Meppershall

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 44

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 312

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: WK & CK Parrish

Agent: hd planning ltd

Representation:

We welcome the Council's assessment of site ALP 210 which demonstrated that there were no reasons why the site could not be considered further within the allocation process.
As noted in the site assessment framework, part of the site already has the benefit of outline permission (ref: 15/04157) for 6 dwellings. We have therefore produced a sketch demonstrating that the remaining land (approx 0.5 ha) can accommodate over 10 dwellings to warrant an allocation without the smaller parcel being included.
It is intended that these dwellings will form 1/2 bedroom bungalow/chalet accommodation

This is attached for your information.

Full text:

We welcome the Council's assessment of site ALP 210 which demonstrated that there were no reasons why the site could not be considered further within the allocation process.
As noted in the site assessment framework, part of the site already has the benefit of outline permission (ref: 15/04157) for 6 dwellings. We have therefore produced a sketch demonstrating that the remaining land (approx 0.5 ha) can accommodate over 10 dwellings to warrant an allocation without the smaller parcel being included.
It is intended that these dwellings will form 1/2 bedroom bungalow/chalet accommodation

This is attached for your information.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 619

Received: 08/08/2017

Respondent: ms elizabeth wade

Representation:

Roads and junctions unsuitable for increase in traffic from this development due to narrow aspects and a very sharp turn into Shillington Road where it is difficult to avoid driving across the opposite carriageway.
Spoiling of a valuable historic and pleasing aspect at the south end of the village.
Spoiling of the open agricultural views in the countryside from the east and a possible effect on the environment and wildlife which inhabits this.

Full text:

NLP282
I do not consider that this site should be used for housing development. The site is elevated and would be highly visible from Meppershall water tower and currently as one looks towards the village from the water tower there is an open and very pleasant view of agricultural land towards the historic church and site of the motte and bailey. Although this site is adjacent to a few houses on the west side it is part of the open agricultural land which is a very pleasing aspect of the approach to the village and it is common to see the wildlife which inhabits this land as you pass through it.
Stondon Road itself is narrow at the point of the proposed development and the junction turning into Shillington Road is sharp and it is difficult to avoid crossing into the opposite carriageway as you turn left. Traffic enters the village down Shillington Road at speed ignoring the speed restriction and as more housing is taking place in the village the danger at this turn can only increase. I believe there is currently a proposal to build on an adjacent parcel of land which opens onto Shillington Road and if the Stondon Road site is also developed the traffic will increase significantly and as the lanes here in both roads are narrow, will cause more of a bottleneck. The addition of an extra 25 houses on the Stondon Road site as well as the already passed houses on the Shillington Road site will mean high density houses as one views the village on approaching from the east.
I understand the site is adjacent to a medieval ditch system and this may be considered worth preserving and may yield valuable artifacts,developing this site may mean this historic feature is lost.
Meppershall is mostly of a linear nature and the south end offers something different with interesting features and is a most pleasing way to enter the village. It incorporates the most historic sites in the village including the church, the castle motte and bailey site and a protected area surrounding it. It would be a great pity to add more housing in an area which is unsuitable for it and in which it will cause this interesting end of the village to become packed with houses. Mid beds run their scenic route through this part of the village for good reason.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1417

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Ickleford Parish Council

Representation:

Unsustainable development which conflicts with the aims of the NPPF.

Full text:

The ministerial foreword to the NPPF states that the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development, with 'Sustainable' defined as ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations.
The proposed developments in the draft Local Plan, taken with those already in planning will add several hundred new homes. This will inevitably lead to significant increases in car journeys, and those wishing to travel south or south-west will likely to need to drive through Ickleford. The resultant increases in traffic through are village, and the concomitant environmental impacts clearly run counter to the aims of sustainability as defined in the NPPF. There appears to be no recognition of this nor any substantive attempts to mitigate against it to alleviate the issue for those wishing to drive towards Luton and the M1 (south).
The issues which Ickleford will face will be further exacerbated by other CBC developments either within the draft Local Plan or already proposed in the towns and villages near to north Herts. There is not likely to be sufficient investment in infrastructure (e.g. public transport, increased rail network capacity) to make this sustainable, and conflicts with many aims of the NPPF.
It is on these grounds that Ickleford Parish Council objects to the CBC draft local plan relating to development in those communities adjacent to our boundary.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1744

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP210
Development is consistent with the linear nature of the village and is SUPPORTED to be retained for further consideration but only on it's own and not in conjunction with ALP211 and NLP095 to which we have made separate comments. Please note that site ALP211 is incorrectly marked on the map as ALP210 also - please do not confuse the 2 sites.

Full text:

ALP210
Development is consistent with the linear nature of the village and is SUPPORTED to be retained for further consideration but only on it's own and not in conjunction with ALP211 and NLP095 to which we have made separate comments. Please note that site ALP211 is incorrectly marked on the map as ALP210 also - please do not confuse the 2 sites.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1745

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP211
This site appears to be incorrectly marked on the map as ALP210 (larger of the 2 sites on the map). It is also replicated as NLP095 and should be EXCLUDED from further assessment to prevent double counting. Please refer to our comments on NLP095.

Full text:

ALP211
This site appears to be incorrectly marked on the map as ALP210 (larger of the 2 sites on the map). It is also replicated as NLP095 and should be EXCLUDED from further assessment to prevent double counting. Please refer to our comments on NLP095.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1746

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP280
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
This site has an adverse impact on the landscape of the village and should be EXCLUDED from the Plan

Full text:

ALP280
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
This site has an adverse impact on the landscape of the village and should be EXCLUDED from the Plan

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1747

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP281
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
Qu 12 - This site already has planning permission under CB/16/04896/FULL for 7 dwellings and should be EXCLUDED from the Plan

Full text:

ALP281
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
Qu 12 - This site already has planning permission under CB/16/04896/FULL for 7 dwellings and should be EXCLUDED from the Plan

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1748

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP373
SUPPORT EXCLUSION as unacceptable and illogical extension to the village

Full text:

ALP373
SUPPORT EXCLUSION as is it an unacceptable and illogical extension to the village situated on open landscape in elevated position forming rural setting to village, which would also destroy existing woodland. Please also note: Qu 1 - Proposal is for 25 -30 dwellings where CBC methodology only suggest 15.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1749

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP474
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
This is replicated as NLP050 and should be EXCLUDED from further assessment to prevent double counting. Please see comments on NLP050.

Full text:

ALP474
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
This is replicated as NLP050 and should be EXCLUDED from further assessment to prevent double counting. Please see comments on NLP050.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1750

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

ALP483
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
EXCLUSION AGREED as site falls outside of settlement envelope on southern side of village and land owners have not re-proposed site for Local Plan 2017.

Full text:

ALP483
SUPPORT EXCLUSION
EXCLUSION AGREED as site falls outside of settlement envelope on southern side of village and land owners have not re-proposed site for Local Plan 2017.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1751

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP050
SUPORT EXCLUSION
Although this has been EXCLUDED from the Local Plan, it has received outline planning permission under CB/16/03278/OUT for 9 dwellings so should not be included in this process.

Full text:

NLP050
SUPORT EXCLUSION
Although this has been EXCLUDED from the Local Plan, it has received outline planning permission under CB/16/03278/OUT for 9 dwellings so should not be included in this process.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1752

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP060
EXCLUSION AGREED
EXCLUSION AGREED. Loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, noise from the adjacent grain drier and exit to a 20mph zone outside Meppershall Academy makes a site of this size and number of dwellings unsustainable. CB/16/01012/OUT application for this site has been refused (The development, by virtue of its siting and scale, would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and the area through the urbanisation of the countryside, the poor relationship between the site and the built up area of Meppershall and the demolition of non-designated heritage assets at the site)

Full text:

NLP060
EXCLUSION AGREED
EXCLUSION AGREED. Loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, noise from the adjacent grain drier and exit to a 20mph zone outside Meppershall Academy makes a site of this size and number of dwellings unsustainable. CB/16/01012/OUT application for this site has been refused (The development, by virtue of its siting and scale, would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and the area through the urbanisation of the countryside, the poor relationship between the site and the built up area of Meppershall and the demolition of non-designated heritage assets at the site)

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1753

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP095
Developement not supported as:
1. Detrimental impact on ancient woodland
2. Would extend built environment into countryside and be incongrous and out of caracter with rest of village
3. Land is Grade 2 not 3 as stated
4. Bus services not frequent at peak times

Full text:

NLP095
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
Qu 4 & 38 - Development of this land would abutt the privately owned Nunswood, an ancient woodland referred to in the domesday book of 1086. Now considered a County Wildlife Site with active nesting rookery and tree preservation orders in place. Development would bring detrimental impact to woodland. Qu 23 - Development of the site would extend the built environment into the countryside and and would be out of carachter with the rest of the village Qu 24 - (agricultural land quality)Response is incorrect as the land is grade 2 (as correctly answered in ALP210 and all surrounding sites, and should therefore be assessed as RED.
Qu 27 - Response is incorrect as the bus stop within 339m does not have a frequent service at peak times, and residents at the western end of the development would have considerably farther to walk.
Qu 41 (& Qu 6)- Response should state that CB/17/01041/OUT was refused as the site is within the open countryside. Given its location and relationship to the existing settlement the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area by extending built development into the countryside and due to the linear and ribbon nature of development in this area it would appear as a poor built environment, incongruous and out of character with the existing character of the village and with adjoining dwellings in the locality. This supports MPC's disagreement to response in Qu 21, so the rating should be RED. Note that this "extension" into open countryside is not comparable to the site further south, which is in the centre of the village on grade 3 agricultural land and provides a new playing field and community centre. NLP095 is not complementary to the village. It is not a logical extension to the settlement, changes the settlement pattern and retaining this site for further assessment is NOT SUPPORTED

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1754

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP096
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED as
1. Detrimental impact on ancient woodland
2. would require closure of care home which is Meppershalls largest employer

Full text:

NLP096
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
Qu 4 & 38 - Development of this land would abutt the privately owned Nunswood, an ancient woodland referred to in the domesday book of 1086. Now considered a County Wildlife Site with active nesting rookery and tree preservation orders in place. Development would bring detrimental impact to woodland. Development of this site would require the closure of the care home, and so eliminate Meppershall's largest employer and capacity for caring for 92 residents and would adversely impact the village. Retaining this site for further assessment is NOT SUPPORTED

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1755

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP231
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED
Site is in green belt (Grade 2 land) and would result in loss of important habitat as well as requiring removal of existing car park for access.

Full text:

NLP231
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED
Site is in green belt (Grade 2 land) and would result in loss of important habitat as well as requiring removal of existing car park for access.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1756

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP235
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED. This is not a logical extension to the settlement and is isolated from the rest of the village with no natural entrance or connection to the main settlement.

Full text:

NLP235
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED. This is not a logical extension to the settlement and is isolated from the rest of the village with no natural entrance or connection to the main settlement.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1757

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP236
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED. This is not a logical extension to the settlement and is isolated from the rest of the village, development would be intrusive and restrict views. Development would also require loss of Grade 2 farming land.

Full text:

NLP236
EXCLUSION SUPPORTED. This is not a logical extension to the settlement and is isolated from the rest of the village, development would be intrusive and restrict views. Development would also require loss of Grade 2 farming land.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1758

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP237
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
The proforma proposes 100 dwellings compared to CBC's methodology of 54, so is of unacceptable density. A development of this size is not proportionate and inconsistent with an area D village. This number of dwellings and the orientation of the site would not conform to the linear nature of the village along Shefford Road and is outside the settlement envelope. It would also be a loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. It is therefore NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Full text:

NLP237
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
The proforma proposes 100 dwellings compared to CBC's methodology of 54, so is of unacceptable density. A development of this size is not proportionate and inconsistent with an area D village. This number of dwellings and the orientation of the site would not conform to the linear nature of the village along Shefford Road and is outside the settlement envelope. It would also be a loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. It is therefore NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1759

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP282
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTED
This site is proportionate for the size of Meppershall in Area D and recovers a brownfield site for development, so its inclusion for further assessment is SUPPORTED

Full text:

NLP282
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTED
This site is proportionate for the size of Meppershall in Area D and recovers a brownfield site for development, so its inclusion for further assessment is SUPPORTED

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP283
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
The proforma proposes 100 dwellings compared to CBC's methodology of 54, so is of unacceptable density. A development of this size is not proportionate and inconsistent with an area D village. This number of dwellings and the orientation of the site would not conform to the linear nature of the village along Shefford Road and is outside the settlement envelope. It would also be a loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. It is therefore NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Full text:

NLP283
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
The proforma proposes 100 dwellings compared to CBC's methodology of 54, so is of unacceptable density. A development of this size is not proportionate and inconsistent with an area D village. This number of dwellings and the orientation of the site would not conform to the linear nature of the village along Shefford Road and is outside the settlement envelope. It would also be a loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. It is therefore NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

NLP313
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
This site is adjacent to NLP060 but more proportionate to Meppershall as a village in Area D and is of acceptable size. However, its only access is on an existing three-way junction where school buses stop, and is closer to the grain dryer than NLP060, which has been excluded from the Local Plan process for this reason. Therefore this site is NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Full text:

NLP313
DEVELOPMENT NOT SUPPORTED
This site is adjacent to NLP060 but more proportionate to Meppershall as a village in Area D and is of acceptable size. However, its only access is on an existing three-way junction where school buses stop, and is closer to the grain dryer than NLP060, which has been excluded from the Local Plan process for this reason. Therefore this site is NOT SUPPORTED for further assessment.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1764

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

Qu 20 & 21. Cumulative impact of developments granted permission in 2017 when added to figure of 6.56% + 0.43% is actually 21.1% increase. Continued large scale development not sustainable and in keeping with area D smaill village.

Full text:

Please note that the comment below refers to all sites in Meppershall.
Qu 21 & 22 - At present all individual sites for Meppershall assess questions 20 and 21 using the base increase from 2006 (655 homes) to 2016 (698 Homes), a 6.56% increase, and outstanding planning permission for 3 dwellings representing an additional 0.45% increase. This gives a cumulative impact of 7.01%, AMBER. These numbers fail to recognise the large number of developments started in Meppershall since 1 April 2016 but not included in the figures. As at the end of July 2017, developments of 6, 78, and 2, a total of 86 have begun (19.7% increase), and a further development of 9 has yet to start (1.4% increase). This is a cumulative 21.1% increase which reflects the true impact that Meppershall has suffered in the recent past and gives a RED assessment across all sites within the village.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1765

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

The below comment refers to all Meppershall sites:
Lower School capacity
Qu 30 - Small amount of spare capacity at Meppershall Lower School does not take into consideration addtional 86+ dwellings currently under construction / granted permission. Adjoining parishes are at capacity (e.g: Stondon/clifton. Middle and upper projects are planned within the education planning area - financial contributions would be requested. The number of sites in Meppershall is a concern as the existing lower school would not be able to accommodate all development without expansion, requiring additional land for the existing school site, or a new school site.

Full text:

The below comment refers to all Meppershall sites:
Lower School capacity
Qu 30 - Small amount of spare capacity at Meppershall Lower School does not take into consideration addtional 86+ dwellings currently under construction / granted permission. Adjoining parishes are at capacity (e.g: Stondon/clifton. Middle and upper projects are planned within the education planning area - financial contributions would be requested. The number of sites in Meppershall is a concern as the existing lower school would not be able to accommodate all development without expansion, requiring additional land for the existing school site, or a new school site.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2850

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Parsons

Representation:

Use of outdated data will lead to erroneous assessments of housing provision, necessary or acceptable.

Full text:

The use of planning data with a start date of April 2016 is a palpable nonsense for most of the settlements in the Plan area and brings into question the whole basis for assessing both the local needs for and abilities to cope with, further increases in housing. For Meppershall the base data states that there were 3 outstanding permissions as at 1 April 2016. Since that date there have been 86 new starts with another 9 pending giving an increase of over 21% of housing stock as measured against the base figure as at April 2016. By any measure this represents a significant challenge to the limited resources of the village and the capacity to integrate the new population. It may not be possible or appropriate to prevent any further increases but future developments must be proportionate to the size of the current settlement. There can be no justification for supporting proposals which would be of such a size as to overwhelm the village.Neither should the decision be based on erroneous criteria but on an accurate and current measure.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2865

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Heather Parsons

Representation:

There are a number of proposals of more than 35 houses and these are inappropriate for the size of the village and the amount of new housing already being constructed. Furthermore the data you are working from is inaccurate as it ignores the 86 current starts, and the additional 9 already given permission for. These alone amount to an increase in the village housing of over 20%.

Full text:

There are a number of proposals of more than 35 houses and these are inappropriate for the size of the village and the amount of new housing already being constructed. Furthermore the data you are working from is inaccurate as it ignores the 86 current starts, and the additional 9 already given permission for. These alone amount to an increase in the village housing of over 20%.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4392

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Lovelock

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall and other towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall and other towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites still open for development consideration after the DLP has been ratified but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account 'actual' housing developments in towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site and therefore the suitability for further development.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in and area. Using out of date data will have an adverse effect on the character, services and amenities of existing settlements.

Evidence of the extent to which this data can 'skew' a decision for my own area can be seen below:
https://centralbedfordshire.jdi-consult.net/documents/pdfs_11/meppershall.pdf

Meppershall village across this period shows a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4668

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Lovelock

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall and other towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall and other towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites still open for development consideration after the DLP has been ratified but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account 'actual' housing developments in towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site and therefore the suitability for further development.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in and area. Using out of date data will have an adverse effect on the character, services and amenities of existing settlements.

Evidence of the extent to which this data can 'skew' a decision for my own area can be seen below:
https://centralbedfordshire.jdi-consult.net/documents/pdfs_11/meppershall.pdf

Meppershall village across this period shows a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4677

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Johnson

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in Meppershall across this period is a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4811

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Ms Wanda Dashwood

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgments about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in Meppershall across this period is a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4929

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr John Kingsley

Representation:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall and other towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall and other towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

Full text:

Area D

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites still open for development consideration after the DLP has been ratified but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.

Each proposed site is assessed against 46 questions. As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account 'actual' housing developments in towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site and therefore the suitability for further development.

The document states (Q 20) for each site still to be considered, that the 'cumulative impact' of new houses in and area. Using out of date data will have an adverse effect on the character, services and amenities of existing settlements.

Evidence of the extent to which this data can 'skew' a decision for my own area can be seen below:
https://centralbedfordshire.jdi-consult.net/documents/pdfs_11/meppershall.pdf

Meppershall village across this period shows a 6.56% increase in new homes and therefore rates this as A - Amber (5 -20% increase). Green would be less than 5% increase.
CBC data used in site (Meppershall) assessment
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes April 2016: 698
* 698/655= 6.56% increase in new homes in Meppershall.
Current Meppershall data showing an increase in real terms for all approved development is:
* Homes April 2006: 655
* Homes June 2017: 792 yellow indicates locations on the following page used in calculation
* 792/655=20.91% increase in new homes in Meppershall

The fact is that since May 2016 the following sites have been approved and most are under construction, which should therefore rate this response as R-Red (greater than 20% increase). This should, therefore, preclude further development of any significant size as the village has met the CBC contribution guidelines.

Site development information from April 2016 to date is taken from CBC planning application website below:

52 Fildyke Road, SG17 5LT 2 dwellings - June 2017
Woodview nurseries, Shefford Road, SG17 5LL -1 dwelling - June 2017
Land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, SG17 5LN 6 dwellings - May 2017
NLP060 -100 High Street, SG17 5LZ - 38 dwellings awaiting decision February 2017
79 Shefford Road, SG17 5LL - 2 dwellings - January 2017
4 High Street, SG17 5LX - 7 dwellings - November 2016
New Close Nurseries, Fildyke Rd - 9 dwellings granted July 2016 (now 13 June 2017 awaiting decision)
Village Hall, High Street - 78 dwellings and village hall - May 2016