Totternhoe

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 1785

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 Totternhoe.
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 Totternhoe.
Harry White, Howkins and Harrison
August 24th, 2017

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5034

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Harry White

Agent: Mr Harry White

Representation:

Please see attached document for details on new site submission in Totternhoe, Church End 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 Totternhoe.
Harry White, Howkins and Harrison
August 24th, 2017

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6092

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Totternhoe Parish Council

Representation:

Washed over by GB
Possible parish can take some infilling to meet local needs, together with small scale employment and community developments
Village actively producing Neighbourhood Plan
Policy SP6 identified the sort of development Totternhoe could sustain as being identified as a small village, yet village is categorised as a large village - totally inappropriate, should be changed, parish about a third of size of some of the 'large villages', could not sustain development identified for large villages

Full text:

Totternhoe Parish Council has studied the draft local plan and has some serious concerns that a number of the proposals in the Plan are unjustified and will involve the release of Green Belt land which will cause serious damage to the rural areas of Central Bedfordshire.

The draft plan proposes an enormous house building programme of between 42000 and 54000 houses over the period of the plan and a potential increase in jobs of 30,000 by the provision of land for commercial and industrial sites. This would imply that up to 24000 homes would be required for persons commuting to London, Milton Keynes or other centres of employment. CBC should be giving priority in its local plan for the needs of local people.

CBC's housing needs survey concludes that 32000 homes are required, to which we note that an additional 7400 homes are required to meet Luton's unmet needs. To our mind, notwithstanding the views of the Inspectors assessment of the first draft failing to take account of the requirements of a neighbouring authority, an allocation of this size has not been justified in the Plan and should be reviewed and revised downwards. It is unreasonable in our view that Central Bedfordshire should be expected to provide land for such a large number of houses, the size of a small town, for persons from a neighbouring area.

To the housing needs survey figures, plus the allocation for Luton, has been added contingencies which have lower and upper ranges. There is no explanation of how these contingencies have been arrived at, and should the housing needs survey be confirmed after close scrutiny, the contingencies in our view should be removed as irrelevant to the needs of local people, which is after all what CBC should be concentrating on.

The population of Central Bedfordshire at the last census was 278,000. 54000 homes would, at a conservative estimate of 3 persons per household, provide accommodation for 162000 people, an increase in population of almost 58%. We cannot see where a population increase of this magnitude has been arrived at, and therefore consider that the housing needs survey, once scrutinised, should guide the development plans, not some unjustified contingencies.

We note with some surprise, when compared with CBC's plan that Bedford Borough Council include a development of only 19000 homes in total for their area. The population of Bedford Borough was 168,751 at the last census. That Council is therefore planning for an increase in population of 57000, (calculated as above) an increase of only 33%. Why should the calculations of one authority differ so much from its neighbour?


Green belt
The establishment of the Green Belt has vital importance for Totternhoe. It has effectively prevented the coalescence of the village with surrounding towns and villages, especially Dunstable. Totternhoe Parish Council will not support any release of green belt land that affects its separate identity. The green belt as a whole would appear to be functioning well and we do not consider that exceptional circumstances have been identified in the draft plan to warrant development in the green belt.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England (Bedfordshire) has produced an excellent document in this regard and we cannot improve on it. Totternhoe Parish Council therefore fully endorses the CPRE's paper, and a copy of the relevant part is appended to this document.

Totternhoe
Totternhoe is 'washed over' by the Green Belt, a protection that has helped to prevent coalescence with neighbouring towns and villages. It is possible that some infilling can take place to meet the needs of local people, together with small scale employment and community developments. The village is actively developing a neighbourhood plan, and it is anticipated that the consultation process will take place in September 2017 with the distribution of a survey to every household in the village. The responses will guide the finalisation of the plan which will then be put to the residents for approval by means of a referendum.

Policy SP6 of CBC's plan identifies the sort of development that Totternhoe could sustain as being in the category of small villages, yet for some obscure reason the village is categorised as a large village. This is totally inappropriate and we demand that Totternhoe should be moved accordingly. Totternhoe is about one third of the size of some of the settlements included in the large village category and comparable in size to settlements in the small village category, and could not sustain the sort of development identified as appropriate for large villages.

The Council broadly endorses the Environmental Enhancement policies, especially those regarding public rights of way. However such enhancements can only be achieved with appropriate levels of funding, and we consider that too much reliance has been placed on Section 106 agreements with developers. Appropriate funding should be provided within the overall budget of CBC to ensure adequate levels of finance for maintenance and improvements. Section 106 agreements should be considered as a supplement to the budget rather than the major source of funding.

There is also a lack of clarity on the ongoing maintenance of planting and other environmental enhancements required as a condition of a grant of planning permission. Developers should be required to commit to a management plan for a number of years for environmental schemes. Too often in the past have such schemes deteriorated because of lack of clarity on ongoing responsibility for maintenance