Toddington

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1233

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Pratt

Representation:

(1) NLP411 is the best choice for housing development in Toddington.
(2) NLP387, NLP405 are environmentally sensistive and development would be more incongruous and detrimental to environment around the stream.
(3) Some wholly unsuitable sites have now been excluded- ALP002, ALP160, ALP189,ALP227, NLP348 and should be resisted if re-submitted due to adverse impact on amenity land, landscape, environment.
(4) Proposed development on the hills around junction 12 - no outcome listed for ALP118,NLP374 and NLP376 - assuming not disposed of in exclusion of NLP443, I would like to say development of these slopes would be highly intrusive in GB landscape

Full text:

(1) NLP411 is the best choice for housing development in Toddington.
(2) NLP387, NLP405 are environmentally sensistive and development would be more incongruous and detrimental to environment around the stream.
(3) Some wholly unsuitable sites have now been excluded- ALP002, ALP160, ALP189,ALP227, NLP348 and should be resisted if re-submitted due to adverse impact on amenity land, landscape, environment.
(4) Proposed development on the hills around junction 12 - no outcome listed for ALP118,NLP374 and NLP376 - assuming not disposed of in exclusion of NLP443, I would like to say development of these slopes would be highly intrusive in GB landscape

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1783

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Harry White

Agent: Mr Harry White

Representation:

Representation on behalf of our client, Mr. Bryan Wood.
Please consider the attached document as a complete representation package for a new site submission for Toddington.
Harry White, Howkins and Harrison
August 24th, 2017

Full text:

Representation on behalf of our client, Mr. Bryan Wood.
Please consider the attached document as a complete representation package for a new site submission for Toddington.
Harry White, Howkins and Harrison
August 24th, 2017

Attachments:

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1890

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr. Richard Horne

Representation:

Sites referenced NLP152 and NLP153 should be approved for residential development [mixed sized residences] as a sustainable addition to the envelope of Toddington village. They would provide a more sustainable addition than the majority of other sites proposed.

Full text:

ALP091; NLP152; NLP153

Local Plan Consultation
Central Bedfordshire Council
Priory House
Monks Way
Chicksands
Bedfordshire
SG17 5TQ

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Central Bedfordshire local Plan 2015-2035: Draft Pan Consultation July 2017
Call for Sites Ref: ALP091, NLP152/3 - SE of Leighton Road, Toddington

I am making this representation for reconsideration of the Call for Sites decision in regard to ALP091 and NLP153. Listed below are all the sites relevant to my comments. Following that are my assumptions and points for consideration that I would ask you to review in a reassessment of your decision.
I believe there is a reasonable case for the inclusion of ALP091, either in its entirety or at least partially, to be taken forward for further consideration in conjunction with NLP152/3.
Sites
ALP091 (1.45ha) SE of Leighton Road (rear of 117/121): NO - Failed at stage 1B
NLP152 (0.71ha) SE of Leighton Road: YES
NLP153 (2.12ha) SE of Leighton Road (comprises ALP091 and NLP152): PART
NLP184/ALP086 (2.83ha) Middle Lakes (borders NLP 153): YES
NLP411 (6.61ha) Alma Farm, NW of Leighton Road: YES
ALP091 comprises two plots - the garden which is currently part of 117 Leighton Road and the garden and grounds formerly belonging to 121 Leighton Road.
The relationship between sites to the SE of Leighton Road - ALP091, NLP152, NLP153 and NLP184 are shown clearly on the attached map.
Assumptions
(a) NLP153 (partial) is a combination of NLP152 (going forward) and ALP091 (rejected). Therefore it would appear that the partial element of NLP153 to go forward is only the area covered by NLP152. If my interpretation of this is incorrect, then perhaps this submission is unnecessary and I kindly ask you to advise me accordingly?

(b) ALP091 (failed due to being not well sited in relation to Toddington): This reasoning surely can apply only when this site is looked at in total isolation.

(c) NLP153 (part only due to impact of scale, size and topography of whole site): As this site fits comfortably in size and scale between NLP152 on its own and the larger sites (NLP184 and NLP411) nearby, I have to assume the concern is related to the topography. However, the area is fairly flat with hedgerows on the boundaries and the only topological feature that might be of interest is the apparently wooded area as seen from aerial photographs. The only other features are some disused outbuildings.
Considerations
(1) The entire plot belonging to 117 (approx. 0.3ha bounded by NLP152 and the playground to the NE and by NLP184 to the SE) has been used as a garden for over 70 years. Formerly it was well cultivated, but more recently it has become overgrown. Also, approximately half of the former 121 land was used as garden up until 2004. As such I believe these constitute Greenfield land as distinct from Green Belt.

(2) In regard to my assumption (b), this site would not be at all remote from Toddington if developed together with NLP152. Indeed, the majority of the ALP091/NLP153 site falls within a new Toddington envelope that would be set by the development of NLP184 and/or NLP411. Furthermore, in practical terms, this site is no further from the centre of Toddington than the three sites identified to go forward (NLP152, NLP184, NLP411).

(3) NLP153 makes for a more practical small development than NLP152 on its own. It could be brought to fruition more quickly and with less impact than the larger sites (NLP184 and NLP411). Also, being a relatively small site with good access from Leighton Road (and/or from Frenchmans Close with minimal re-siting) there would be minimal impact on infrastructure.

(4) The visual impact of NLP153 would be significantly less than that of NLP411 and whatever impact there is could be mitigated with tree planting and a sensible choice of property types.

(5) If my assumption (c) is correct then please consider that this apparently wooded area is in fact overgrown garden largely comprised of self sown seedlings and impenetrable bramble. There are some trees, but many of them are old and decaying. In parts there are conifers that were mostly planted as hedgerows along 121's boundary with 117. Again these haven't been maintained and are now overgrown and are of a quite excessive height. I believe much better and more sustainable boundary screening could be achieved with new planting.
I appreciate there are many further stages beyond 1B, however, I believe ALP091/NLP153 is so similar to the sites that are going to progress, that following a consideration of the above points, I hope you would agree that ALP091/NLP153 should be reassessed to go forward alongside NLP184 and NLP411 for consideration as part of the Local Plan.
Please acknowledge receipt and I look forward to your response in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3331

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr A. Saxby

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

This is an objection to NLP 348 Site Assessment Framework for Housing

Full text:

This is an objection to NLP 348 Site Assessment Framework for Housing

Attachments:

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3550

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Toddington Mews Developments Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Toddington Mews Developments Ltd, who are promoting a site at Luton Road, Toddington (Reference NLP138) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission for it. Separate representations having been submitted on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') and Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests. These include a Green Belt Statement prepared by James Blake Associates (JBA) in response to the conclusions of the Green Belt Review.

Toddington Mews Developments Ltd objects to the method adopted to the assessment/sieving process in the Site Assessment Technical Document (SATD) in respect of sites currently within the Green Belt, and particularly the conclusions reached in respect of site NLP138 that, as a consequence of the approach taken, it should not be considered further as part of the Local Plan.

Firstly, they would point out that in respect of Question 6 the assessments made on parcels NLP138 and NLP294 are different despite them being immediately adjoining one another. It is unfathomable how the Council can have concluded one parcel (NLP138) would not form a logical extension to Toddington yet the adjoining land (NLP294), which is further from the centre of Toddington is well related to the surrounding development.

Our clients also refute the response to Question 14 on the Site Assessment Form for Parcel NLP138 which suggests that the site does not lie within one of the parcels that have been identified in the Green Belt Review as making only a relatively weak, weak or no contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Separate representations, including the enclosed Green Belt Statement, have been submitted refuting the conclusions on parcel T2 and particularly the failure to separately identify site NLP138 as one performing weaker than the wider land parcel in the way that has been done for other Green Belt parcels.

The Green Belt Statement prepared by JBA provides a robust and objective assessment of the extent to which site NLP138 contributes to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In respect of the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment it concludes:

"5.2.7 The site relates much more closely to the urban area of Toddington than it does to the open countryside to the east. It is screened from views from the open countryside by a large block of woodland on the eastern boundary and tree and scrub belts along the northern and southern boundaries (which form permanent boundary features). To its immediate north and south are features that already form urbanising influences on the Green Belt. As a consequence, this particular site within the parcel only makes a relatively weak contribution to this Green Belt purpose.

5.2.8 The site scores very highly in terms of sustainability, being an extension to a Minor Service Centre with good transport links.

5.2.9 A new Green Belt boundary for the land east of Luton Road, Toddington is proposed, which meets the need for permanence expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework."

It has therefore been demonstrated that there are very strong arguments that the site should be released from the Green Belt and allocated for new housing. The Statement also illustrates that a robust new Green Belt boundary can be created utilising existing physical features, which would provide an enduring boundary.

In respect of Question 15, paragraph 4.3.30 of the SATD explains the sustainability criteria that have been used to filter out the most sustainable sites and confirms that sites which do not meet all three criteria have been excluded. The Site Assessment Form suggests that the Luton Road site does not meet any of these criteria, however, this is factually incorrect and it actually meets 2 out of the 3.

It immediately adjoins a settlement that has at least 3 of the local services listed and is in fact within walking distance of the centre of Toddington, which contains a sizeable range of facilities. It also immediately adjoins the recreation ground, with the GP surgery located around 150m to the south of the entrance to the site. In terms of access to existing facilities and services, it would be difficult to find a site in such a good location.

Toddington has excellent access to Junction 12 of the M1 and the site is therefore also directly adjacent to a settlement that has direct access to the strategic road network. This is acknowledged in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study.

Given these basic errors in the assessment of site NLP138 it calls into question the evidence base upon, which the Draft Local Plan has been prepared.

The other criterion in Question 15 is whether the site makes a contribution of 100 or more dwellings to need in the Luton Housing Market Area. This is a completely arbitrary figure with no supporting justification or merit. Furthermore, as has been argued in the separate representations on the DLP, given its inherent sustainability and as growth in Toddington has been restricted by the Green Belt for many years (There has been only a 2.8% increase in the housing stock over the last 10 years according the SATD, with only a further 0.26% in outstanding commitments), it should be allocated growth at the upper end of the capacity range indicated in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study, i.e around 500 dwellings. There is no single site in Toddington appropriate to deliver that amount of housing and more than one site will need to be allocated and there should be no reason in principle not to include the Luton Road site as one of a number allocated in Toddington.

Failing to allocate the site for this reason would be irrational and could result in a less sustainable site being developed as a consequence, meaning the Local Plan would not be justified as required by the NPPF. Allocation of the site would also help the Local Plan meeting the suggestion in the Housing White Paper (2017) that a proportion of development should take place on small sites.

No other issues were raised as part of the Stage 1 Assessment, with this confirming that the site is well related to the existing settlement and that there would be no coalescence issues from its development. In respect of the questions posed at Stages 2 and 3, which the site did not progress to, there are no issues that would not be addressed as part of the supporting information with a future planning application in the normal manner.

Toddington Mews Developments Ltd are committed to developing the site and it is therefore achievable. It is respectfully requested that this land is reconsidered for inclusion in the Local Plan as part of the next stage of preparation.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4346

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Toddington Mews Developments Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See attached concerning land off Luton Road, Toddington

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Toddington Mews Developments Ltd, who are appointed promoters of a site at Luton Road, Toddington (References NLP138 & NLP294) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission for it. They focus on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') itself, with separate representations having been submitted on the Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests. These include a Green Belt Statement prepared by James Blake Associates in response to the conclusions of the Green Belt Study and comments on the Site Assessment Form relating to the Luton Road site included as part of the Site Assessments Technical Document.

The comments made here are intended to be constructive in nature, with the aim of seeking to ensure that the final version of the Local Plan can be considered 'sound' when it reaches examination.

As a general observation, whilst acknowledging the document is an initial draft, the Local Plan is clearly still very much a work in progress, with a number of key decisions left open, or to be decided. As will be explained in detail below, Toddington Mews Developments Ltd's principal concern is that the emerging draft Growth Strategy is unlikely to achieve the level of new housing required over the Plan period and needs refining as a consequence. Objections have also been made to the approach taken to the Green Belt review, particularly in respect of Toddington, arguing that further development should be accommodated there.

Policy SP1: Growth Strategy
Our clients support the key principle underpinning the emerging spatial strategy for Central Bedfordshire outlined in Section 7.1. That being to seek to realise the opportunity for sustainable economic led growth provided by Central Bedfordshire's strategic geographical position on the axis of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor and key transport corridors to London; namely the M1, A1, Midland Main Line Railway and the East Coast Railway. Given that Central Bedfordshire is, to a certain degree, competing with much larger centres such as Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes and Stevenage, the final version of the Plan will need to be suitably ambitious if this aim is to be realised.

They are therefore encouraged by the commitment in the DLP to allocate land for a minimum of 20,000 dwellings in addition to those expected to be delivered from existing commitments over the Plan period and the pledge to provide 7,400 dwellings towards Luton Borough's unmet need on the back of 'duty to cooperate' discussions with neighbouring authorities is welcomed. This will hopefully resolve the issues that brought about the withdrawal of the Development Strategy, although it will need to be demonstrated conclusively through the evidence provided with the Submission version of the Local Plan. However, in order to meet the high housing need for Central Bedfordshire, along with the 7,400 dwelling contribution towards Luton Borough's unmet need, Toddington Mews Developments Ltd is of the view that a total housing target at the upper end of the range set out in Table 7.2 of the DLP (i.e 31,822 dwellings) is likely to need to be included in the Submission version of the Plan.

This is so as to take account of lapse rates, and in acknowledgment that not every site allocated will come forward on time, or even at all. For example, there remain sites in the current adopted Plans for the area that have yet to deliver any housing for various reasons.

Paragraph 7.7.2 of the DLP suggests that the next version of the Plan is likely to include a certain level of growth as a contingency if sites allocated fail to come forward, therefore acknowledging the point being made here. Such an approach of allocating more land than that calculated as being required will be essential in providing a safeguard to ensure the housing numbers needed do actually come forward, and in this respect the Plan could be considered to be positively prepared as required by paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

The Submission version of the Local Plan will also need to take into account the implications of any standardised methodology for calculating housing need introduced by the Government following the Housing White Paper (2017). It is understood that a consultation on the draft methodology is likely to commence in September.

Our clients do have a fundamental concern with the emerging approach to the Growth Strategy outlined in Policy SP1 and the supporting text, however. This is that it is unlikely to deliver the high level of housing required during the Plan period due to an overreliance on a small number of new settlements (both towns and villages) and sizeable town extensions. Such schemes inevitably have lengthy lead-in times and a greater potential for delays in delivery due to complicated landownership arrangements and the requirement for substantial new infrastructure to facilitate them. One only has to look at the time it took from inception for The Wixams to start delivering housing as evidence of this (Approximately 30 years).

From a review of the of potential strategic growth locations provided in section 8.5 of the DLP it is evident that all of these will be dependent on the provision of significant new infrastructure and in some cases this infrastructure would need to be funded and/or delivered by third parties and not the Council or the promoters of the site, meaning delivery timescales are even less certain.

The table below highlights this point and the supporting text to Policy SP1 even acknowledges that delivery from some of these sites may extend beyond the Plan period.

Site Major Infrastructure Required
North of Luton Dependent on delivery of the M1 - A6 link road, which is partly being funded by the Government through SEMLEP
Tempsford South and Tempsford Airfield Requires a new train station to form an interchange between East-West Rail and the East Coast Main Line. This is dependent on the Government and Network Rail
New junctions on the A1 and A428 will be required, along with improvements to the A1
New Villages to the East of Bigglsewade A comprehensive scheme of highways works is required to mitigate the impact of increased traffic on the A1
Marston Vale New Villages A comprehensive scheme of highway measures is required to mitigate the impact of increase traffic on M1 J13 and the A421
Improvements to Ridgmont Station as part of East-West rail upgrade
Aspley Triangle A comprehensive scheme of highway measures is required to mitigate the impact of increase traffic on M1 J13 and the A421

There is also a limit on the number of houses that will be delivered from a single site in a year even when there is a strong economy. Were the final version of the Plan to rely on too small a number of allocation sites to meet the high housing requirement it would increase the likelihood of shortfalls in the 5 year housing supply occurring during the Plan period, meaning the Council would again be open to planning applications for unallocated sites.

Toddington Mews Developments Ltd therefore strongly encourages the Council to develop a final growth strategy that relies less on these new settlements and significant urban extensions and instead allocates more small and medium scale sites, which are generally less complicated and quicker to deliver, in order to ensure that the substantial housing need is met throughout the Plan period. This would also be in line with one of the initiatives included in the Housing White Paper earlier this year, with the Government positively encouraging more development on smaller sites.

In respect of the Green Belt, our clients are entirely supportive of the principle of the existing boundaries being reviewed as part of this Local Plan. This is long overdue and the exceptional circumstances required by the NPPF certainly exist, as outlined in Section 9.2 of the DLP and evidenced by the supporting technical work as published as part of the consultation. However, they have specific concerns regarding the inconsistent approach to the way the Green Belt review has been undertaken and the conclusions that have resulted, which has had a direct impact on the assessment of site NLP138 in the Site Assessments Technical Document, as is explained in detail in the separate representations on these documents.

The Green Belt Statement submitted herewith has demonstrated robustly that sites NLP138 and NLP264 should not be included within the Green Belt when the boundaries are revised as it makes only a weak contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt set out in paragraph 80 of the Framework. It also indicates that a robust revised boundary can be created using existing physical features adjacent to the sites boundaries.

This demonstrates that there is capacity for more development around Toddington than is currently anticipated by the Site Assessments Technical Document. Toddington Mews Developments Ltd are therefore of the view that the housing target specifically identified in Policy SP1 from existing settlements in the Green Belt should increase from the 2,000 dwellings in the Submission version of the Plan. This would also reduce the reliance on new settlements and strategic scale urban extensions criticised above.

This point is backed up in the Council's own technical evidence published with the DLP. The Luton HMA Growth Options Study considered a wide area of land around Toddington, which included our clients' site at Toddington Road, as an option falling into the typology 'large village'. The Study concluded that the land in this option has very good access to services, facilities and public transport infrastructure, it was also rated as 'high' in terms of overall viability. Allocating viable sites will be paramount if the high housing target in the Local Plan is to be achieved.

Furthermore, the Settlements Capacity Initial Study, on which separate representations are submitted, concluded that Toddington has medium capacity (50 - 500 dwellings) for growth with Green Belt release.

Therefore, in order to be considered the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, and therefore justified in the sense required by the NPPF, the Submission version of the Local Plan should include the allocation of sufficient land at Toddington commensurate with its inherent sustainability and this should include the land at Luton Road being promoted by our client.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4891

Received: 26/08/2017

Respondent: mr bryan randall

Representation:

NLP454 - Toddington:

should be reconsidered
close to village amenities
is within Green Belt but other sites are as well

Full text:

NLP 454 TODDINGTON.
This site of approx. 4 hec. failed the Call For Sites at 1e. The site is to the underdeveloped north side of the village and only a few minutes walk away from the village centre and it's amenities unlike the other sites. The site is in the Green Belt but so are all the other sites being proposed for development in Toddington.
It is not strongly related to the Green Belt because it contains two properties and many out buildings plus long drives for access, the outbuildings indicate that some of the site has been previously developed.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5033

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Harry White

Agent: Mr Harry White

Representation:

Please see attachment for details on a new site submission at 'Dropshort Farm'

Full text:

Representation on behalf of our client, Mr. Bryan Wood.
Please consider the attached document as a complete representation package for a new site submission for Toddington.
Harry White, Howkins and Harrison
August 24th, 2017

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5094

Received: 15/08/2017

Respondent: J Morgan

Representation:

Concerns re: NLP348 & ALP189
Increased noise pollution on Dunstable Road
Increased traffic for those living close to Dunstable Road
Impact on quality of life
Change of landscape/views
Existing footpath through site and additional non-designated path used by dog-walkers
Development on Green Belt
Not in keeping with surrounding area, of allotments, Glebe playing field and nature reserve
Merging of boundaries into Chalgrave and Tebworth

Full text:

I'm writing to you with an objection to the proposal NPL348 & ALP189 to build houses on this plot of land.
We are extremely concerned and object to this proposal as it would significantly increase the noise pollution on Dunstable Road.
As you are aware, Dunstable Road is a major through road into and out of Toddington, connecting to the M1 and Dunstable/Houghton Regis. The introduction of the new homes will add to the traffic and general noise pollution for those living within its close proximity.

The location of this site would have a detrimental impact on the quality of our family life: one of the key reasons we live in Toddington is the location of our house. We have lived in this location in the village for a considerable number of years, even before the land was purchased by the proprietors. The introduction of homes will completely change the landscape of the village, destroy totally the views we enjoy today and would increase the noise pollution from additional cars. A further consideration is the impact that this would have on village life; the proposed site has a footpath that goes through the centre and an external circular path, created by dog walkers who have used it for over 10 years.

The land is on green belt, would not be in keeping with the current surrounding and would greatly impact the nature & life of the village: the land is bounded by allotments, Glebe playing field and a nature reserve; all of which serve to be compromised.

Building on this site will merge the boundaries into neighbouring the villages Chalgrave and Tebworth.

Attachments:

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5205

Received: 15/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan White

Representation:

The Council should look again at NLP152 and NLP153 - they would provide small sustainable developments with a variety of housing types.
I suggest the land to the south-east of Leighton Road NLP152 and NLP153 should be identified and allocated as eminently suitable for residential development in the next iteration of the Local Plan and in the Toddington Neighbourhood Plan.
See Attachment

Full text:

Broadly supportive of the growth strategy.
There is dis-connection between the Commuity Plans and the Local Plan.
Toddington has suffered from its position in the green belt with insufficient linkage with its immediate environs.
Sites must be allocated for development to create local jobs and improve local services.
The Council should look again at NLP152 and NLP153 - they would provide small sustainable developments with a variety of housing types.
See Attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Land at Leighton Road, Toddington
NLP152 NLP153 NLP184 NLP378 NLP405 ALP091 ALP086
See attachment for detailed comments and technical work for the above submissions

Site visually well contained by network of hedges/trees, majority of existing features have potential to be retained, opportunity for enhanced planting to southern boundary
Anticipated site capacity of 250 dwellings
Assessment concluded site had a medium deliverability, subject to only 8 secondary constraints - Listed Building/Conservation Area/Priority Habitat Inventory/Locally Designated Wildlife Site/Locally Identified Sensitive Landscape/G1/2/3 agricultural land/surface water flooding/publically accessible open space
These issues are addressed in the attachment

Full text:

See attachment for comments made on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in respect of the Draft Local Plan and land in Toddington

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands

Representation:

The site comprises 2 parcels located on the south western edge of Toddington with main road
frontage to Leighton Road. Proposed residential development would relate well with existing
development to the north east at Peartree Close and Frenchman's Close. Houses would be a mix of
size and tenure according to local need and market conditions, but would be mainly 2 storeys, with
appropriate landscape buffering, given the edge of settlement location. see attachment

Full text:

Re: Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035, Draft Plan July 2017
Land to the south east of Leighton Road, Toddington (NLP152 & NLP153)
We write regarding the above consultation; thank you for inviting comments, and allowing us the opportunity to respond on the Draft Local Plan. Specifically our comments are in relation to land to the south east of Leighton Road, Toddington.
Growth Strategy
We are broadly supportive of the Local Plan growth strategy, whereby it directs increased development to sustainable locations such as Toddington. In particular the Spatial Strategy Approach which seeks to deliver between 20,000 and 30,000 new homes through moderate extensions to existing towns and villages, along with entirely new towns and villages. However, we encourage the Council to be cautious in terms of delivery rates from the proposed large sites and query both the timing and the likelihood of delivery of key infrastructure, such as the A1 improvements and the east of Bedford section of East West Rail. Delays in delivery of such key infrastructure would severely undermine the anticipated trajectory of housing delivery from such large sites.
Toddington is identified as a Minor Service Centre in the draft Local Plan, under the Settlement Hierarchy, defined as "larger settlements with a good level of services, possibly including a school, doctor's surgery, a basic retail offer and frequent public transport links". The settlement is 'inset' from the Green Belt. Toddington is located within Growth Area A, as set out in the Shaping Central Bedfordshire Consultation, undertaken in autumn 2016, whereby the Spatial Strategy contains options
for new villages and urban extensions near to the M1. This area also offers opportunities for development to contribute to improvements of the road and public transport networks.
Area A South is also required to take some of the unmet housing need from Luton HMA, providing for 7,350 in Central Bedfordshire, some of which (around 2,000 homes collectively) will be in the form of highly sustainable extensions of a more moderate scale to larger towns and villages that are inset into the Green Belt. Under Policy SP1: Growth Strategy, we therefore strongly support development
planned at the Inset Green Belt Villages (Village Extensions) within Area A.
We are, however, concerned by the Council's proposal (paragraph 8.3.2 of the draft Local Plan) that when supply is low, to include a policy which negates the requirement to apply the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. Of course, the presumption is 'at the heart of' the NPPF, and should be seen as a 'golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking'.
We would be interested to know how this proposed policy aims to 'boost housing supply', i.e. would the Council draw on reserve sites? And if so, one would require these to be contained in the Plan so as not to be seen to 'bypass' it. Clearly if supply is low, then the Council should, at this early stage of the plan making process, ensure that there is a continual over-supply to avoid such a scenario, and to avoid further delay should the Plan be found unsound.
It is disappointing to note that even though Toddington is in the process of producing an emerging Neighbourhood Plan, the draft Local Plan does not provide an indication in terms of the number of dwellings to be allocated at each settlement. This would be a helpful minimum requirement guide for
the formation of Neighbourhood Plans, and would indicate how much each settlement is capable of accommodating.
Site Specifics
A site location plan is provided at the end of this letter.
The site comprises 2 parcels located on the south western edge of Toddington with main road frontage to Leighton Road. Proposed residential development would relate well with existing development to the north east at Peartree Close and Frenchman's Close. Houses would be a mix of size and tenure according to local need and market conditions, but would be mainly 2 storeys, with appropriate landscape buffering, given the edge of settlement location. Under the Council's Site Assessment Technical Document, Appendix D: Preliminary Site Assessment
Results, the site is referenced as NLP152 & 153, land to the south east of Leighton Road, Toddington, measuring 2.8ha in total. The site was submitted as suitable for residential development to the Council's Call for Sites exercise during spring 2016.
The outcome to NLP153 (the larger parcel) is as follows; "A portion of the site will be considered further as part of the Local Plan" justified as follows; "Portion of site only to progress because of the impact the full site, due to its size, scale and local topography, would have on the character of the settlement". We believe a scheme could be devised that would have regard to the topography and perceived landscape constraints along the southern boundary, such as the inclusion of a number of single storey dwellings along that edge NLP152 (the smaller parcel) was considered wholly suitable as part of the Local Plan.
Other than the more major projects which look at new villages in Aspley Guise, Marston Vale, RAF Henlow Camp, east Arlesey, East Biggleswade and a new town at Tempsford, we expect remaining allocations required to meet such a level of growth to be presented in the next publication of the Local Plan. It is understood that this will look at sites on the edges of settlements, based on the Call for Sites assessments exercise previously undertaken. It is also understood that sites such as land at Toddington will be considered and allocated through the future Neighbourhood Plan.
Of all the sites in Toddington only land at south east of Leighton Road (NLP153) (NLP152), Middle Lakes, Russell Road (NLP184), land at Leighton Road (NLP378), land to the east of Leighton Road (NLP405), and Alma Farm (NLP411), were identified as being suitable for further consideration. The total amount of dwellings capable of being delivered from these sites is circa 500 units. Clearly these
would not all come forward immediately and those which are not adjoined to the existing settlement (NLP405, for example) would have to follow.
We therefore suggest that, land to the south east of Leighton Road (NLP152 & 153) should be allocated as suitable for residential development in the emerging Local Plan and future Neighbourhood Plan, should this be progressed. Allocating smaller sites for development as opposed to over reliance on larger, strategic land dependent on significant infrastructure enhancements would mean that housing targets are more deliverable and achievable.

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6109

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Toddington Parish Council

Representation:

Object to all sites identified on basis that existing amenities/infrastructure couldn't cope with increase at this time
Draft Neighbourhood Plan acknowledged we wouldn't support single development of 30+ units, also acknowledge NLP152 is less than this
Significant parking issues in village, especially in village centre/school times
Village Hall parking spaces not solution, this is private property with parking permitted at certain times
Limited/reduced public transport, impacts ability to commute out
Lower School has capacity issues as per assessment
NLP184 - clear this development is reliant on further sites being released, therefore this cannot be assessed for suitability at this time

Full text:

Toddington Parish Council's representation to Central Bedfordshire Draft Local Plan Consultation

The view of Toddington Parish Council (TPC) is that our objection is to all sites identified for assessment during Stage 2 on the basis that the existing amenities and infrastructure could not cope with any increase at this time.

Neighbourhood Plan
Toddington Parish Council have invested a great deal of time and effort in seeking the views of the community in the development of its Neighbourhood Plan (NHP). Significant time, effort and resource has been invested in the development of this plan to shape the future of the community and have a positive impact.

Specifically, in relation to the housing needs, the NHP Steering Group went to great lengths in consulting and surveying the community to understand, identify and capture their views and needs. This has been shared in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan (DNHP).

We also acknowledge that the DNHP stated that we would not support a single development that exceeded 30 units and we also acknowledge that one of the sites assessed (NLP152) is less than this number.

Parking
The DNHP identified significant parking issues within the village and identified specifically significant issues within the Village Centre. The DNHP wrongly identified a solution of the Village Hall site for public parking. The Village Hall parking spaces remain private property with permitted parking at certain times. The Toddington Village Hall Association have recently communicated this reminder to the community.

Parking during relevant schools time have also resulted in repeated attendance by Bedfordshire Police resources. Any growth will only exacerbate this too.


Public Transport
There have been a reduction in services to and from the village. Bus services have been reduced to such an extent that it makes it almost impossible to commute in and out of the village to both Harlington (train station) and also larger towns such as Luton, Dunstable, Milton Keynes and Bedford. The bus service has reduced to one bus per hour during its most frequent time.

Schools
We (TPC) are also aware that the lower school has expressed its concern over its ability to take more pupils.

The findings of the Stage 1 site assessments also found in all of the cases in the Toddington area that: -

'Although Toddington is considered a sustainable village in terms of its facilities and services, any further development would require contributions to education provision.'

Site specific comments
NLP184
Specifically in relation to NLP184 it is clear that they are reliant on further sites being released for development and therefore this cannot be assessed for suitability at this time.

Conclusion
Toddington Parish Council want to be clear that we are appointed to our positions to have the best interests of the community at the forefront of any decision. We feel at this time that any increase of any scale would have a detrimental impact on the community and its residents. We object to all of the six sites being considered in Stage 2 (NLP086, NLP152, NLP153, NLP378, NLP405 & NLP411).

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 7142

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Denison Investments

Agent: Arrow Planning

Representation:

Denison Investments Limited are the promoters of the following sites
within Central Bedfordshire:
* Land off Goswell End Road, Harlington (CBC Ref
NLP303/ALP123);
* Alma Farm, Toddington (CBC Ref NLP411);
* Land at Warren Farm Phase 2, Ampthill (CBC Ref
NLP412/ALP343);
* One-O-One Field, Ampthill Road, Flitwick (CBC Ref
NLP397/ALP345);
* Land at Leighton Road, Hockliffe (CBC Ref NLP413/ALP125);
* Land to the North of Shefford Road, Clifton (CBC Ref NLP361).

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: