Settlement Capacity Initial Study

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 57

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 179

Received: 11/07/2017

Respondent: Mr James Bonfield

Representation:

Section 3.11 states Potton has medium potential for growth. It also states that many other sites are not suitable "due to the potential for larger scale development to negatively affect settlement identities and rural landscapes, and a lack of services and facilities".

What spare capacity in services does Potton have that make it better than sites in other areas? Why would Potton not have any negative impact on the rural landscape and identity as a small market town?

Full text:

Section 3.11 states Potton has medium potential for growth. It also states that many other sites are not suitable "due to the potential for larger scale development to negatively affect settlement identities and rural landscapes, and a lack of services and facilities".

What spare capacity in services does Potton have that make it better than sites in other areas? Why would Potton not have any negative impact on the rural landscape and identity as a small market town?

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 180

Received: 11/07/2017

Respondent: Mr James Bonfield

Representation:

Potton Healthcare is overstretched with several weeks to get an appointment at the doctors. Parking is almost non-existant and there is no room for expansion of either.

Full text:

Potton Healthcare is overstretched with several weeks to get an appointment at the doctors. Parking is almost non-existant and there is no room for expansion of either.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 575

Received: 03/08/2017

Respondent: Harlington Parish Council

Representation:

Issues with the description of Harlington and the skating over of sewerage and wastewater treatment. Summary assumes release of GB land without very special circumstances required by national planning policy and brushes aside concerns over potential coalescence of villages, makes no mention of loss of good quality agricultural land, and the erosion of the character of the village and quality of life by adding expanded/enlarged facilities and services on top of new development.
See attachment for detailed comments on the Settlement Capacity Initial Study in relation to Harlington

Full text:

See attachment for comments from Harlington Parish Council

Attachments:

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 686

Received: 09/08/2017

Respondent: Stondon Parish Council

Agent: Mr James Stirling

Representation:

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and randomly adds in information from Henlow Camp which is not in the Parish.

Full text:

Review of - 170531_area_d_assessments

Lower Stondon

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and randomly adds in information from Henlow Camp which is not in the Parish.

Stated
Stondon is a village in the east of Central Bedfordshire and has a population of 2,300 people and contains 1,110 dwellings (population and dwellings combine Upper and Lower Stondon)145. The settlement is around 10 miles east of Flitwick and around 7 miles south of Biggleswade. Stondon is divided into two sections, Upper Stondon and Lower Stondon146, with Lower Stondon being the larger of the two villages. Upper Stondon is assessed separately.

Correction

Why are Upper and Lower Stondon looked at separately? There is no separation. They are joined by the housing in Hillside Road. The number of dwellings is 1023 based on last precept.

Stated.

Services and facilities available within Lower Stondon include a community centre, a pre-school/nursery, a lower school, an ATM, 2 convenience stores, a post office, a chemist, a GP surgery/health centre, 3 restaurants/takeaways, a food serving pub, outdoor recreational facilities and 2 children's play areas. There is also a golf course in the settlement, a garden centre, 2 bowling alleys and a theatre.

Correction
There are:-
No ATM
1 restaurant/takeaway
seven play areas
no bowling alley (RAF Henlow - closing 2020)
no theatre (RAF Henlow - closing 2020)

Stated

However, there is a deficit of informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces and allotments

Correction
There are:-
Two large recreation areas (Hillside Road, Pollards Way)
Allotments (since 2012 and 60 plots)
What are amenity spaces?

Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment
The Shillington WwTW currently has capacity issues.

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
Item 1 - there is no expansion options for the school and will be at capacity following significant housing growth.
Item 4 - there is no theatre and we have allotments.

Summary.
The information is inaccurate and includes Henlow Camp. There are no options to the East as this is a different Parish. North will start to create coalescence towards other villages and destroys the green break. This will also fall into the blast zone from MDBA Bomb manufacturing capabilities.
Extending West will remove the natural break to the Countryside and the loss of agricultural land.

Capacity should be LOW as we have been advised of developments either approved or suggested to bring over 500 houses to the village.

Attachments:

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 687

Received: 09/08/2017

Respondent: Stondon Parish Council

Agent: Mr James Stirling

Representation:

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and lack clarity on where the break of the two areas is.
The break between the two is a green area. Upper Stondon has at most 3 houses and the Church along with two small commercial areas and as such the report seperation in not practical.

Full text:

Review of - 170531_area_d_assessments

Upper Stondon

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and lack clarity on where the break of the two areas is.
The break between the two is a green area. Upper Stondon has at most 3 houses and the Church along with two small commercial areas.

Stated
Stondon is a village in the east of Central Bedfordshire and has a population of 2,300
people and contains 1,110 dwellings (population and dwellings combine Upper and
Lower Stondon)350. The settlement is around 10 miles east of Flitwick and around 7 miles
south of Biggleswade. Stondon is divided into two sections, Upper Stondon and Lower
Stondon351, with Lower Stondon being the larger of the two villages.

Correction

Why are Upper and Lower Stondon looked at separately? There is no real separation. The number of dwellings is 1023 based on last precept.

Stated.

Upper Stondon does not contain any services and facilities. Upper Stondon has 1 small Leisure Strategy site, whilst Stondon as a whole has a surplus of formal large recreation areas, play areas for children and facilities for young people. However, there is a deficit of informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces and allotments.

Correction

This seems to contradict the information provided for Lower Stondon.
There is no small Leisure Strategy site in Upper Stondon.
Stondon as a whole has allotments and a range of spaces.

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/stondon-leisure-schedule_tcm3-22084.pdf



Stated

However, there is a deficit of informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces and allotments

Correction
There are:-
Two large recreation areas (Hillside Road, Pollards Way)
Allotments (since 2012 and 60 plots)
What are amenity spaces?
A large number of play areas.
http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/stondon-leisure-schedule_tcm3-22084.pdf

Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment
The Shillington WwTW currently has capacity issues and each new development has been required to contribute to expand them or provide a coping system (untested).

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
Item 1 - there is no expansion options for the school and will be at capacity following significant housing growth.
Item 2 - The Doctors in Stondon is at capacity and the building needs expansion to cope.
Item 4 - there is no theatre and we have allotments.

Summary.
The information is inaccurate and includes Henlow Camp. There are no options to the East as this is a different Parish. North will start to create coalescence towards other villages and destroys the green break. This will also fall into the blast zone from MDBA Bomb manufacturing capabilities.
Extending West will remove the natural break to the Countryside and the loss of agricultural land.

Capacity should be LOW as we have been advised of developments either approved or suggested to bring over 500 houses to the village.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 688

Received: 09/08/2017

Respondent: Stondon Parish Council

Agent: Mr James Stirling

Representation:

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and lack clarity on where the break of the two areas is.
The break between the two is a green area. Upper Stondon has at most 3 houses and the Church along with two small commercial areas. It is not good to separate the two areas of the same Village!

Full text:

Review of - 170531_area_d_assessments

Upper Stondon

We have found a number of significant errors in the report. It separates Upper and Lower Stondon and lack clarity on where the break of the two areas is.
The break between the two is a green area. Upper Stondon has at most 3 houses and the Church along with two small commercial areas. It is not good to separate the two areas of the same Village!

Stated
Stondon is a village in the east of Central Bedfordshire and has a population of 2,300
people and contains 1,110 dwellings (population and dwellings combine Upper and
Lower Stondon)350. The settlement is around 10 miles east of Flitwick and around 7 miles
south of Biggleswade. Stondon is divided into two sections, Upper Stondon and Lower
Stondon, with Lower Stondon being the larger of the two villages.

Correction

Why are Upper and Lower Stondon looked at separately? There is no real separation. The number of dwellings is 1023 based on last precept.

Stated.

Upper Stondon does not contain any services and facilities. Upper Stondon has 1 small Leisure Strategy site, whilst Stondon as a whole has a surplus of formal large recreation areas, play areas for children and facilities for young people. However, there is a deficit of informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces and allotments.

Correction

This seems to contradict the information provided for Lower Stondon.
There is no small Leisure Strategy site in Upper Stondon.
Stondon as a whole has allotments and a range of spaces.

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/stondon-leisure-schedule_tcm3-22084.pdf



Stated

However, there is a deficit of informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces and allotments

Correction
There are:-
Two large recreation areas (Hillside Road, Pollards Way)
Allotments (since 2012 and 60 plots)
What are amenity spaces?
A large number of play areas.
http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/stondon-leisure-schedule_tcm3-22084.pdf

Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment
The Shillington WwTW currently has capacity issues and each new development has been required to contribute to expand them or provide a coping system (untested).

CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
Item 1 - there is no expansion options for the school and will be at capacity following significant housing growth.
Item 2 - The Doctors in Stondon is at capacity and the building needs expansion to cope.
Item 4 - there is no theatre and we have allotments.

Summary.
The information is inaccurate and includes Henlow Camp. There are no options to the East as this is a different Parish. North will start to create coalescence towards other villages and destroys the green break. This will also fall into the blast zone from MDBA Bomb manufacturing capabilities.
Extending West will remove the natural break to the Countryside and the loss of agricultural land.

Capacity should be LOW as we have been advised of developments either approved or suggested to bring over 500 houses to the village.

Attachments:

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 795

Received: 12/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Steven Curtis

Representation:

Campton ALP287; This site is unsuitable for housing development. The proposed development represents significant scale in relation to the Campton settlement. Local amenities are very limited .The site is Historic pasture and is a central feature to the village and its character. Its use as a working farm is almost unique in CBC. The site would affect a number of listed properties. There are a number of alternative locations in the village that represent genuine infill opportunities that could be developed without causing the substantial injury to the village developing this site would inflict.

Full text:

Campton ALP287; This site is unsuitable for housing development. The proposed development represents significant scale in relation to the Campton settlement. Local amenities are very limited .The site is Historic pasture and is a central feature to the village and its character. Its use as a working farm is almost unique in CBC. The site would affect a number of listed properties. There are a number of alternative locations in the village that represent genuine infill opportunities that could be developed without causing the substantial injury to the village developing this site would inflict.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1186

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Miss Sarah Michael

Representation:

I wish to object to/ make comments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity for the following reasons :

The document is inconsistent regarding Maulden Lower School's capacity, the school is at capacity and within its existing site it does not have capacity for expansion.

The Flood Zones do not lie 1.5km south of the village, they are in fact much closer.

The south of the settlement is not well connected to the existing urban area. There are no facilities or amenities in the south of the village and the settlement borders primarily agricultural land in the South, not urban area.

Full text:

I wish to object to/ make comments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity for the following reasons :

The document is inconsistent regarding Maulden Lower School's capacity, the school is at capacity and within its existing site it does not have capacity for expansion.

The Flood Zones do not lie 1.5km south of the village, they are in fact much closer.

The south of the settlement is not well connected to the existing urban area. There are no facilities or amenities in the south of the village and the settlement borders primarily agricultural land in the South, not urban area.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 18/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Matt O'Keefe

Representation:

I wish to object to/ make comments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity for the following reasons :

The document is inconsistent regarding Maulden Lower School's capacity, the school is at capacity and within its existing site it does not have capacity for expansion.

The Flood Zones do not lie 1.5km south of the village, they are in fact much closer.

The south of the settlement is not well connected to the existing urban area. There are no facilities or amenities in the south of the village and the settlement borders primarily agricultural land in the South, not urban area.

Full text:

I wish to object to/ make comments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity for the following reasons :

The document is inconsistent regarding Maulden Lower School's capacity, the school is at capacity and within its existing site it does not have capacity for expansion.

The Flood Zones do not lie 1.5km south of the village, they are in fact much closer.

The south of the settlement is not well connected to the existing urban area. There are no facilities or amenities in the south of the village and the settlement borders primarily agricultural land in the South, not urban area.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1459

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Bedfordshire Land Promotions

Agent: JLL

Representation:

The Council's study concludes that the settlement of Caddington has Low-Medium capacity for growth, if the Green Belt boundary is reviewed. The study considers that between 50 and 500 dwellings might come forward at Caddington and we concur with this finding.
Land at Caddington Brickfields would be available to deliver an element of this provision to meet local needs and this is demonstrated in the masterplans produced by Rummey Design, submitted in support of these representations.

Full text:

The Council's study concludes that the settlement of Caddington has Low-Medium capacity for growth, if the Green Belt boundary is reviewed. The study considers that between 50 and 500 dwellings might come forward at Caddington and we concur with this finding.
Land at Caddington Brickfields would be available to deliver an element of this provision to meet local needs and this is demonstrated in the masterplans produced by Rummey Design, submitted in support of these representations.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1654

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

The Capacity Assessment for Cranfield states that capacity is low based on existing community facilities and schools. Greater clarity is required as to whether these are absolute constraints, or matters that might be addressed through development.

Full text:

The Capacity Assessment for Cranfield states that capacity is low based on existing community facilities and schools.
It is not clear which community facilities it is referring to, however, the Assessment identifies the absence of recreational facilities, such as allotments, facilities for young people, urban parks and formal large recreation areas. Such land uses could form part of an allocation(s) within the Draft Plan, and therefore it is not considered to represent a constraint on the capacity of Cranfield. Moreover, it is a reason to allocate land for development in order to address such deficiencies.
In relation to schools, it is unclear whether this is a constraint on any new homes or a constraint on larger scale growth. Greater clarity is required in the evidence as to the existing capacity of schools in the area, and what potential there is to accommodate increases in pupil numbers through new or extended facilities, or within existing schools in the wider area.
Reference is made to suitable land being limited to the far south of the settlement, however this conflicts with evidence within the Site Assessments in respect of site ALP109 (East End Farm) to the east which found the site suitable.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 1701

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 having been made on the Draft Local Plan (DLP) and the Site Allocations Technical Document.

Our client wishes to object to the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study insofar as it has failed to consider Wharley End as a separate settlement in its own right and to identify the opportunity for it to accommodate a high level of residential growth to compliment and balance the large scale employment and Higher Education facilities there.

Separate submissions have been made on the DLP in support of Wharley End being identified separately to Cranfield in the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and arguing the case for it to be identified as one of the growth locations in the Submission version of the Local Plan. Failure to do so would be a huge opportunity missed to create a sustainable settlement at Wharley End.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2019

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Dave Rowell

Representation:

Given that potton already has had 300+ houses constructed, under construction or approved since 2015 then this should be noted and the capacity for potton reduced from medium to low or better still none.

Full text:

Given that potton already has had 300+ houses constructed, under construction or approved since 2015 then this should be noted and the capacity for potton reduced from medium to low or better still none.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2022

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: The Kite Partnership Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

We support the conclusion that Potton has a medium capacity for growth, having regard to the infrastructure and services it provides. Generally, Potton is not subject to any significant constraints and in particular is not subject to specific landscaping designations such as Green Belt.

Full text:

We support the conclusion that Potton has a medium capacity for growth, having regard to the infrastructure and services it provides. Generally, Potton is not subject to any significant constraints and in particular is not subject to specific landscaping designations such as Green Belt.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2027

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Canton Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

The assessment of Shefford in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study confirms it has a number of key services and facilities, a number or leisure sites, a large surplus of informal recreation areas and surplus of large recreation areas. The sensitivity of the settlement community and environment is considered to be LOW-MEDIUM. Canton Ltd support the conclusion that Shillington has potential capacity for growth, which would support the provision of improved services and facilities.

Full text:

The assessment of Shefford in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study confirms it has a number of key services and facilities, a number or leisure sites, a large surplus of informal recreation areas and surplus of large recreation areas. The sensitivity of the settlement community and environment is considered to be LOW-MEDIUM. Canton Ltd support the conclusion that Shillington has potential capacity for growth, which would support the provision of improved services and facilities.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2043

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes Strategic Land

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of Linden Homes Strategic Land ('Linden'), who are promoting a site on the western edge of Fairfield (Parcel ALP439) as detailed in the Call for Sites submission. Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan ('DLP') itself and also in response the Site Assessments Technical Document and the conclusion on Parcel ALP439.

Linden supports the conclusion reached in respect of Fairfield that it has medium capacity for growth; i.e. for 50 - 500 dwellings. They also support the comments made in the overview of Fairfield included at Appendix B of the Settlements Capacity Initial Study. This flags up potential constraints to the north and south of the village because of heritage and biodiversity and to the east due to the proximity of a sewage treatment works. No such constraints are identified to the west of Fairfield and there is also suitable land available, being promoted by Linden, a housebuilder with a track record for delivering successful housing schemes, including the existing development at Fairfield, adding to its deliverability. The availability of land to the west of Fairfield that is both suitable and available for new development adds further to the justification for the conclusion reached in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2081

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: GPS Estates Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Our Clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Lower Stondon in that it has medium capacity for growth (50 - 500 units) and the sensitivity of the settlement community and environment is considered to be low.
See attached document for full representation

Full text:

Our Clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Lower Stondon in that it has medium capacity for growth (50 - 500 units) and the sensitivity of the settlement community and environment is considered to be low.
See attached document for full representation

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2187

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: City & County Projects

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of City and County Projects, who are promoting a site east of Chauntry Way, Flitwick (Reference NLP245) 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 and comments on the Site Assessment Form for this land included in the Site Assessments Technical Document.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Flitwick that it has medium - high capacity for growth were land released from the Green Belt. They are also in agreement with the assessment that environmental constraints can be avoided through the appropriate siting of development in the north east of the settlement where they are promoting land east of Chauntry Way.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan suggesting that a higher target than the current one of 2,000 dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt needs to be included in the Submission version of the Local Plan and that land should be allocated to the north east of Flitwick, including that being promoted by City and County Projects.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2503

Received: 27/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Gareth Ellis

Representation:

Appendix D: Area D Assessments
The section on Flitton & Greenfield does not read well. The introduction implies that Greenfield is the dominant settlement in the parish and that "Greenfield and Flitton" are one settlement. This does not reflect the reality that Flitton & Greenfield parish consists of three settlements: Flitton and Greenfield, which are two small villages of equal size, and Wardhedges a hamlet

Full text:

Appendix D: Area D Assessments
The section on Flitton & Greenfield does not read well. The introduction implies that Greenfield is the dominant settlement in the parish and that "Greenfield and Flitton" are one settlement. This does not reflect the reality that Flitton & Greenfield parish consists of three settlements: Flitton and Greenfield, which are two small villages of equal size, and Wardhedges a hamlet.
There is only one community centre which is located in Flitton but shared with Greenfield. The recreation ground is in the same location and incorporates a children's playing area. It is not true to say that the nearest superstore is only 1 mile away. Parts of Greenfield are within one mile but parts of Flitton are three miles from the centre of Flitwick. If you wish to use one number then I would be fairer to say over 2 miles.
You are right to identify HGVs as an issue and the lack of pavements. However you also mention that the narrow country lanes which characterise the parish are also blighted by speeding traffic using them as a short cut from the A6/A507 to the motorway.
Under "Capacity" item 6 references is made to bus services. These are not frequent and are not suitable to serve people who are commuting to work or making short visits to the nearest service centre in Flitwick.
Pulloxhill Industrial Estate is on the edge of Greenfield settlement and is an example of a lack of strategic planning. Warehousing in this location is completely inappropriate. It has resulted in HGVs travelling on the narrow road through the village of Greenfield at all hours of the day and night. It has also exacerbated congestion outside the village school.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2690

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Philip Allen

Representation:

There are a number of incorrect assessments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity Study:
1. Statement on Page 45 that there is room for limited growth at Maulden Lower School contradicts an earlier comment on Page 42 that " Maulden School is at capacity". This is the correct statement and there is no room for growth at Maulden Lower School.
2. Page 45 states Maulden has a Post Office. Maulden does not have a Post Office only one that opens in the village hall for two hours every week.
Consequently as a result Maulden capacity should be graded Low not Medium.

Full text:

There are a number of incorrect assessments regarding the Maulden Settlement Capacity Study:
1. Statement on Page 45 that there is room for limited growth at Maulden Lower School contradicts an earlier comment on Page 42 that " Maulden School is at capacity". This is the correct statement and there is no room for growth at Maulden Lower School.
2. Page 45 states Maulden has a Post Office. Maulden does not have a Post Office only one that opens in the village hall for two hours every week.
Consequently as a result Maulden capacity should be graded Low not Medium.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 2786

Received: 28/08/2017

Respondent: Michael Makin

Representation:

I support the Eaton Bray Summary that concludes that the settlement has very limited capacity for growth

Full text:

I support the Eaton Bray Summary that concludes that the settlement has very limited capacity for growth

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3070

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Messers Olney, Willis & Butterworth

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

These representations are submitted on behalf of ours clients, Messrs Olney, Willis and Butterworth, who are promoting land south of Rectory Road, Steppingley (Site reference NLP085). Separate comments are being submitted on the Draft Local Plan and other Technical Documents published with it that are relevant to our clients' interests, particularly the Site Assessments Technical Document and the conclusion reach on site NLP085.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Steppingley that it has some capacity for growth (up to 50 dwellings) were land released from the Green Belt.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself and the Green Belt Review suggesting that the target for new dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt should be increased from 2,000 so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its high housing target. The release of land around the Small Villages could make a meaningful contribution towards meeting the housing targets whilst providing small scale rural housing

Small settlements such as Steppingley have had their growth restricted by the existing Green Belt boundaries for some considerable time and would benefit from an appropriate level of new housing to help maintain the viability of existing facilities and the vitality of the village generally. It is not positive planning to apply a blanket restriction to new rural housing in small villages confining their natural growth.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: GPS Estates Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

Please see comments attached

Full text:

Representations on Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2035 and Technical Evidence
to support the promotion of Land at Manor Close Barton Le Clay (ALP252)
Representations on the Settlements Capacity Initial Study
Our Clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly
the conclusion reached in respect of Barton Le Clay in that it has medium capacity for growth (50 -
500 units) provided some land is released from the Green Belt.
Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself endorsing the principle
of releasing sufficient land around the larger settlements in the Green Belt, but commenting that the
target should actually be higher so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its
high housing target.
Minor Service Centres such as Barton-Le-Clay have the capacity to accommodate expansion which
will help to maintain the viability of existing facilities and the overall vitality of the settlement as well
as assisting in the delivery of new and improved facilities. The technical evidence in the support of
the Local Plan confirms that over the last 10 years Barton-Le-Clay has only seen a growth rate of
3.5%. Our Clients are of the view that the town is capable of successfully absorbing a much higher
level growth. If all current outstanding commitments are built out it will only increase the housing
stock by a further 0.48%. This level of growth falls significantly short of the amount that should be
directed towards a Minor Service Centre such as Barton-Le-Clay to ensure the housing requirements
are met over the plan period.
Barton-Le-Clay is surrounded by Green Belt some of which would need to be released to allow new
development. In terms of the Land at Manor Road, whilst within the Green Belt no other significant
constraints are identified that could not be avoided or mitigated. By focussing the expansion of
Barton-Le-Clay to the east of the settlement there would be no coalescence with the adjacent
villages or significant loss of valued landscape.
The further expansion of Barton Le Clay affords the opportunity to deliver a range of housing for the
local community with the potential for infrastructure improvements in settlement that is sustainable
in terms of location and facilities.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3101

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Connolly Homes

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

Connolly Homes supports the approach adopted in the Initial Settlements Capacity Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Westoning that it has medium capacity for growth were land released from the Green Belt i.e. for between 50 and 500 dwellings.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan itself and the Green Belt Review endorsing the principle of releasing sufficient land around the Large Villages in the Green Belt to deliver 2,000 houses collectively, but commenting that the target should actually be higher so that the Council is less reliant on new settlements to meet its high housing target.

Settlements such as Westoning have had their growth restricted by the existing Green Belt boundaries for some considerable time and would benefit from an appropriate level of new housing to help maintain the viability of existing facilities and the vitality of the village generally. The technical evidence in the support of the Local Plan confirms that if all current outstanding commitments in Westoning are built out it will only increase the housing stock by 0.59%.

Furthermore, there is suitable land available to the south of Westoning, as confirmed in the Green Belt Review Stage 2 and the Site Allocations Technical Document, that is under the control of a developer (Connolly Homes) and is therefore deliverable.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3440

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: J Gudgin

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See main representation

Full text:

J Gudgin supports the approach adopted in the Initial Settlements Capacity Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Shefford that it has medium capacity for growth i.e. for between 50 and 500 dwellings.

The conclusions of the study states that Shefford can avoid significant constraints by appropriate siting of development, specifically referring to scope for development to the north east of the settlement. This would need to be carefully considered. Overall, it recognises that there are opportunities for development that is well linked to the urban area can deliver development gains including a range of housing to support the local community.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3540

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 (References NLP138 and NLP264) 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 in response to the conclusions of the Green Belt Review and comments on the Site Assessment Form for this land included in the Site Assessments Technical Document.

Our clients support the approach adopted in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study and particularly the conclusion reached in respect of Toddington that it has medium capacity for growth (50 - 500 dwellings) were land released from the Green Belt. Given the status of Toddington as a Minor Service Centre, the excellent range of facilities there and how well served it is by public transport, the Submission Version of the Local Plan should allocate the upper end of this housing range to Toddington reflecting its inherent sustainability.

Separate representations have been submitted on the Draft Local Plan suggesting that a higher target than the current one of 2,000 dwellings to be delivered from existing settlements in the Green Belt needs to be included in the Submission version of the Local Plan and that land should be allocated at Luton Road, Toddington.

Support

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3562

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Eaton Bray Parish Council

Representation:

Agree with findings for Eaton bray, we are a village inset within the Green Belt. Amenities are poor and supported from our neighbour Edlesborough village in Buckinghamshire.
Public Transport is very poor.
Very limited capacity for growth, there is almost no interest from within the village for growth.

Full text:

Agree with findings for Eaton bray, we are a village inset within the Green Belt. Amenities are poor and supported from our neighbour Edlesborough village in Buckinghamshire.
Public Transport is very poor.
Very limited capacity for growth, there is almost no interest from within the village for growth.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3788

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: All Land Investments (Stotfold 1) Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Representation:

See full representation

Full text:

All Land Investments (Stotfold 1) Ltd objects to the conclusion reached in the Settlements Capacity Initial Study in respect of Stotfold that it only has medium - low capacity to accommodate growth during the Plan period.

This appears to be at least in part driven by virtue of Stotfold having grown considerably through new development in the past 10 years, however, this should not in itself be a reason to preclude further growth taking place there. Indeed, despite nearby Arlesey already having substantial commitments it has not stopped the Council identifying a potential strategic growth option there.

Furthermore, as outlined in the separate representation on the Draft Local Plan itself, our clients are of the view that Stotfold should be re-classified as a Major Service Centre given the existing facilities and services it offers are comparable to other Major Service Centres in Central Bedfordshire. The opportunity should be taken to build on its recent growth and reinforce the sustainability of Stotfold through further development that includes community benefits.

The Settlements Capacity Initial Study also indicates the presence of constraints to the north and east of the Stotfold, but acknowledges that there are opportunities for development in the west and south, which would be well connected to the existing urban area, in close proximity to rail connections, that could support the provision of additional services and facilities in the town, a view supported by All Land Investments (Stotfold) Ltd.

However, it goes on to suggest that the scale of development needed to deliver these is likely to detrimentally affect landscape setting, and the character of the settlement. This point is refuted by our Clients, who are promoting land to the west of Stotfold (Parcels referenced ALP282, NLP106 and NLP160). Enclosed is a Landscape Statement prepared by James Blake Associates which robustly demonstrates that in landscape terms, the site is well screened from most external viewpoints and those views over it that do exist could be screened effectively through mitigation planting.

In respect of coalescence it confirms that the site is completely screened by trees from views from Arlesey to the west. There is no visual connection between the two settlements. This visual barrier will be strengthened by the proposed landscape masterplan for the Arlesey East development. There is scope also for additional tree-planting on the western section of the site to further reinforce the visual separation of Stotfold and Arlesey. Although the physical gap between the settlements may narrow because of the development, the visual separation will increase in scale and permanence.

Mitigation planting can be carried out to buffer the impact on Etonbury Wood of developing the land between it and the existing settlement. This can involve the creation of a Green Corridor along the Pix Brook, with a permissive footpath and habitat enhancements such as tree-planting and meadow creation to create a more bio-diverse belt linking Etonbury Wood with Stotfold.

A number of other Green Infrastructure aspirations from the Etonbury Green Wheel Masterplan could also be delivered as part of a landscape led housing development.

In light of the above, our client would argue that Stotfold has in fact got capacity for Medium to High levels of growth, especially with the right investment in new infrastructure provision. This offers opportunities to encourage sustainable development with good connections to major road and rail links and could deliver a range of housing for the local community with the potential for major infrastructure improvements.

Comment

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3798

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Clophill Parish Council

Representation:

Summary.
The information is inaccurate and contradictory.

However, the capacity should be LOW or VERY LOW as there are limited locations for development. The final comment is accurate.

Full text:

Review of - 170531_area_d_assessments

Clophill

We have found a number of significant errors in the report and following is a brief list of the information. This gives us cause for concern about the rest of the report and how much is based on misleading information.

Stated
Clophill is a village and civil parish with a population of 7030 people in around 3615
dwellings.

Correction

The number of dwellings is 739 based on last precept and 1795 people living in Clophill according to Local Insight profile.

Stated.

ONS data62 for the Clophill LLSOA identifies the median age of residents to be 47 and that there are slightly more residents under the age of 16 than over the age of 65

Correction
There are 335 with a range of 0 to 15 and 370 over 65. Again the data seems inaccurate.

Stated

The settlement has some small leisure strategy sites, including an allotment plot. Clophill has a deficit of countryside recreation sites, urban parks, formal and informal large recreation areas, small amenity spaces, play areas for children, facilities for young people and allotments.

Correction
There are:-
One large recreation areas (Kiln Lane)
Several Allotment areas and small farm tenancies.
Two areas of Children's play and two football pitches.


CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
Item 1 - Education: There are no schools within the settlement indicating a low capacity.
Item 4 - there are allotments
Item 5 - Not in Green Belt but has High Biodiversity

Summary.
The information is inaccurate and contradictory.

However, the capacity should be LOW or VERY LOW as there are limited locations for development. The final comment is accurate.

Object

Technical Reports

Representation ID: 3820

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Legal & General Capital

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Please see attached

Full text:

Please see attached

Attachments: