Lidlington

Showing comments and forms 1 to 28 of 28

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 556

Received: 07/08/2017

Respondent: Mr D Copeman

Representation:

See attached letter

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 560

Received: 07/08/2017

Respondent: Andrew Penn

Representation:

It makes no sense whatsoever that you are taking forward NLP482 to the next stage as 1 of 207 from the original 851 submissions. You are proposing 5000 new homes in the Parish in your 4 new villages so why put forward a wholly unsuitable further site? Planning permission has already been refused for this site for very good reasons - it is outside the settlement envelope and access is impossible via a narrow track part owned by Network Rail who are in the process of upgrading the line.

Full text:

It makes no sense whatsoever that you are taking forward NLP482 to the next stage as 1 of 207 from the original 851 submissions. You are proposing 5000 new homes in the Parish in your 4 new villages so why put forward a wholly unsuitable further site? Planning permission has already been refused for this site for very good reasons - it is outside the settlement envelope and access is impossible via a narrow track part owned by Network Rail who are in the process of upgrading the line.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 567

Received: 07/08/2017

Respondent: Andrew Penn

Representation:

Taking forward NLP103 makes even less sense than NLP482. All the arguments I used there pertain to this site equally if not more. Adjacent to the settlement envelope means outside! Access to this site just is not feasible. The proposal for 65 dwellings for the 2 sites is completely unworkable. Not only are there access problems but the infrastructure in terms of roads, healthcare etc is simply inadequate. The assessment of this proposal section 21 is disingenuous to say the least. Since April 2016 a further 50+ dwellings are either underway or planned making the real current growth >10%.

Full text:

Taking forward NLP103 makes even less sense than NLP482. All the arguments I used there pertain to this site equally if not more. Adjacent to the settlement envelope means outside! Access to this site just is not feasible. The proposal for 65 dwellings for the 2 sites is completely unworkable. Not only are there access problems but the infrastructure in terms of roads, healthcare etc is simply inadequate. The assessment of this proposal section 21 is disingenuous to say the least. Since April 2016 a further 50+ dwellings are either underway or planned making the real current growth >10%.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 576

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs T Jepp

Representation:

Lidlington again affected by development proposals
Concerns over Convanta
Impact on residents who prefer village life and charm
Fairer distribution of sites needed

Full text:

I have just visited your local consultation at Marston where by the looks of the plans one of the 4 villages affected by these mindless plans is once again LIDLINGTON. We get rid of the sulphur fumes from the chimneys, we then have Covanta arriving with a so called enormous chimney polluting the air. An attempt
to build 15000 new houses anywhere between Cranfield + Lidlington engulfing our lakes and as it is we have had 2 more new estates built within Lidlington boundries, (Has someone on the council got a grudge against our at present beautiful village). The excuse ive been given is its near the motorway,Railway and a canal system is being built in the future. What about the occupants of our village who bought their houses to get away from mass housing less rubbish, less noise and less crime. Appreciating more houses are required you might consider a fairer distribution of your plans to build. A RStropolis is not what we moved here for and your plans WILL destroy the villages charm,expect a large number of complaints and dont ignore them as they are relevant.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 589

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Linda Cray

Representation:

Not viable for development. This is a village not a town.

Full text:

NLP482
There is an inadequate road to this site, it is just a bridleway. Bye Road already has traffic problems and already services traffic from Chiltern Close, Bye Road Close and Whitehall, as well as servicing their own needs. When the Network rail line gets going and downtime wait is longer for the crossing gates this will lead to a serious build up of traffic from all ways. If development goes ahead with a further twenty houses this will cause even more problems. Putting more houses in an already busy area is just not viable. Our village does not have the amenities for more housing. Doctors surgeries are already struggling and it is difficult to get appointments.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1542

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Robert Booth

Representation:

I am objecting to how the stage assessment against the coalescence criteria has been done. If it was applied cumulatively (to the whole Marston Vale proposal)it would not pass this criteria surely?

Full text:

I am objecting to the way in which the site assessments for Lidlington have been done. One of the restrictions on development is to prevent or manage coalescence between villages & towns. What you have done here is to score each parcel of development land separately which then pass the stage assessment either as having no impact or capable of being managed via 'buffers. But of the effect of the total cumulative development would guarantee coalescence between Lidlingon, Marston and Brogborough. It would surely be impossible to effectively screen 4 development sites involving 5,000 properties within the development area available let alone between them and neighbouring villages. I don't see how that can be deemed to pass the coalescence criteria?

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2453

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Micheal Copperwheat

Representation:

Our view on the planning proposals for Lidliington will change the whole concept of living in a village.The beautifull views over greensand ridge and the home of abundant wildlife and rare bats would be destroyed also the poor access to the village would become more dangerous than at present local infrastructure is never carried out as planners and building companies promise on the applications on bye road also poor access and children crossing for school has to be taken into account .

Full text:

Our view on the planning proposals for Lidliington will change the whole concept of living in a village.The beautifull views over greensand ridge and the home of abundant wildlife and rare bats would be destroyed also the poor access to the village would become more dangerous than at present local infrastructure is never carried out as planners and building companies promise on the applications on bye road also poor access and children crossing for school has to be taken into account .

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2605

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Neil Dixon

Representation:

NLP370 - Impact on infrastructure, green character of area and local services.

Full text:

NLP370 1 - I feel a site of this size would impact too much on the road infrastructure. M1 / A421 are already have too much traffic to handle during work travel times. Without other forms of transport such as rail, cycle lanes or an expansion of the existing road network I feel the impact would be too significant in terms of pollution and viability to travel between MK, Bedford and Cambridge. The village roads are also under too greater strain. E.g. the crossing in Marston Moretaine, and the roundabouts near the Hotel/ Shell Garage in Marston Moretaine. 2 - The adverse effect on the Marston Vale trail and local green area would detriment the look and character which is what makes the area so attractive to live in the first place. The large quantity of visitors to Marston Vale country park indicates that more green space is needed, not less. 3- Also the impact on local services would be significant as the houses are being constructed. Doctors for example are already oversubscribed, meaning significant time in getting an appointment. Until further schools, doctors are in place for the developed land it would have a greater impact on these services. 4 - From
my observations of houses built in Wootton, Marston and Lidlington and elsewhere they seem to be detached, double fronted houses. Whilst this is good if you have a large family, want a return for your house built, surely it would meet the quota of houses in less space if the land was also developed with a greater mix of terraced, town houses?

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2827

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Miss Amanda Clawson

Representation:

I object to Lidlington being expanded due to the fact that the area which is proposed for development is a haven for wildlife. The following can be found in all of the current countryside surrounding Lidlington. Deers, foxes, badgers, bats, red kites, buzzards, frogs, toads, newts expanding the village with new homes would drive out these species.

Full text:

I object to Lidlington being expanded due to the fact that the area which is proposed for development is a haven for wildlife. The following can be found in all of the current countryside surrounding Lidlington. Deers, foxes, badgers, bats, red kites, buzzards, frogs, toads, newts expanding the village with new homes would drive out these species.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2893

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: miss sharon bissessar

Representation:

I object to building in Lidlington, on social, economic and environmental grounds. The consultation is flawed and presented in a way to deter residents from easy access to clear facts and data.
Existing infrastructure in CBC is already stretched, hospitals, GP surgeries etc
The plans for a new infrastructure to support new villages is not robust, or costed.
The impact on Lidlington, noise, pollution, light pollution, increased traffic, obstructed views, increased noise levels, etc will be too detrimental to accept.
The proposal is in conflict with our nature conservation strategy.

Full text:

For all of the reasons below I object to development on

* Westmead Farm (ALPO87);
* Land north of Sheep Tick End (ALP215)
* Land at Marston Road Lidlington (AL415)
* Land at Greensand Ridge, Lidlington (ALP344)
* Land off Marston Road (NLP080)
* Land at Lidlington (NLP103
* Land at Marston Road, Lidlington (NLP121)
* Land at Boughton End Farm (NLP177)
* Upper Great Farm, Bury Ware Lidlington (NLP256)
* Marston Valley (NLP379)
* Land south of Marston Moretaine (NLP372)
* Copemans Field (NLP482)

Retention of the natural environment:

According to Wikipedia "Lidlington is a small village and civil parish in Central Bedfordshire, England surrounded by farmland, in the Marston Vale. The hamlets of Boughton End and Thrupp End are also part of the parish." Surrounded by farmland is what I would urge you to remember. Not villages, or a waterpark, but farmland. I object to the site Assessment framework for Lidlington.
Whatever CBC choses to do in this area it should be doing everything possible to preserve this description. The argument put forward by CBC that the area will still be 84% country side in 20 years' time does not wash. This particular part of CBC meaning the Marston Vale will not be 84% countryside if you insist on building a high tech business park, 5,000 homes, schools, cafes, etc. The proposals CBC makes include green open space within the new villages, and tree planting for the Forest of Marston Vale. I'm happy to say, green open spaces already exist, and we plant regularly in our Forest, therefore your proposal is weak and invalid.
I moved to Lidlington just under 2 years ago. At the time, I was not aware of previous similar proposals. My reason for moving was to invest in a healthier, safer and more rural lifestyle. To enjoy the quiet countryside, the views, and good air quality. I fully appreciate that development will happen in some areas, but really expected CBC to protect rural England as much as reasonably possible. If an area is a known as a small village why would CBC seek to expand, change, diversify and spoil it, when it seems to me to be simpler and more cost effective to do so in areas already populated, and with the infrastructure to support more people? If the proposal goes ahead I ask myself what was the point of moving to Lidlington. I understand Campaign to Protect rural England has already been notified of this threat to our countryside and we will do all we can to protect it.

We have been informed by CBC that it has a government set target to meet, along with other councils in the country. Why is it that CBC has put forward a proposal to build thousands of homes, second to only Tower Hamlets council? The second largest proposal to develop in England. Is there financial incentive for this? Has the government target been reviewed in light of Brexit? We have been informed that Central Bedfordshire has already gone over their required new homes government set quota so it seems CBC and the land owners are seeking profit. The additional housing is unnecessary in this area, which barely has amenities, roads and infrastructure to support itself.

There are designated nature sites in the area which could be negatively affected by your proposal. The forest of Marston Vale, Coopers Hill SSSI in Ampthill, Flitwick Moor Wet woodland SSSI, Flitton Moor LNR, Kings Wood LNR, Marston Thrift LNR, Flitwick Wood LNR, the Knoll CWS. In addition to the above - the Greensand Ridge has recently been recognised as a Nature Improvement Area by the Local Nature Partnership and Central Bedfordshire Council. The proposal to build on some of this land flies in the face of our nature conservation strategy, and should not proceed. Compatibility with land use is vitally important.
Consultation process

I believe CBC recently informed fellow villagers that this proposal does not affect Lidlington "Hi. This proposal is not in Lidlington. It is for four new villages to the north of Lidlington, separated and screened from neighbouring settlements by appropriate landscape buffers." If that is correct, then why is Lidlington named in the document? Why is the majority of farmland in Lidlington parish, highlighted as possible areas for development? Why was I told by council staff that it did affect Lidlington? The message is confusing, but I am starting to believe it is deliberately so to deceive the residents, and totally destroy this beautiful area. Will CBC guarantee that any new settlements will not impact on the views existing properties have around the village?

I would like to point out that in order for this to be a proper consultation the information should be accessible for all people, including those with disabilities or language barriers, easy to understand, include supporting data, and very easy to respond to. There should have been major effort to ensure all potential affected parties were able to respond, and were aware of the consultation deadline date. I do not believe CBC have made reasonable efforts to do this. Have CBC produced an equality impact assessment of residents in the area to ascertain whether the impact of this proposal could cause detriment to anyone currently covered by the Equality Act 2010? If so, I would like a copy to be published? Has a quality impact assessment been performed, that would evidence a positive impact on the area? If so I would like a copy to be published. Is it really worth taking a risk on the local environment, birdlife, wildlife and population, when it is clear that building thousands of new homes, there will be detriment, which could have a profound and potentially irreversible effect? The assessments may well be hidden somewhere amongst your multiple consultation documents, but I could not locate them. If they do not exist, the consultation is flawed.

Local impact
The increase in local road traffic and emissions of car and lorry movements per day due to this proposed development in the area, is a huge negative factor. It is vital that CBC confirm and present, how local roads will be improved to cope with the increased traffic that 5000 new homes will ultimately bring. In particular improvements to junction 13 of the M1, and expansion of routes to that same junction, which is usually standstill during rush hour in the morning.
Our local roads, some of which are of impaired quality already see their fair share of road traffic accidents and fatalities. Our local emergency services are already stretched. Our local A&E department has limited resuscitation facilities and resources. We pay enough council tax to cover our needs. These new villages will be an additional unnecessary and unwanted pressure on our local resources. Money cannot fix this system. How will our existing services be safeguarded and strengthened to deal with the potential population increase? The draft local plan does not provide detail of this.
The proposal talks of new health centres, access to GP, and health care. Where will these GPs be recruited from? We are already aware of the national and local shortage of GPs. We are already aware of significant shortages within the nursing profession also. Our local GP surgeries are stretched and often fully booked. 5000 new homes, will bring families, children, older people. CBC must identify how, where and at how much cost it will seek to cover the essential, care, healthcare, and education needs of these residents. The proposal covers this very lightly and is not in sufficient detail.
I am not convinced that CBC has considered the potential impact of the temperature inversion phenomenon in Marston Vale on health? Where temperature inversion caused by local topography creates a 'bowl' like feature. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/feb/29/weatherwatch-temperature-inversion-mist-moisture-pollution-high-ground. I would like to see the outcome of these considerations and the impact on residents of the proposed 4 new villages north of Lidlington published?
Where will children be educated? How will this be funded, and staffed? I'm afraid I lack confidence in the big talk and grand ideas this draft local plan exerts.
Transport links for Lidlington are not adequate to support thousands of new residents. The bus service is not frequent or particularly accessible. The East-West rail link does not currently exist. Lidlington station will see an increased footfall, and local parking on residential streets will increase as there is no car park near to the station. There is very little manoeuvring space in the area, and increased traffic through the village will be noisy, polluting and could increase risk to pedestrians and horses. This should be factored in to considerations as residents parking may become a requirement.
* The view from my property in Hudson Close is across open farmland across to Marston Moretaine. I object to this view being altered or obstructed, and do not want a building site or estate near to my property. I will lose daylight, and predict an overbearing impact on my property, as well as noise and disturbance. As your document states there is still plenty of countryside in Bedfordshire, so I expect there are other sites that can be utilised for your purposes.

Economic impact:

The proposal talks of employment opportunities. There is not enough evidence to substantiate this in the document.
The proposed development will have a negative impact on the appearance on the village, and the views current villagers enjoy.
I would like to understand what will be the impact on the value of existing properties in Lidlington if this proposal goes ahead. Will CBC compensate us for any loss in property value? I will be obtaining a property valuation before any new villages are built just in case. Will CBC undertake valuations on existing properties?
The fact is, CBC and O&H the landowners have been in the business for years, and have been trundling along this process for some time. They have profit at the heart of what they do, and not people, or the environment. They have access to balanced objective data, statistics and evidence in their specialty field. They therefore have a clear advantage in this consultation, above me. I am a resident stakeholder in this, but must assert that my opinions should be of equal value.
I object to any building on Lidlington sites identified in the site assessment forms on social, economic, and environmental grounds. The imposition of 5,000 new builds, on 4 new village sites, will have a profound effect on my intended lifestyle, and that of thousands of others. What will CBC do to minimise detrimental impact to local residents and the environment? After all the duty of care is to us, as CBC has no responsibility towards non-residents of the area.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2959

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Terelinck

Representation:

Several reasons for objecting to development near the viallge and suggestions of where to develop.

Full text:

I refer to references numbers as below:
NLP103
NLP370
NLP482

The identify of the village needs to be protected. Within the neighbouring district of Bedford Borough Council they have a GAP planning policy protecting the spaces between and around villages. A similar strategy must be adopted for Lidlington.

The highways serving the village and surrounding areas can not cope with additional traffic. The proposed Oxford to Cambridge rail service will mean the gates to the only vehicular crossing in the village will be down more often so the main road through will struggle to accommodate the number of vehicles currently associated with the village, yet alone additional vehicles.

It is understood the 'old A421' provides a good level of access to possible development sites but these should be north of this road between the 'old A421' and the new bypass. This will avoid development encroaching on to the setting of the village, the archaeological features found in the area, the lake and the areas immediately adjacent to the lake containing areas of important ecological habitats and avoid vehicles cutting through the village and any more pressure on the existing highways.

I have always considered the redundant Stewartby brickworks to be a good place for development. Firstly it's a large brownfield site rather than providing development in the open countryside which should never be supported on the scale being considered. Once contamination has been dealt with there is an opportunity for multiple developments within a well screened site which can be easily accessed and has a rich history which can be related to throughout the proposed development rather than a mass of typical developer houses which can be seen throughout the country which provide no character and no benefits to any site.

The topography of many of the sites suggested does not allow sustainable development. A good deal of material will need to be removed from sites to allow for developable spaces. This will increase vehicle movements throughout the area and should never be supported by Central Bedfordshire Council.

Local existing facilities will not be able to accommodate he increased number of people to the area so this will need careful consideration through development agreements.

Although sites NLP103 & 482 may be viewed as natural extensions to the village in some people eyes it is understood both are outside of the village settlement boundary and would have a significant detrimental impact on the countryside walks around the village. Additionally this would be providing residential use in close proximity to a railway which is only going to be more regularly used in the future.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3161

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Angela Sparks

Representation:

The scope of the plans for development, particularly NLP370, are too huge for meaningful assessment and greater consideration should be given to environmental and archaeological factors.

Full text:

NLP370
The area mapped as NLP370 is too large to comment on as one tract of land, and should it be taken forward into the pre-submission document it would be valuable to break it into sections as some areas are more appropriate for development than others. As it stands, it is a complete overdevelopment - how can CBC justify calculations of 10,500 houses when the pro-forma is 5,000? This raises concerns of over-supply, and the potential negative impact of that on local house prices. The suggestion that this land will be developed as a series of villages is impossible on that scale, as the settlements planned are larger in size than towns in the county, including nearby Ampthill. The creation of villages is not just about numbers, either - it is about the look and feel of a place in keeping with other villages in the county. At a consultation a council official stated that the only way the numbers could be achieved whilst avoiding coalescence is through density, which does not lend itself to fostering a village community. Regarding Stage 1C.8 Critical Infrastructure, the deliverability of the infrastructure should be established and committed to prior to any residential development. In addition, a commitment to adopting the roads created in the new settlement should be clear.
There are inconsistencies with other site assessments which are concerning. In particular, I refer to NLP177 which under 'Environmental Contraints 36. Landscape Character' is graded R 'Unsuitable for development in landscape terms - elevated land highly visible from Marston Vale. Rural Greensand landscape.' In point 37, site NLP177 is rated R for its proximity to a Scheduled Monument. Similar comments under Environmental Constraints are made against ALP344. In the same section of NLP370, the rating is only graded amber despite large swathes of the proposed site being in the sightline from the Greensand Ridge, and covering Brogborough lake which is a significant part of the horizon. There is also in section 37 significant concern about the impact on local archaeology which, again, suggests the scope of NLP370 is too large for fair comment and should be broken down to isolate areas of concern. Under Stage 2.18 Community Consultation, the report states that the site was consulted on in 2008/9, but no indication is given as to the result of this consultation. It is my understanding that the proposals for an eco-town in 2008 resulted in protests on the A421 and to leave this out of a section specifically asking for 'overall community response' to any earlier proposals is misleading. In Cumulative Impact, sections 20 & 21, the percentage growth overall for Marston, Lidlington and Brogborough is 22.3%. The resultant total number of houses, once outstanding permissions are completed, is 3709 across the Marston Vale. The new settlement(s) proposed by NLP370 could comprise, by CBC's calculations, a further 10,576 dwellings. The percentage increase in housing stock in the Marston Vale would be 285%. This will cause irreparable changes to the landscape that cannot be mitigated by the promise of 'public benefits' which you state includes housing, local employment and infrastructure - things which are only necessitated by the local plan. Furthermore, there are concerns within the report about contamination, flooding and minerals, and overall, I cannot see any benefit in NLP370 for existing residents of the Marston Vale. The scale of the site and of the promises made is too great for there to be trust in the sustainability and viability of the development at this stage.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3180

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jean Peall

Representation:

I object to overdevelopment of the parish of Lidlington as there will be decreased air quality due to pollution, mainly increased vehicular use. There could be a greater flood risk due to extra building. Urbanisation creates a warmer area due to increased tarmac etc.

Full text:

I object to overdevelopment of the parish of Lidlington as there will be decreased air quality due to pollution, mainly increased vehicular use. There could be a greater flood risk due to extra building. Urbanisation creates a warmer area due to increased tarmac etc.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4405

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Terelinck

Representation:

NLP103
NLP370
NLP482
Impact on character of Lidlington - coalescence
Traffic impact
Archaeological and ecological impact
Preference for Stewartby brickworks to be a good place for development.
Impact of topography
Impact on local services and infrastructure
Sites outside the settlement envelope

Full text:

I refer to references numbers as below:
NLP103
NLP370
NLP482

The identify of the village needs to be protected. Within the neighbouring district of Bedford Borough Council they have a GAP planning policy protecting the spaces between and around villages. A similar strategy must be adopted for Lidlington.

The highways serving the village and surrounding areas can not cope with additional traffic. The proposed Oxford to Cambridge rail service will mean the gates to the only vehicular crossing in the village will be down more often so the main road through will struggle to accommodate the number of vehicles currently associated with the village, yet alone additional vehicles.

It is understood the 'old A421' provides a good level of access to possible development sites but these should be north of this road between the 'old A421' and the new bypass. This will avoid development encroaching on to the setting of the village, the archaeological features found in the area, the lake and the areas immediately adjacent to the lake containing areas of important ecological habitats and avoid vehicles cutting through the village and any more pressure on the existing highways.

I have always considered the redundant Stewartby brickworks to be a good place for development. Firstly it's a large brownfield site rather than providing development in the open countryside which should never be supported on the scale being considered. Once contamination has been dealt with there is an opportunity for multiple developments within a well screened site which can be easily accessed and has a rich history which can be related to throughout the proposed development rather than a mass of typical developer houses which can be seen throughout the country which provide no character and no benefits to any site.

The topography of many of the sites suggested does not allow sustainable development. A good deal of material will need to be removed from sites to allow for developable spaces. This will increase vehicle movements throughout the area and should never be supported by Central Bedfordshire Council.

Local existing facilities will not be able to accommodate he increased number of people to the area so this will need careful consideration through development agreements.

Although sites NLP103 & 482 may be viewed as natural extensions to the village in some people eyes it is understood both are outside of the village settlement boundary and would have a significant detrimental impact on the countryside walks around the village. Additionally this would be providing residential use in close proximity to a railway which is only going to be more regularly used in the future.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4545

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Adele Moore

Representation:

(Site NLP370) This development of 5,000 houses and a business park (potentially by 4 new settlements) will result in a loss of countryside and agricultural land as it is not all proposed on former sites of the old brick industry. It will heavily impact on the settlement of Lidlington. This will clearly be over development, a ten-fold increase on the current size of Lidlington.

Full text:

I would like to make the following comments on the proposals as laid out in the Local Plan 2015 - 2035 in particular regarding the proposal for 5,000 houses in the Marston Vale, in the vicinity of Lidlington (Site NLP370).
This development of 5,000 houses and a business park (potentially by 4 new settlements) will result in a loss of countryside and agricultural land as it is not all proposed on former sites of the old brick industry. It will heavily impact on the settlement of Lidlington, a small rural village by Central Beds Council's own definition in their Settlement Hierarchy. This will clearly be over development, a ten-fold increase on the current size of Lidlington.
Lidlington is an historic settlement, low density housing, some dating back hundreds of years and does not have the roads and infrastructure to cope with such a massive, high density development and the subsequent increase in road traffic that would inevitably result from this over development. Our roads are already swamped, parking within the village is at bursting point already and the congestion within the village from potentially hundreds of extra vehicles travelling through would be devastating on the character, aesthetics and lives of residents. Such high density housing would result in a massive increase in vehicle traffic on already overburdened roads. Residents, potentially unable to access roads leading to Brogborough and the M1 would be forced to exit Lidlington from the top of the village onto the very dangerous A507, already extremely busy with an increase in traffic following the Center Parcs development.
Lidlington does not benefit from good public transport links, a virtually non-existent bus service and proposals by Network Rail under the East West Rail Consultation will sever the village in two if they close pedestrian crossings as they are proposing. This will cause congestion problems as cars and pedestrians will be forced to wait for longer periods when the crossing gates are closed. An increase in traffic accessing the village can only exacerbate this problem of congestion which will inevitably result from queuing traffic.
Such a massive development will make sustainability and managing growth very difficult. These new developments would not be close to the existing facilities within the village, beyond safe walking distance and Lidlington has very little accessible space in which to provide such things as cycle or pedestrian ways and very limited room for improvement in the road infrastructure, some linking roads being only unclassified 'C' category which would be required to accommodate the massive increase in vehicle traffic which would inevitably result. Although it is stated developers will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure, I do not feel confident that Central Beds Council will have the necessary powers to see this happens. I base this on the number of un-adopted roads we currently have in Lidlington where developers renege on promises and residents are left high and dry! Within the village we seem to be experiencing more regular power cuts, low water pressure in more parts of the village and I feel this will only increase with such a large scale development. I have no confidence that sufficient healthcare services could be provided as residents already experience long waiting times at local GP surgeries for appointments. We know that as a nation there is a shortage of doctors and nurses so I am sceptical that this would improve.
I am also very sceptical as to where employment will be provided for all the residents of these 5,000 homes. I suspect they will out- commute meaning more congestion and pollution on our already overburdened and inadequate roads. Many will head each day to the appalling Junction 13 of the M1 to travel elsewhere and cause even more disruption and congestion at this most diabolical of transport centres!
I ask for NLP370 to not be carried forward. Such a massive development would be completely out of character with the rural character of our existing settlement.
I would also like to comment on Sites NLP103 and NLP482 and raise the question as to why when planning permission has I believe already been denied by on these Sites they are now being considered for future development. What has changed; nothing that I can see. They still have very poor access, no proper road, just a gravel/stone track across a public bridleway. These sites are also located at the end of Bye Road which is narrow, runs directly along the railway track so often has a lot of railway maintenance vehicles park along it and already carries a lot of vehicle traffic due to the only other route of Whitehall being a private road.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4564

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jean Peall

Representation:

High density growth in the parish of Lidlington will be disaster. J13 is already bad. A507 Bury Ware turn is dangerous. Village roads cannot cope with further volumes of traffic. Employment needs to be diverse, not just more warehouse and distribution centres. Public transport is infrequent to Lidlington - cannot get to health centres. IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF COUNTRYSIDE.

Full text:

High density growth in the parish of Lidlington will be disaster. J13 is already bad. A507 Bury Ware turn is dangerous. Village roads cannot cope with further volumes of traffic. Employment needs to be diverse, not just more warehouse and distribution centres. Public transport is infrequent to Lidlington - cannot get to health centres. IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF COUNTRYSIDE.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4618

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: mr richard turner

Representation:

the need is mentioned to protect the Greendsand ridge and the Forest of Marston vale, yet site NLP370 will destroy the views from the Greensand ridge and turn the Forest of Marston Vale into a small green outpost in a largely urban area. There is also a Grade 1 medieval site at Thrupp End that will be completely swamped by this development as will the village of Lidlington, mentioned in the doomesday book.

Full text:

the need is mentioned to protect the Greendsand ridge and the Forest of Marston vale, yet site NLP370 will destroy the views from the Greensand ridge and turn the Forest of Marston Vale into a small green outpost in a largely urban area. There is also a Grade 1 medieval site at Thrupp End that will be completely swamped by this development as will the village of Lidlington, mentioned in the doomesday book.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4676

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Raymond Mole

Agent: GC Planning Partnership

Representation:

ALP087
assessment of the site is incorrect, the site is well related to Lidlington
should be considered alongside the Marston Valley Growth Location
expansion of housing would be reasonable in scale

Full text:

Reference No. ALP87

The site lies adjacent to existing housing at Sheep Tick End, which forms part of the settlement of Lidlington, close to the railway station, school and other facilities within the village. It is land that is used for car boot sales and it is considered that it is previously developed land.
The Council's site assessment considers that the site is unacceptable for housing because it is separated from the settlement of Lidlingtonby allotments. However, the allotments form part of the village. They are not a countryside use, but an urban. Therefore, the assessment that the site is not well related to the existing settlement and does not form a logical extension to the settlement is ill-founded. It already forms part of the settlement of Lidlington in the real world.
In addition, the Council are considering the proposals for Marston Valley (reference NLP370) for 5000 dwellings. A site that abuts Sheep Tick End. Therefore, site ALP87 should be considered further along with NLP370, given their relationship.
It is not reasonable to consider further the proposals for Marston Valley and not site ALP87 at Sheep Tick End where there is existing housing development, and the expansion of housing here would be reasonable in the light of the Council moving forward with consideration of NLP370

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4778

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Steve Balint

Representation:

Development of site NLP 370 goes again almost every principle outline in section 16, and very specifically sec. 16.11 and policy EE9.

Full text:

Development of site NLP 370 goes again almost every principle outline in section 16, and very specifically sec. 16.11 and policy EE9.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4844

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jean Peall

Representation:

I object to development that would spoil the enjoyment of the Greensand Ridge. Building immediately west of Lidlington would have permanent loss of landscape below the Greensand Ridge. This aspect is enjoyed by everyone and should not be lost forever.

Full text:

I object to development that would spoil the enjoyment of the Greensand Ridge. Building immediately west of Lidlington would have permanent loss of landscape below the Greensand Ridge. This aspect is enjoyed by everyone and should not be lost forever.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4946

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Lidlington Parish Council

Representation:

Detailed objections to Marston Vale proposal relating to:
The unique character of Lidlington and its historical context
Consultation Process
Growth in the local area
Landscape and visual impacts on wider community
Noise pollution
Highways and transport
Sustainability
Healthcare
Insufficient infrastructure
impact on village school and education provision

See attachment for full comments

Full text:

Please see the attached

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4956

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Lidlington Parish Council

Representation:

NLP103 / NLP483

Permission already been refused previously for these sites so following further consideration the council can again see no justification for taking them forward. Access is down a narrow lane bordering land owned by Network Rail/potentially earmarked for EWR upgrade is not feasible and again lacks any joined-up thinking. Proposal for 65 dwellings for the 2 sites is completely unworkable. Access problems and infrastructure in terms of roads/healthcare/public transport is simply inadequate. The assessment of these sites in section 21 is disingenuous. Since April 2016 a further 50+ dwellings are either underway/planned making the real current growth >10%

Full text:

Please see the attached

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5198

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Steve Balint

Representation:

NLP 370 as far as I can see is significantly 'countryside' as such development of this site would be contrary to policy DC1.

Full text:

NLP 370 as far as I can see is significantly 'countryside' as such development of this site would be contrary to policy DC1.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5545

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: MRS TRACEY MASTERS

Representation:

The proposed plan surrounds, but excludes our property and land.

We support the application if our land is to be included but strongly
object if our land is to be excluded.

Please pass this message on to the developers.

Full text:


The proposed plan surrounds, but excludes our property and land.

We support the application if our land is to be included but strongly
object if our land is to be excluded.

Please pass this message on to the developers.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5648

Received: 25/09/2017

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Wilkins

Representation:

see attachment
Object to development plans around Thrupp End, Lidlington, Marston Moretaine, Sheep Tick End etc..
Plans have a severe detrimental affect on the village and countryside.
Local farmland will be destroyed. This land has been identified as an area of special retain to prevent coalescence
Already suffer with low water pressure, power cuts and poor broadband service.
Lidlington has already grown with developments.
Problems getting a doctors appointment
Increased traffic problems

Full text:

see attachment
Object to development plans around Thrupp End, Lidlington, Marston Moretaine, Sheep Tick End etc..
Plans have a severe detrimental affect on the village and countryside.
Local farmland will be destroyed. This land has been identified as an area of special retain to prevent coalescence
Already suffer with low water pressure, power cuts and poor broadband service.
Lidlington has already grown with developments.
Problems getting a doctors appointment
Increased traffic problems
See attachments for more detail

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5954

Received: 28/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Roger Garratt

Representation:

Objections to NLP370 on impact on rural character and tranquillity, lack of infrastructure, pressure on utilities, services and facilities grounds

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6197

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs N Stone

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Objection
Developments detrimental to village
Roads, schools, doctors, utilities struggling to cope
Car parking difficult
Loss of agricultural land
The incinerator, high speed rail link and scale of housing and employment facilities fill us with dread.

Full text:

We would like to register our opposition to the plan.
We feel that the proposed levels of development, on top of approved developments would have a very detrimental impact on the lives of the inhabitants of our village.
The same applies to neighbouring villages.
The fact is that local roads, schools, doctors surgeries, and utilities are struggling to cope with current demand. Car parking is very difficult, and will only get worse.
Also the potential loss of so much good agricultural land is very concerning.
Having lived happily in Lidlington for 44 years, we are seriously thinking of moving to another part of the country. The incinerator, high speed rail link, and the scale of the proposed housing and employment facilities fill us with apprehension

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6664

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jean Peall

Representation:

I object to overdevelopment of the parish of Lidlington. There will be a significant increase of traffic travelling on minor roads. Church Street in Lidlington is effectively single carriageway due to parking. As the barriers will be down for longer, there will be serious congestion at the main level crossing. The increased rail usage will increase the NOISE and DISRUPTION from the rail line, in particular on Western side of Lidlington.

Full text:

I object to overdevelopment of the parish of Lidlington. There will be a significant increase of traffic travelling on minor roads. Church Street in Lidlington is effectively single carriageway due to parking. As the barriers will be down for longer, there will be serious congestion at the main level crossing. The increased rail usage will increase the NOISE and DISRUPTION from the rail line, in particular on Western side of Lidlington.