The site is located on land at the rear of High Street, The Leys, Station Road, Cambridge Road, Whiteman Close, Bentley Close and Flexmore Way, Langford. The site comprises arable agricultural land and equestrian grassland. The proposed allocation will not involve 'significant development' of best and most versatile agricultural land and would not be contrary to NPPF Paragraph 112.

The site is outside but adjacent to the Settlement Envelope for the minor service centre of Langford. The site abuts the boundary of the Settlement Envelope on the north, south, east and west sides. The allocation of this site as a Housing Site would complement and consolidate the existing settlement pattern of Langford, allowing much needed housing provision together with public open space, allotments and other local facilities, to meet the ongoing housing requirements without intrusion into open countryside and any associated coalescence of settlements.

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2247

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Julian Vaughan

Representation:

ALP 132

I note the above assessment form states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development itself,I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Full text:

ALP 132

I note the above assessment form states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development itself,I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2248

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Julian Vaughan

Representation:

ALP 071

I note the related assessment forms to this development (ALP 132 which is the same plot of land) states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development,I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Full text:

ALP 071

I note the related assessment forms to this development (ALP 132 which is the same plot of land) states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development,I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2249

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Julian Vaughan

Representation:

NLP 066

I note the related assessment forms to this development (ALP 132 which is the same plot of land) states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development, I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Full text:

NLP 066

I note the related assessment forms to this development (ALP 132 which is the same plot of land) states "modest development could complement adjacent residential closes"

While I have no objection to any proposed development, I would strongly object to any road access to Cambridge Way for two reasons:
1 - The road is not suitable for increased traffic levels.
2 - The detrimental impact to the quality of life in what is a quiet cul-de-sac.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2430

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: mrs kylie bolland

Representation:

We brought our house and was told the land would never be built on so reject to this site 😡😡😡😡 why not use derelict land not green land

Full text:

We brought our house and was told the land would never be built on so reject to this site 😡😡😡😡 why not use derelict land not green land

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2433

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Tom Bolland

Representation:

I brought my house on the grounds the land behind wouldn't would never be built on as it's green land so I strongly object 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 isn't 4 new sites in langford enough x

Full text:

I brought my house on the grounds the land behind wouldn't would never be built on as it's green land so I strongly object 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 isn't 4 new sites in langford enough x

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2944

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Rosetone Michelle Goodley

Representation:

THE ROAD ACCESS FOR THIS SITE IS TOTALLY UNSUITABLE AND WOULD CAUSE MAJOR PROBLEMS FOR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE HOME OWNERS ON THE ESTATE.

THE VILLAGE ROADS CANNOT ACCOMMODATE MORE VEHICLES WITHOUT MAJOR CHANGES.

Full text:

NLP302
We strongly object to the Planning of Building houses on this Agricultural Land.

Langford Village has seen many houses built over the past year, some still in the completion stages. The village does not accommodate enough facilities at present just as schooling, leisure, doctors, roads, cycle paths and other amenities that would be required if the Village were to grow further.

The road access on this particular site is completely unacceptable for the number of homes proposed. It would be impossible for the emergency services to access the houses proposed.

The infrastructure of the surrounding roads in and out of Langford, particularly from the A1 slip road and the route through Henlow via the A505 are already both bottle necked every morning and evening and both are now experiencing higher levels of accidents.

It is already very difficult to receive a doctors appointment at the Langford or Biggleswade Surgeries.

There is already over capacity at the local Nursery school and no other schools in the Village.

The Village is changing beyond all recognition and the people in the village are very concerned about the amount of housing development at present, further housing will bring lots of traffic problems in the small, winding roads, which are already treacherous for the current vehicles passing through.

The proposed land has many wild life currently living or passing through, such as bats, foxes, jack deers, badgers and many different birds, including owls, herons, sparrows hawks and others. Building on this land would endanger these animals and birds.

WE STRONGLY OBLECT TO THE PLANNING ON THIS SITE.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3229

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Taryn Doe

Representation:

Langford is a lovely village surrounded by productive agricultural Land it is a shame the the plans are aimed at taking up the this valuable assets and changing the shape and feel of Langford. I strongly object to this proposed development and feel that the village has had it's fair amount of development.

Full text:

NLP302 Land reached by narrow track from Church Street behind Garfield.

As a resident of Garfield we enjoy the view over the prime agricultural land to our east and overlook the closely placed wind farm and nearby railway line. The proposed plans in the future potential develop, this site would greatly infringe on our development and would lower the value of our and many other properties along the east border of Garfield.

This would also change the linear shape of he village which meanders with the river Ivel at it's hub. Langford is currently under development with 110 new family homes being erected in Station Road. That is potentially another 220 new children to feed into the already full Langford Lower School which my children attend. In my opinion and a long standing member of the PTA at Langford School there is not room to house this number of children without building a new School. The School playing field is not big enough to expand on the current site. As a previous member of the only pre-school in the village - Owlets. This runs at capacity and is not housed in the most suitable building where it lets the room at the Methodist Church. It certainly does not have room for and influx of pre- School children.

There has also been another approved site of 42 family homes to infill at Flexmore Way which is due to get underway shortly.

Henlow middle School being the feeder middle School for Langford is also at capacity and they are currently building to take children from the Stotfold area due to the massive building overflow there and the lack of space at Etonbury Academy.

Langford does not have a fully functional doctor surgery at its very small premises adjacent to the lower school. As far as I know it only opens on a part time basis with the majority of the village attending the busy surgeries of Biggleswade.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3297

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Dr John Goodall

Representation:

NLP302 and NLP019
Detrimental impact on rural character of the neighbourhood of such a large development
Development on sites would unacceptably affect light levels and privacy of houses backing area
Development would damage habitat of a wide range of wildlife.
Access to these sites not adequate.
Local amenities and infrastructure would be unreasonably stretched by developments
Area highlighted during conveyancing as high risk of flooding from ground water and surface water.
In practice NLP302 and NLP019 are so close that if building on both sites occurred it would essentially be one large development so should be viewed in this light.

Full text:

From a holistic perspective I would like to object to the planned development areas on the basis that the amount of land being proposed for development is wholly disproportionate to that which the village can sustain and still maintain its small, rural character. Many people, including myself, came to Langford because of the opportunity to live in a small community which had not been urbanised. Completing the development as planned, would completely change this and put unreasonable pressure on a village whose amenities (e.g. roads, schools, shops, GPs) are already stretched. Expanding the Biggleswade footprint to accommodate Langford's needs, somewhat misses the point of living in a small, self-contained Village, like Langford.

In addition to this general comment, I object in the stingiest possible terms to the proposed NLP302 and NLP019 sites.
NLP302 & NLP019

Detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood: The current setting of the neighbouring properties is in farmland and open countryside is in keeping with the small, rural character of the village. Large-scale development of this land and the associated increase in noise and visual impact of development would completely change the environs of neighbouring properties and such as this would be wholly out of keeping with the landscape in this area.

Light levels: Given the fact that this is open farmland currently, any large scale housing development on this site would unacceptably affect the light levels of the houses backing on to the area in Garfield.

Privacy: Building to the side and behind number 19 Garfield, and to the back of the other houses in Garfield, would lead to a total and unreasonable loss of privacy especially given the size of the development.

Environmental impact: Building on this area would significantly alter a habitat which is frequented by a wide range of wildlife including Muntjac Deer; Skylarks, which are presumed to nest in this area as they have been see for the last 3 years in the field; bats, which are seen frequently; barn owls and a range of other birds of prey which are see regularly; and migrating geese, which use the field as a resting place. I dispute the claim therefore in 'section 38 - ecological assets', that there would be an 'opportunity for enhancement'. I do not see how this could be.

Access: Access to this site is not adequate. Gurneys lane is small and the entrance is opposite the recreation area, so there are a lot of children walking in this area. The addition of a large amount of additional traffic along this section of the high street, which is already hugely busy at peak times would pose a significant risk to the pedestrians.

Local Amenities. The local amenities and infrastructure is already stretched and the proposed development would be an unreasonable stretch to this. The village amenities are sufficient (but none-the-less stretched already) for the small village that Langford is, further large scale development such as that proposed would render these completely lacking and unsustainable. The roads are in an atrocious state due to the increased traffic already in the village, the local GPs and dentists are stretched and the schools, especially upper and middle, could not take further students.

Flooding: The site assessment suggests there is not no issue with flooding and no further need for assessment. I dispute this based on the comprehensive flood survey which I instructed to be performed when purchasing my property, which backs on to this area. The area was highlighted as potentially high risk of flooding from both ground water and surface water. Building on this area would presumably only make a=matters worse and so should be further investigated.

Creeping: While the NLP302 and NLP019 are separated, in practice they are so close that if building on both sites occurred it would essentially be one large development, rather than the two smaller ones. The planning for these sites needs to be considered in this context therefore (e.g. as one large development), rather than individually. In addition, the central part of the site which is not included in the current plans, would be more likely to be built on making the site even more unacceptable.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3347

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Semple

Representation:

NLP 302
Key objections:-
1) Existing access to proposed development is via narrow residential roads (Prospect Rd and Gurneys Lane) would be highly disruptive to local residents during construction stage, unsustainable for number of dwellings proposed and potentially dangerous.
2) A new junction would need to be created on Church street if access via Gurney's lane. There seems to be no plan for this.
3) Local infrastructure in terms of middle and upper schools will be unable to cope.
4) Official submission state's Curneys Lane as part of address. This lane does not exist on any map.

Full text:

NLP 302
Key objections:-
1) Existing access to proposed development is via narrow residential roads (Prospect Rd and Gurneys Lane) would be highly disruptive to local residents during construction stage, unsustainable for number of dwellings proposed and potentially dangerous.
2) A new junction would need to be created on Church street if access via Gurney's lane. There seems to be no plan for this.
3) Local infrastructure in terms of middle and upper schools will be unable to cope.
4) Official submission state's Curneys Lane as part of address. This lane does not exist on any map.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3604

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Miss Victoria Wrighton

Representation:

Concerns over the pressures that a massively increased population in Langford would have on already stretched local amenities and transport links.
Serious concerns over the consideration of greenfield sites for development, and the detrimental impact this would have on local countryside and associated ecology. The redevelopment of brownfield sites should be considered as the more sustainable option which would have lesser impact on environment and local residents.
Particular concerns over proposed site NLP302 which would develop grade 1 agricultural land, has very limited site access, and would be extremely close to existing wind farm, which CBC previously expressed concerns over.

Full text:

NLP302

I have lived in Langford for 10 years and was a Biggleswade resident before that. After reading through the CBC draft local plans I am extremely concerned about the level of proposed development of Biggleswade and surrounding villages, particularly Langford.

Langford has, in the last few years, had a strongly opposed wind farm installed and is currently undergoing four housing developments, including the very large David Wilson development off Station Road. The basic amenities in the village will already be stretched before any of the proposed developments from this local plan go ahead. Langford residents will turn to facilities in Biggleswade, which itself has recently undergone massive expansion and, even with new amenities such as the A1 retail park, are already at maximum capacity.

Travel links are also a concern, with London train services, station parking and the A1 already struggling to handle current demand, let alone the influx of commuting residents these proposed residential developments will attract.

My main concern about the sites proposed in Langford is the loss of local countryside and the associated ecology the land supports. I am extremely concerned that the development of greenfield sites is being considered before the redevelopment of brownfield sites and derelict land. I understand CBC is under pressure to implement new housing sites within 5 years and that building on greenfield sites is the easiest and quickest option, however I don't believe it is a sustainable choice, and basically only serves to increase the profits of the potential building companies.
I live on the estate of Garfield which was built 10 years ago, and as I understand redeveloped derelict farm buildings and grade 1 contaminated land. Now I appreciate that this would have been time consuming and costly but I think that this type of development puts land back into use and has a lesser impact on the environment, compared to developing virgin greenfield land. As a community we need to value our local productive arable land, and as we move into the unknown after Brexit, we need to know we have good land available for self sufficient arable production.

The site which causes me the most concern, obviously for personal reasons, is site NLP302 which is located off Gurneys Lane and Prospects Road. This would be located in the farmland which my property backs onto. When I purchased the property I was told this was greenbelt land and wouldn't ever be considered for development, I was shocked to discover that this is not the case. I have purchased my property hoping to raise a future family in the peace and seclusion that backing onto farmland offers. Other than my own personal concerns, I would also be concerned for future residents if the site was developed with it being so very close to the wind farm. Now when the wind farm was being proposed I understand CBC opposed the plans with concerns about how close the turbines where to residences, I am surprised to discover now these concerns seem to have been discarded in favour of this easy to develop greenfield site. Lastly the access to the site seems very limited with only the narrow track of Gurneys Lane offering access, this would have a massive detrimental impact on the properties currently either side of this quiet lane, suddenly having regular traffic passing by their homes.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3700

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Alison Allen

Representation:

Access to the proposed site - access route, volume of traffic, access at school drop off / pick up time

Full text:

NLP302
As a resident of Church Street, Langford, I am concerned about the prospect of additional housing spreading north from the current Garfield development, especially NLP302. I am particularly concerned about access to and from the site - Gurneys Lane is currently a narrow farm track and access through Garfield would increase traffic flow through an already crowded estate. They are often 'near misses' at the mini roundabout where Garfield meets Church Street and the chances of more accidents at that spot would be greater if more traffic was to use that road as access to any new houses. Parking along Church Street at school drop off and pick up time is already terrible, so extra cars attempting to leave from Gurneys Lane is again, an accident waiting to happen as visibility, both of traffic and children is bad when cars are parked along the length of the road.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3899

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Trevor

Representation:

NLP302
My family and I live in Garfield behind the proposed site. We will be overlooked by the new houses; lose daylight due to additional buildings; increase in noise; what consideration has there been to the additional people coming to the village, including the preschool, primary school, health system, roads to name a few.
Part of the reason for purchasing our property was the beautiful view, which will disappear completely should a new housing site be built.
In addition we were not informed about the proposed site by Central Beds or the Parish Council.

Full text:

NLP302
My family and I live in Garfield behind the proposed site. We will be overlooked by the new houses; lose daylight due to additional buildings; increase in noise; what consideration has there been to the additional people coming to the village, including the preschool, primary school, health system, roads to name a few.
Part of the reason for purchasing our property was the beautiful view, which will disappear completely should a new housing site be built.
In addition we were not informed about the proposed site by Central Beds or the Parish Council.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3927

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr David Morris

Representation:

General concerns raised plus items specific to site NLP302:
- Local transport infrastructure inadequate
- Local services (shops, schools, GPs) unable to support growth
- Loss of Grade 1 agricultural
- Road/access to some of the sites is limited

Full text:

In general I understand and appreciate the need to plan for new housing, however the sites in Langford raise a few concerns, as below:
- Local travel infrastructure would be adversely impacted unless additional investment is made (eg local road traffic, local bus service and links to A1 from Langford)
- Potential significant increase in the size of the Langford village which will impact the quality of'village life',and increase the reliance upon Biggleswade services (schools, GPs, shopps etc)

With regards to the proposed NLP302 site specifically:
- There appear to be limited options for road access to this site that may impinge on local residents driveways
- Significant distance from railway station (with limited local bus service to/from Biggleswade)
- Local lower school capacity not able to support this, limited nearby middle/upper school capacity
- Greenfield site, would result in loss of 'grade 1' agricultural land

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3953

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Tony Trevor

Representation:

NLP302

I have serious concerns over the pressures that a massively increased population in Langford would have on already stretched local amenities and traffic flow through the village. Why
are greenfield areas being considered for development?

Full text:

NLP302

I have serious concerns over the pressures that a massively increased population in Langford would have on already stretched local amenities and traffic flow through the village. Why
are greenfield areas being considered for development?

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4863

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Stephen Anderson

Representation:

NLP302 - Langford:

concerns over development on site affecting existing dwellings.

Full text:

I object to Ref` NLP302 Land off Prospect Road and Gurneys Lane.

Will the proposed development 'fit in' with my neighbourhood?
Will the proposed development overshadow my windows?
Are there any windows that overlook my property?
* How far is the proposed dwelling setback from my boundary/dwelling?
* How would the proposal look from my property?
* Can I see the proposal from my property?
* How will the additional noise from the development be managed?
Should the local residents who are directly affected by the proposal have been informed directly. My first realization of this proposal were via a concerned neighbour?
Would it not make sense to submit plans of the development prior to consultation?
What impact will this proposal have on the local school and doctors?
What impact will this have on village traffic, whilst being developed and the long-term effect?

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4987

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Langford Triangle Owners Consortium

Agent: J & J Design

Representation:

NLP280

site capacity should be reduced to 160,
community plan for Area 4 shows strong support for Langford Triangle,
would not impact on sustainability, no loss of services (possibly a typo),
is not identified as important green open space,
GRade 3 land is acceptable for development,
properties can be demolished to allow access,
would not represent loss of valued landscape,
devoid of internal hedgerows and other habitats

Full text:

The Site Assessment for the Langford Triangle (Reference NLP280) is seriously flawed. We respectfully draw attention to the following matters:

PROVISIONAL SITE CAPACITY

The grant of planning permission CB/15/02419/FULL reduces the Site Area to 8.74ha or thereabouts. The likely outturn from the site should be reduced to 160 units. This is clearly in excess of 10 dwellings.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The Shaping Central Bedfordshire Community Plan for Area 4 : Biggleswade, Edworth and Langford was published in July 2017. This records strong support for further development in the Langford Triangle.

SUSTAINABILITY OF STATEMENT

The proposal would NOT result in the loss of services and facilities. There is no public access to the proposed site and no public footpaths within the site.

RELATIONSHIP TO SETTLEMENT

The proposed site has never been identified as 'Important Green Space' and in particular is undesignated on the Langford Green Infrastructure Plan (April 2011) with the exception of limited areas described as 'Permanent Grasslands', some of which have been under arable cultivation.

The "triangle" has a limited public value and is largely inaccessible to the general public. Public views are limited to those from neighbouring properties and due to the local topography there are limited locations where the entire site can be seen. As noted above there is no public right of access and no public footpaths within the site.

AGRICULTURAL LAND QUALITY

The ALC Grade 3 is accepted. However, this observation fails to reflect NPPF paragraph 112 which advises a sequential approach to BMV. In the case of Langford, other surrounding areas are for the most part Grade 1 or Grade 2 with the exception of land adjoining the River Ivel. The Langford Triangle therefore represents the least valued agricultural land in and around the village.

Central Bedfordshire hosts around 80% of BMV and for this reason there is likely to be significant new development required on higher grade agricultural land. Allocation of this site would represent an opportunity to reduce the loss of Grade 1 or 2 land on alternative potential sites within the East Bedfordshire Corridor.

Ongoing active agricultural use of the proposed site is currently declining due to the general decline in local market gardening and the absence of a safe and convenient point of access for modern farm machinery, compounded by the multiple ownership of relatively small land parcels. These factors also limit the agricultural value of the proposed site.

ACCESSIBILITY TO ROAD NETWORK

It is accepted that the site is almost wholly landlocked. However, the landowners control three properties with direct frontages to Station Road, Cambridge Road and High Street.

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

The "triangle" is not identified in the LCA as 'unique' or 'crucial for landscape and townscape'. Landscape objections were put forward but were not given weight in the 2015 application for land north of Flexmore Way. This proposal would not represent "piecemeal" loss of land but would enable a landscape led approach to development without extending the village into true open countryside, whilst including local objectives as identified in the Langford Green Infrastructure Plan. It is misleading to refer to the "triangle" as "farmland". Only limited ongoing cultivation exists following the recent retirement of a local market gardener. The majority of the proposed site is now utilised as equestrian grassland.

The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) for Central Bedfordshire places Langford in the Upper Ivel Clay Valley - Type 4C. The LCA draws attention to the historic centres of fairly dense settlements including Langford. It goes on to draw attention to the traditional form of a number of Ends now joined together by buildings strung along roads. These include Water End, Flexmore End and Boot End. In each of these former 'Ends' there has been significant modern development including the current development east of Station Road and land north of Flexmore Way.

The LCA identifies features of past changes and potential future change. It is concluded that Langford has the capacity for further modest development to meet the ongoing needs of the district without contributing to major expansion of the settlement or coalescence with neighbouring villages and towns.

ECOLOGICAL ASSETS

Much of the land has been under active arable cultivation and market gardening with row crops and is largely devoid of internal hedgerows and other habitat as shown on the site photographs. The Ecological Appraisal dated October 2014 in support of the 2015 application found:

* Grassland generally species poor but some evidence of greater diversity including indicators of calcareous grassland and old hay meadow.
* One hedgerow of high conservation value.
* Records of protected species in the wider area but no significant impacts from the proposed development.
* Limited potential for bat roost in existing building.
* Evidence of hedgehog activity indicating need for permeable boundary features.

For all these reason, we do not anticipate high wildlife interest on the wider site.

OPEN SPACE/LEISURE AND GI ASSETS

The proposals will not conflict with any open space, leisure designations or Rights of Way. There is capacity to provide the required levels of open space and green infrastructure within the proposed development including local aspirations for open space/allotments and a play area, within the development. Langford Parish Council is on public record as supporting comprehensive development of the area in order to secure these local benefits.

CONCLUSION

We are promoting the allocation of this site as a Housing Site which would complement and consolidate the existing pattern of development in Langford.

The site is located on land at the rear of High Street, The Leys, Station Road, Cambridge Road, Whiteman Close, Bentley Close and Flexmore Way, Langford. The site comprises arable agricultural land and equestrian grassland. The proposed allocation will not involve 'significant development' of best and most versatile agricultural land and would not be contrary to NPPF Paragraph 112.

The site is outside but adjacent to the Settlement Envelope for the minor service centre of Langford. The site abuts the boundary of the Settlement Envelope on the north, south, east and west sides. The allocation of this site as a Housing Site would complement and consolidate the existing settlement pattern of Langford, allowing much needed housing provision together with public open space, allotments and other local facilities, to meet the ongoing housing requirements without intrusion into open countryside and any associated coalescence of settlements.

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5050

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Messrs & Ms Lee & Mawson

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

NLP280

Please see attached documents for information regarding a smaller site submission to NLP280

Full text:

We understand from the technical site assessment that site NLP280 (Land at Langford Triangle) has been dismissed as a potential site for allocation due to concerns over the impact that a site of the size proposed would have on the character and pattern of development of the village.
The land which is submitted as part of this representation formed part of NLP280. We believe this smaller section of land, surrounded by development on three sides, should be considered as a sensible extension to the existing built form of Langford. We wish for it to be considered on its own merits.
The site has its own access onto Station Road which can form a new access point into the proposed development. We have attached details of this access arrangement along with a site submission form to provide the Council will further information.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5358

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Anderson

Representation:

Re NLP302 Land off Prospect Road and Gurneys Lane.

Full text:

I strongly object to Ref` NLP302 Land off Prospect Road and Gurneys Lane.

Will the proposed development 'fit in' with my neighbourhood?
Will the proposed development overshadow my windows?
Are there any windows that overlook my property?
* How far is the proposed dwelling setback from my boundary/dwelling?
* How would the proposal look from my property?
* Can I see the proposal from my property?
* How will the additional noise from the development be managed?
Should the local residents who are directly affected by the proposal have been informed directly. My first realization of this proposal were via a concerned neighbour?
Would it not make sense to submit plans of the development prior to consultation?
What impact will this proposal have on the local school and doctors?
What impact will this have on village traffic, whilst being developed and the long-term effect?

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6352

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Chase New Homes

Representation:

NLP302
Available now
Suitable location
Achievable
Realistic prospect of being delivered in 5 years
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6728

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Warden Developments Limited

Representation:

NLP143 The site has passed the various assessment stages and could assist in delivering the parish aims of enhanced riverside green infrastructure. It would also deliver further specialised elderly persons housing, the section of the housing market in greatest demand. There are no constraints, only benefits to the allocation of this site.
NLP144 Should new development be favoured within Langford, as Officers have assessed this site forms a logical extension of the settlement and would have little or no adverse landscape impacts. We seek the allocation of the site to provide new residential development in the coming plan period.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6832

Received: 24/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Eric Large

Representation:

NLP302
Error with site name - Should be Gurney's Lane

Full text:

NLP302 Curneys Lane should read Gurneys Lane site map out of date as it shows our property included as part of site submitted. Site assessment deems the access 'not ideal' and quotes a possible access via Gurneys Lane, a single track lane between existing houses which cannot be widened. A 5' deep ditch runs the length of the track for land drainage. Last bus Biggleswade to Langford leaves 18.31 doesn't cater for commuters from London, leading to increases in traffic. Doctors surgery only open 8.30 to 11.30 and does not offer full service. School places limited. Noise from railway line.