Shefford

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1416

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.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3430

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: J Gudgin

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

J Gudgin wishes to comment and object to the conclusions reached in the Site Allocations Technical Document (SATD) in respect of the site titles 'Land South of Stanford Road' (Refs: NLP155 and NLP389). The site assessments are largely positive but the Stage 2 conclusion states that the site is not considered for further assessment on the basis that:

'On balance due to the location of the site and the identified flood risk concerns and impact upon settlement character, the site is not considered for further assessment'.

The decision is a balanced judgement, indicating that the site should not be rejected out of hand. The assessment in most part is positive and we would comment as follows on a number of the points/issues raised.

The assessment notes that the site has been subject of a planning application that was subsequently withdrawn. The application was accompanied by a comprehensive set of supporting documents which addressed a number of technical issues, some of which are mentioned in the SATD. The flood risk issue is referred to and for clarification, no built development is proposed within Flood Zones 2 or 3. A detailed flood risk assessment was undertaken to demonstrate that there would be no risk to development on or off the site. The land that is within the floodplain would be retained and managed as Green Infrastructure along with a suitable landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the site. This accords with the aspirations for the site to deliver ecological enhancement, which would complement other land extending along the watercourse. The assessment refers to the northern part of the site as a formal recreation area. This is perhaps referring back to the historic consent for a football ground on this site, which has now lapsed. The site, at the time, was a potential option to relocated Shefford Town FC but another site was ultimately chosen. The site therefore has no recreational value/use at present. The proposed development would introduce recreational value on the southern part of the site.

Other matters such as noise and archaeology were comprehensively addressed. The landscape and visual impact of development on this site along with settlement character has been cited as a concern. The key principles of development on this site would include retaining a suitable landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the site. The illustrative layout submitted is exactly that and J Gudgin are fully understanding of the need to consider the area of built development through a design process. It is therefore submitted that there is a suitable form of development that can be delivered on site and that the site should not be rejected at this stage. This is acknowledged in the assessment where it states that there is some scope for development.

The site relates well to the adjoining development that has recently come forward following an allocation within the current local planning framework. The site has the potential to connect to that site and would benefit from the pedestrian and cycle links that the adjoin development provides over the river. This provides very good access to the town centre and all of its amenities and sustainable transport options.

Infrastructure capacity has been considered and reference has been made to education provision. We would refer back to the Initial Settlements Capacity Study which does not highlight this as an overriding concern, hence the conclusions that the Shefford has medium capacity for new development, which to reiterate refers to the accommodation of development to the north-east of the settlement.

J Gudgin maintains the view that the site relates well to the existing settlement form and is readily accessible to the town centre due to connections over the river. Some of the other sites that are to be considered further at the next stage are considered to relate less well to the settlement and are further away from the town centre, making them less sustainable.

J Gudgin would also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that the previous application was supported by the Town Council and there were minimal public comments submitted. Representatives attended two meetings with Shefford Town Council to present and discuss the proposals. At the first meeting, a few minor issues were raised which the Town Council wanted to see addressed. Those comments were taken on board and the scheme presented at the second meeting was formally supported.

J Gudgin, having regard to the above comments and the comprehensive technical work undertaken to date, submit that the site should go forward for consideration as an allocation at the next stage of the plan making process.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4667

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: J Gudgin

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

NLP155 and NLP389 - objects to conclusion of Site Assessment.

Site relates well to settlement and has good access to the town centre.

Flooding, archaeology and noise issues addressed through previous planning application.

Full text:

J Gudgin wishes to comment and object to the conclusions reached in the Site Allocations Technical Document (SATD) in respect of the site titles 'Land South of Stanford Road' (Refs: NLP155 and NLP389). The site assessments are largely positive but the Stage 2 conclusion states that the site is not considered for further assessment on the basis that:

'On balance due to the location of the site and the identified flood risk concerns and impact upon settlement character, the site is not considered for further assessment'.

The decision is a balanced judgement, indicating that the site should not be rejected out of hand. The assessment in most part is positive and we would comment as follows on a number of the points/issues raised.

The assessment notes that the site has been subject of a planning application that was subsequently withdrawn. The application was accompanied by a comprehensive set of supporting documents which addressed a number of technical issues, some of which are mentioned in the SATD. The flood risk issue is referred to and for clarification, no built development is proposed within Flood Zones 2 or 3. A detailed flood risk assessment was undertaken to demonstrate that there would be no risk to development on or off the site. The land that is within the floodplain would be retained and managed as Green Infrastructure along with a suitable landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the site. This accords with the aspirations for the site to deliver ecological enhancement, which would complement other land extending along the watercourse. The assessment refers to the northern part of the site as a formal recreation area. This is perhaps referring back to the historic consent for a football ground on this site, which has now lapsed. The site, at the time, was a potential option to relocated Shefford Town FC but another site was ultimately chosen. The site therefore has no recreational value/use at present. The proposed development would introduce recreational value on the southern part of the site.

Other matters such as noise and archaeology were comprehensively addressed. The landscape and visual impact of development on this site along with settlement character has been cited as a concern. The key principles of development on this site would include retaining a suitable landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the site. The illustrative layout submitted is exactly that and J Gudgin are fully understanding of the need to consider the area of built development through a design process. It is therefore submitted that there is a suitable form of development that can be delivered on site and that the site should not be rejected at this stage. This is acknowledged in the assessment where it states that there is some scope for development.

The site relates well to the adjoining development that has recently come forward following an allocation within the current local planning framework. The site has the potential to connect to that site and would benefit from the pedestrian and cycle links that the adjoin development provides over the river. This provides very good access to the town centre and all of its amenities and sustainable transport options.

Infrastructure capacity has been considered and reference has been made to education provision. We would refer back to the Initial Settlements Capacity Study which does not highlight this as an overriding concern, hence the conclusions that the Shefford has medium capacity for new development, which to reiterate refers to the accommodation of development to the north-east of the settlement.

J Gudgin maintains the view that the site relates well to the existing settlement form and is readily accessible to the town centre due to connections over the river. Some of the other sites that are to be considered further at the next stage are considered to relate less well to the settlement and are further away from the town centre, making them less sustainable.

J Gudgin would also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that the previous application was supported by the Town Council and there were minimal public comments submitted. Representatives attended two meetings with Shefford Town Council to present and discuss the proposals. At the first meeting, a few minor issues were raised which the Town Council wanted to see addressed. Those comments were taken on board and the scheme presented at the second meeting was formally supported.

J Gudgin, having regard to the above comments and the comprehensive technical work undertaken to date, submit that the site should go forward for consideration as an allocation at the next stage of the plan making process.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Ickleford Parish Council

Representation:

Combined impact of proposed sites and those already submitted.
Traffic increase
Traffic increase and environmental impacts counter to sustainability aims of NPPF
No recognition of impacts or attempts to mitigate traffic towards Luton from M1
Combined impacts with proposals in towns/villages near to north Herts.

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: 6727

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Samuel Beadie (Investments) Limited

Agent: Phillips Planning Services Ltd

Representation:

The decision to 'drop' sites NLP135 and 137 from consideration at this stage is not based upon a reasonable and consistent assessment of the development potential of land to the south / south east of Shefford town centre.
We ask that further assessment of these sites is undertaken based upon the comments set out in this representation.
Site 141 is 'brownfield' and benefits from positive policy support for re-use. Its physical detachment does not result in isolation or functional detachment from Shefford and its facilities.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6861

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Southill Estates

Agent: Mr William Lusty

Representation:

Site Assessment - Land at Bedford Road, Shefford (Site Reference NLP355)
8.2. The Council's assessment of the site expresses concern about the relationship that development of the
this site would have with Shefford because of its size, if the northern half were to be brought forward. The
Council also expresses concern about the impact that development of the northern half of the site would
have in landscape terms, with the this part of the site forming part of the 'dipslope' landscape of the
Greensand Ridge. see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6870

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs C Foster

Agent: Savills

Representation:

NLP373 Line Field Ivel Road Shefford
The site comprises two parts - an open field to the west immediately south of an existing allocation for residential development, and an area of woodland to the east. Please note that it is Mr & Mrs Foster's intention that the area of woodland form an integral part of any development, but be retained as woodland and in their ownership with public access provided in a form to be agreed.
see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6882

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs C Foster

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Site NLP373 - Line Field, Ivel Road, Shefford
3.1. This site is proposed for up to 90 new homes, although its potential as a site for a new primary school has also been highlighted to the Council.
3.2. It would appear that there is a typographical error in that the conclusions to the Stage 1B Assessment (see p.60) after criteria 6 and 7 are both scored 'green' is 'no'; presumably this should read 'yes'.
3.3. We encourage the Council to correct the assessment.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 7336

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: KK Parrish &Co

Agent: Fisher German

Representation:

NLP009

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments: