North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study

Showing comments and forms 1 to 17 of 17

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 171

Received: 11/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Tyrtania

Representation:

The conclusions of the settlement capacity and growth studies in respect of Lidlington are in conflict.
Lidlington is already under pressure from developments within and around the village and the proposed upgrading of the railway line through the village.

Full text:

The Growth Options study for sites around Lidlington rates them as suitable (highly deliverable), but the Settlement capacity Study rates the sites as 'Low' - how are these conflicts reconciled?
There is already pressure on the local road network from existing developments in surrounding areas, forcing drivers to use Lidlington as a cut-through to and from the A507.
Lidlington has lost one of its two pubs in the last 5 years and the remaining pub does not serve food or cater positively for families.
Development in the areas between Lidlington and Marston in particular will cause loss of separation between the two villages.
The plans for the East-West railway development already threaten loss of public paths and further development may further restrict access to the open areas around the villages.
Development of the Bedford to Milton Keynes water park could be used positively to maintain separation between the villages and improve recreational facilities for each village. Whilst Marston and to a certain extent Brogborough have roads that act as bypass, Lidlington suffers from traffic directly through the heart of the village. Existiing events, such as Car Boot Sales in the Summer months have already proven to have the ability to create gridlock on the village's roads. The planning permission granted for development to the rear of the Green Man pub has reduced the capacity of the pub's outdoor facilities and removed an area of its car parking from the venue.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1456

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Bedfordshire Land Promotions

Agent: JLL

Representation:

The Council's findings conclude that land at Caddington Brickfield (Location L25) is unconstrained compared to other locations and does not contribute strongly to Green Belt functions. The location is well connected to services and would be deliverable and viable.
We therefore support the findings of the study and provide further commentary on this in section 6 of the full representations attached.

Full text:

The Council's findings conclude that land at Caddington Brickfield (Location L25) is unconstrained compared to other locations and does not contribute strongly to Green Belt functions. The location is well connected to services and would be deliverable and viable.
We therefore support the findings of the study and provide further commentary on this in section 6 of the full representations attached.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of our client, Mr A. Kinns, who is promoting land around Wharley End Farm, Wharley End, Cranfield (Site Ref NLR176) for sustainable residential development, as detailed in the Call for Sites submissions made in 2014 and 2016. Separate submissions have been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and the Site Allocations Technical Document.

Our client supports the methodology used in the North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study and particularly the findings in respect of location N2, known as Wharley End West. This takes in the land being promoted by our client, although not all of it is identified due to a misunderstanding of the Call for Sites submission made, which has subsequently been corrected on the latest iteration of the Map for Cranfield. These findings demonstrate that a sustainable urban extension at Wharley End is a more deliverable and appropriate solution to meeting housing needs in this area than a number of the strategic growth locations that have been identified in the DLP.

Separate representations have been submitted on the DLP arguing for the inclusion of an allocation at Wharley End in the Submission version of the Plan.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5068

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Kinns

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Growth Options Study

Support findings make on Cranfield, a sustainable urban extensions at Wharley End is a more deliverable and appropriate solution to meeting housing needs.
Separate representations have been made in regard to site submissions.

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of our client, Mr A. Kinns, who is promoting land around Wharley End Farm, Wharley End, Cranfield (Site Ref NLR176) for sustainable residential development, as detailed in the Call for Sites submissions made in 2014 and 2016. Separate submissions have been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and the Site Allocations Technical Document.

Our client supports the methodology used in the North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study and particularly the findings in respect of location N2, known as Wharley End West. This takes in the land being promoted by our client, although not all of it is identified due to a misunderstanding of the Call for Sites submission made, which has subsequently been corrected on the latest iteration of the Map for Cranfield. These findings demonstrate that a sustainable urban extension at Wharley End is a more deliverable and appropriate solution to meeting housing needs in this area than a number of the strategic growth locations that have been identified in the DLP.

Separate representations have been submitted on the DLP arguing for the inclusion of an allocation at Wharley End in the Submission version of the Plan.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5750

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Land Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Pigeon broadly agree with the methodology used and particularly the findings in respect of location N10, known as Sandy North East, which takes in the land being promoted by Pigeon. These demonstrate that a sustainable urban extension to the north of Sandy is a more deliverable and appropriate solution to meeting housing needs in this area than the new settlement proposed at Tempsford South and Temspford Airfield referred to in the Study as Sandy North East.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 5920

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

Cambridgeshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to Central Bedfordshire's draft Local Plan. The attached comments have been prepared by Officers of the Council and submitted in accordance with the instructions and timescales set out by Central Bedfordshire. It should be noted that the same comments will be reported to the next meeting of the Economy and Environment Committee (12th October) for formal endorsement by this Council.

Full text:

Cambridgeshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to Central Bedfordshire's draft Local Plan. The attached comments have been prepared by Officers of the Council and submitted in accordance with the instructions and timescales set out by Central Bedfordshire. It should be noted that the same comments will be reported to the next meeting of the Economy and Environment Committee (12th October) for formal endorsement by this Council.

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6088

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Representation:

The Council's North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study (July 2017) has assessed a series of growth locations within the Milton Keynes, Bedford and Stevenage
HMA areas that sit within Central Bedfordshire. Land to the east of Arlesey was one of the 30 locations that were considered in the study, following a sieving exercise to
remove sites that were situated within areas of primary constraint or could not be grouped to form larger strategic options. The assessment concluded that the site had an overall deliverability of low and was subject to only 5 secondary constraints ( total of 17). see attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6812

Received: 11/10/2017

Respondent: ASK-Re The Property People

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Study does not include this site ALP265, nor other land that could have been added to allow a proper
consideration of the general location for development on the edge of a key growth location in North
Central Beds. This omission is a flaw because it has not allowed a full consideration of all available
opportunities for growth

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6963

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Jackson and others

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Study does not include this site ALP265, nor other land that could have been added to allow a proper consideration of the general location for development on the edge of a key growth location in North Central Beds. This omission is a flaw because it has not allowed a full consideration of all available opportunities for growth

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6997

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: GVA

Agent: GVA

Representation:

In the Growth Options Study July 2017 two sites cover the land proposed for the New Market Town. Though the red lines encompassed by the North Central Bedfordshire Growth Options Study July 2017 are not a fully accurate representation of the redline of the proposed New Market Town as shown at Appendix III The two sites are N10 (Sandy North East) and N11 (Sandy North West).
see attachment page 13

Full text:

Please see attached

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 6998

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Rowan Homes

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Study does not include this site, nor other land that could have been added to allow a proper consideration of the general location for development on the edge of a key growth location in North Central Beds. This omission is a flaw because it has not allowed a full consideration of all available opportunities for growth

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7038

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Javis Homes Ltd & Haut Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Report prepared on behalf of CBC was to look at the various options to deliver housing in the Luton HMA. This site lies within the Luton HMA. The study narrowed down the locations by removing the sites located in areas of Primary Constraint. Accordingly, 32 locations were therefore considered for analysis. It also excluded sites that were part of a committed allocation, such as HRN.

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7062

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Optimis Estates

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Study does not include this site, nor other land that could have been added to allow a proper consideration of the general location for development on the edge of a key growth location in North Central Beds. This omission is a flaw because it has not allowed a full consideration of all available opportunities for growth. In fact, in the Technical Assessment it recognised the strategic options representation that was submitted recorded as ALP266 "Northern Expansion" which sought to direct an area for strategic growth.

Full text:

see attachments

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7093

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Crown Coast

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

The Study does not include this site, nor other land that could have been added to allow a proper consideration of the general location for development on the edge of a key growth location in North Central Beds. This omission is a flaw because it has not allowed a full consideration of all available opportunities for growth adjacent to Shefford, a Minor Service Centre.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7169

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Haut Limited

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7238

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Rogers .

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Representation:

see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 7326

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: O&H Properties

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation:

O&H have concerns regarding the assumptions within this report. From a high-level review of this document,
alongside the 'Residential Development Viability Report' (CBC / Three Dragons, 2017), we question the
assumptions in respect of viability. Whilst the assumptions in the 'Residential Development Viability Report'
appear appropriate, these differ from some of those contained in the Growth Options Study, in some cases,
certain assumptions are not provided in the Growth Options Study and therefore it is difficult to determine if the
two would be consistent. see attachment

Full text:

See attachments

Attachments: