Site Assessment Technical Document

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 88

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 239

Received: 20/07/2017

Respondent: Mr G Gurney

Representation:

See attachment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 240

Received: 20/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Price

Representation:

We wish to express our concerns regarding the proposed future plans for development in and around Biggleswade.

see attachment for further text.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 242

Received: 20/07/2017

Respondent: Mr G Gurney

Representation:

Objection to NLP452

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 246

Received: 22/07/2017

Respondent: Judith Broadbent

Representation:

Greenbelt (imperative to protect); wildlife (natural haven); traffic (dangerous); water pressure (weak already); flooding (standing water)
If development essential: better option would be between railway and motorway

Full text:

ALP181/NLP107
Harlington, land west of Sundon Road

I am objecting to any potential development of this site on a number of grounds.
Greenbelt: This site must be protected. It is designated as greenbelt for a reason, and building houses does not constitute the 'very special circumstances' required to justify overriding this protection. Our greenbelt is precious, important, and irreplaceable. It really matters.
Wildlife: There are barn owls, yellowhammers, fieldfares, green and greater-spotted woodpeckers, bullfinches, deer, foxes and all manner of other wildlife living in or using this site, and a wealth of meadow flowers - it is a real natural sanctuary which once lost would be lost for ever. It leads unbroken to the Sundon Hills and is undoubtedly an area of absolute beauty.
Traffic: Harlington is not equipped for vehicle increase. The crossroads at the junction with Station Road is very difficult to navigate. The road that winds around the church has zero visibility, is narrow and is not even designed for the volume of cars we have now. Sundon Road as it drops down to this site has a bend on the hill followed by single file past parked cars which requires extreme care. There is no safe access to this site, and residential Pilgrims Close would not be able to cope with the inevitable increase to 200 or 300 cars plus delivery vans, refuse vehicles etc.
Water pressure: Pilgrims Close and adjoining roads already suffer from low water pressure and additional demand would be too much strain.
Flooding: This site has standing water for much of the year, despite new drainage.
If it is incumbent upon Harlington to accept additional housing, the parcel of land to the west of the railway line would be much more acceptable. Building between the railway and the motorway would protect the character of the village, be less invasive, and would avoid the traffic problems outlined above.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 259

Received: 24/07/2017

Respondent: Mr Eric Large

Representation:

Poor access to site.
Severe transport issues
Health care issues
School place availability
Noise from railway line

Full text:

NLP302 Curneys Lane should read Gurneys Lane site map out of date as it shows our property included as part of site submitted. Site assessment deems the access 'not ideal' and quotes a possible access via Gurneys Lane, a single track lane between existing houses which cannot be widened. A 5' deep ditch runs the length of the track for land drainage. Last bus Biggleswade to Langford leaves 18.31 doesn't cater for commuters from London, leading to increases in traffic. Doctors surgery only open 8.30 to 11.30 and does not offer full service. School places limited. Noise from railway line.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 363

Received: 02/08/2017

Respondent: Kevin Powis

Representation:

Comments of site NLP253 in Maulden

Full text:

NLP253



* In principal I have no real objections or concerns regarding the majority of the proposed sites and realise that the village will continue to expand over time.
* I am however concerned about the size of the proposed potential development on Silsoe Road, reference NLP253 and would like to make the following observations regarding this particular site: -
o I think that the proposal for a large number of houses of 150 or 80 houses is too much for this site and the village, my thoughts being:
* The school could not take the increased number of potential pupils, I believe it is oversubscribed already.
* The traffic along Silsoe Road would become too much and would become more dangerous, particularly at the start and end of the school day. It is already dangerous to get up and down Silsoe Road at these times and also along Ampthill/Clophill Road by the school, due to the number of parked cars and random car doors opening.
* The proposed area for this site is very wet during the winter months and often floods.
* I don't feel that a proposed development of this size suits this particular location or the village. The location is pretty quiet and rural as it is and this would potentially change into a large housing estate which does not fit with the local area or environment.
* I do not feel that the local Ampthill Flitwick area should or can take many more housing developments of a medium or large size as there has been little or no improvement/expansion to local facilities, in particular schools and doctors surgeries. It is already nearly impossible to get a doctors appointment within a reasonable time scale currently.
* I think that smaller developments on smaller sites will allow Maulden to remain a 'village'

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 364

Received: 02/08/2017

Respondent: Kevin Powis

Representation:

Comments on site NLP253 in Maulden

Full text:

NLP253

With regard to recent information circulated in the village regarding the Maulden local plan I would like to make the following comments/observations.

* In principal I have no real objections or concerns regarding the majority of the proposed sites and realise that the village will continue to expand over time.
* I am however concerned about the size of the proposed potential development on Silsoe Road, reference NLP253 and would like to make the following observations regarding this particular site: -
o I think that the proposal for a large number of houses of 150 or 80 houses is too much for this site and the village, my thoughts being:
* The school could not take the increased number of potential pupils, I believe it is oversubscribed already.
* The traffic along Silsoe Road would become too much and would become more dangerous, particularly at the start and end of the school day. It is already dangerous to get up and down Silsoe Road at these times and also along Ampthill/Clophill Road by the school, due to the number of parked cars and random car doors opening.
* The proposed area for this site is very wet during the winter months and often floods.
* I don't feel that a proposed development of this size suits this particular location or the village. The location is pretty quiet and rural as it is and this would potentially change into a large housing estate which does not fit with the local area or environment.
* I do not feel that the local Ampthill Flitwick area should or can take many more housing developments of a medium or large size as there has been little or no improvement/expansion to local facilities, in particular schools and doctors surgeries. It is already nearly impossible to get a doctors appointment within a reasonable time scale currently.
* I think that smaller developments on smaller sites will allow Maulden to remain a 'village'

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 365

Received: 02/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Daniel Harding

Representation:

I am extremely concerned that site ID NLP433 has been cleared for further consideration in the local plan. It is very difficult to see how the housing and infrastructure necessary to make this a viable community (as it is so far from existing facilities) would avoid ruining the rural environment east of Biggleswade, and putting additional pressure on a town that has recently experienced a huge amount of housing development without the necessary intrastructural support.

Full text:

I am extremely concerned that site ID NLP433 has been cleared for further consideration in the local plan. It is very difficult to see how the housing and infrastructure necessary to make this a viable community (as it is so far from existing facilities) would avoid ruining the rural environment east of Biggleswade, and putting additional pressure on a town that has recently experienced a huge amount of housing development without the necessary intrastructural support.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 418

Received: 03/08/2017

Respondent: Ms & Mr Watt Murphy

Representation:

Objection to Local Plan: Houghton Conquest
Too much development within the last 24 months
Lack of amenities and infrastructure.

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 550

Received: 07/08/2017

Respondent: Adam Zerny

Representation:

The developments planned for around Biggleswade, Sutton, Dunton, Potton, Everton and Tempsford are entirely out of proportion given the size of the villages involved and the scale of development in recent years. Development should be spread proportionately around Central Beds with towns like Leighton/Flitwick/Ampthill/Shefford/Stotfold taking the same increase in settlement size as everywhere else. This is a very poor plan and gives the impression of being a very basic draft planned on the bag of a cigarette packet. It is an embarrassment to the council.

Full text:

The developments planned for around Biggleswade, Sutton, Dunton, Potton, Everton and Tempsford are entirely out of proportion given the size of the villages involved and the scale of development in recent years. Development should be spread proportionately around Central Beds with towns like Leighton/Flitwick/Ampthill/Shefford/Stotfold taking the same increase in settlement size as everywhere else. This is a very poor plan and gives the impression of being a very basic draft planned on the bag of a cigarette packet. It is an embarrassment to the council.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 746

Received: 11/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Maurice Box

Representation:

NLP134, NLP314, ALP308, ALP309 I support the decision to exclude these sites from the local plan. There are no exceptional circumstances to exclude these sites from green belt and furthermore the bus service identified in the technical assessment of the village has been reduced to hourly and does not run late hours.

Full text:

NLP134, NLP314, ALP308, ALP309 I support the decision to exclude these sites from the local plan. There are no exceptional circumstances to exclude these sites from green belt and furthermore the bus service identified in the technical assessment of the village has been reduced to hourly and does not run late hours.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 747

Received: 11/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Robin Lewis

Representation:

This documents incorrectly asserts that your approach to large development is supported by the NPPF.

Full text:

NLP450 / NLP452
This document states in paragraph 4.3.33, that your approach "is supported by paragraph 52 of the NPPF which states that 'the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development...' ". However, paragraph 52 of the NPPF also goes on to say "Working with the support of their communities, local planning authorities should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development." Your proposed Tempsford development DOES NOT have the support of the local communities; the local communities DO NOT consider that these proposals are the best way; you HAVE NOT worked with the local community. Paragraph 52 only says new homes CAN SOMETIMES be best achieved by large development. It is wrong to conclude that this proposal IS supported by the NPPF as you suggest.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 758

Received: 11/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Box

Representation:

NLP134, NLP314, ALP308, ALP309
I support the decision to exclude these sites from the local plan. I agree with the published assessment Any further housing would need massive additional infrastructure including new schools and medical facilities. The existing road system through the village and the approaches to it are already over capacity.

Full text:

NLP134, NLP314, ALP308, ALP309
I support the decision to exclude these sites from the local plan. I agree with the published assessment Any further housing would need massive additional infrastructure including new schools and medical facilities. The existing road system through the village and the approaches to it are already over capacity.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 852

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Adam Perkins

Representation:

So where can we find a map of SPECIFICALLY where the proposed new housing around Lidlington will be? The only map on your website shows vast areas of land in and around the village that have been submitted for potential use, and then your documentation lists which of these broad areas have been approved for further review. However there is no map to indicate where specifically these areas are? It's all too generic currently which doesn't allow residents to get an idea of where the proposed housing would actually be.

Full text:

So where can we find a map of SPECIFICALLY where the proposed new housing around Lidlington will be? The only map on your website shows vast areas of land in and around the village that have been submitted for potential use, and then your documentation lists which of these broad areas have been approved for further review. However there is no map to indicate where specifically these areas are? It's all too generic currently which doesn't allow residents to get an idea of where the proposed housing would actually be.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 863

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Raymond Mole

Agent: GC Planning Partnership

Representation:

Objection to the assessment of ALP 87 -
proposed housing at Westmead Farm, Sheep Tick End, Lidlington.

Full text:

Reference No. ALP87

The site lies adjacent to existing housing at Sheep Tick End, which forms part of the settlement of Lidlington, close to the railway station, school and other facilities within the village. It is land that is used for car boot sales and it is considered that it is previously developed land.
The Council's site assessment considers that the site is unacceptable for housing because it is separated from the settlement of Lidlingtonby allotments. However, the allotments form part of the village. They are not a countryside use, but an urban. Therefore, the assessment that the site is not well related to the existing settlement and does not form a logical extension to the settlement is ill-founded. It already forms part of the settlement of Lidlington in the real world.
In addition, the Council are considering the proposals for Marston Valley (reference NLP370) for 5000 dwellings. A site that abuts Sheep Tick End. Therefore, site ALP87 should be considered further along with NLP370, given their relationship.
It is not reasonable to consider further the proposals for Marston Valley and not site ALP87 at Sheep Tick End where there is existing housing development, and the expansion of housing here would be reasonable in the light of the Council moving forward with consideration of NLP370

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 867

Received: 14/08/2017

Respondent: Michael Reynolds

Representation:

AREA B. The sites utilises agricultural land reducing ability to grow food. At present Biggleswade has too many houses being built and NO infrastructure, NO NEW DOCTOR SURGERIES so the two existing ones are oversubscribed. The 4 new proposed "villages" do not have any health support so existing surgeries will be unsustainable. Also there is no new secondary school, again present builds have no extra school places. There is no legal entity to ensure surgeries/schools are put into place - developers should be legally obliged to install both facilities. Biggleswade is being sacrificed with over development.

Full text:

AREA B. The sites utilises agricultural land reducing ability to grow food. At present Biggleswade has too many houses being built and NO infrastructure, NO NEW DOCTOR SURGERIES so the two existing ones are oversubscribed. The 4 new proposed "villages" do not have any health support so existing surgeries will be unsustainable. Also there is no new secondary school, again present builds have no extra school places. There is no legal entity to ensure surgeries/schools are put into place - developers should be legally obliged to install both facilities. Biggleswade is being sacrificed with over development.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1055

Received: 15/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Hodgson

Representation:

ALP243
1, The number of plans being accepted in Gravenhurst are changing the character of the village.
2. Barton Road is a busy through road. Any additional development along Barton Road will result in more roadside parking on each side of the road with people parking on pavements etc - it would be essential to take measures to ensure sufficient off road parking together with yellow lines on one side of the road to discourage this. Ideally a slip road (similar to Parkside in the village) would be required to eliminate this risk.

Full text:

ALP243
1, The number of plans being accepted in Gravenhurst are changing the character of the village.
2. Barton Road is a busy through road. Any additional development along Barton Road will result in more roadside parking on each side of the road with people parking on pavements etc - it would be essential to take measures to ensure sufficient off road parking together with yellow lines on one side of the road to discourage this. Ideally a slip road (similar to Parkside in the village) would be required to eliminate this risk.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1167

Received: 17/08/2017

Respondent: Gerald Gough

Representation:

Sites ALP116, ALP051.
These two sites adjoin each other and both back onto Maulden Woods SSSI so any housing development here should be avoided completely. Moreover these two sites both being farmed open spaces in form an important natural break in what otherwise would be a continuous linear ribbon development of housing on both sides of the road all of the way along the Clophill Road in Hall End. It is important to maintain these gaps in the settlement pattern in Hall End in order to protect the semi-rural character of this part of Maulden.

Full text:

Sites ALP116, ALP051.
These two sites adjoin each other and both back onto Maulden Woods SSSI so any housing development here should be avoided completely. Moreover these two sites both being farmed open spaces in form an important natural break in what otherwise would be a continuous linear ribbon development of housing on both sides of the road all of the way along the Clophill Road in Hall End. It is important to maintain these gaps in the settlement pattern in Hall End in order to protect the semi-rural character of this part of Maulden.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1426

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: mr bryan randall

Representation:

There is clearly a need for more housing in Central Beds. I think that there should be more emphasis on building in the villages, as there is always a demand for village life. The proposed figure of 2000 over a twenty year period will not meet the needs and requirements of people seeking to lead a village life. The figure should be very flexible, at least doubled or trebled to meet what will be a considerable demand.

Full text:

There is clearly a need for more housing in Central Beds. I think that there should be more emphasis on building in the villages, as there is always a demand for village life. The proposed figure of 2000 over a twenty year period will not meet the needs and requirements of people seeking to lead a village life. The figure should be very flexible, at least doubled or trebled to meet what will be a considerable demand.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1447

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation:

Since the Call for Sites process the National Trust has acquired a site which it wishes to be considered as an allocation for residential development. The site is known as One Acre Field, Sandy Road, Potton (map attached - site outlined in red). The site is approx. 0.4ha in size. The site is agricultural land. It has no nationally significant designations and no known physical constraints. It is wholly owned by the National Trust. The site is adjacent the existing development boundary and would be a logical and sustainable extension to the village.

Full text:

Since the Call for Sites process the National Trust has acquired a site which it wishes to be considered as an allocation for residential development. The site is known as One Acre Field, Sandy Road, Potton (map attached - site outlined in red). The site is approx. 0.4ha in size. The site is agricultural land. It has no nationally significant designations and no known physical constraints. It is wholly owned by the National Trust. The site is adjacent the existing development boundary and would be a logical and sustainable extension to the village.

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1485

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Flory

Representation:

NLP038
NLP432

Please see attached letter and sketch drawing

Full text:

NLP038
NLP432

Please see attached letter and sketch drawing

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1515

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Mr and Mrs L Malhotra

Agent: Mr Jeremy Peter

Representation:

The objection is to the exclusion of the site west of the A5 known as NLP360. In summary it is considered that the site should be included as an allocation due to its close proximity to the HRN2 development as it would make a sustainable and complementary allocation as either a mixed use or solely residential or employment site.

Full text:

Ref: NLP360 - Land west of A5 and north of A505
I have been instructed by the owners of the land to write and formally object to the Preliminary site assessment in relation to the above site that proposes to exclude the site from further consideration (found in appendix D - Preliminary Site Assessment Results). In accordance with paragraph 8.1.1 of the Site Assessment Technical Document, this is a formal representation to request that the Council reconsiders the exclusion and instead considers the site for allocation as either a mixed-use site for employment and residential purposes or as solely that for employment or residential purposes.
The site was put forward in the call for sites 2016 for a mixed-use development but could be considered solely as residential or employment in that location. To recap, the representation stated that the site is well located to take advantage of the recent release of land from the Green Belt for the north of Houghton Regis effectively the strategic allocation known as Houghton Regis North 2 (HRN2). It was considered that the development of this unconstrained site (apart from its arbitrary Green Belt status) would add to the regeneration of the area given its close proximity to the HRN2 development and its relative closeness to the Houghton Regis/Dunstable conurbation coupled with the excellent roadside connections to the A5 and A505 and the recently completed A505/M1 link road.
However, the conclusion of the site assessment was to exclude the site from further consideration on the basis that the "Site fails at Stage 1B. Site is poorly related to Tilsworth and is detached from the settlement."
According to the Site Assessment Technical Document Appendix C - Site Assessment Criteria, the Stage 1B assessment is described as the stage where the site is ruled out because it is not well related to existing settlements and is of an insufficient size to be self-contained. It also rules out sites which would cause coalescence of existing towns and villages. For the purposes of the assessment, a self-contained site is defined as a site which will provide 1,500 homes or more.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is not large enough to be considered self- contained, it is considered that to determine the site is not related to an existing settlement is wrong and not appreciative of the context of the site and developments that are occurring close by. The site may be in the Parish of Tilsworth, but it will be more closely related to the expanded settlement of Houghton Regis, especially when HRN2 is developed.
The framework plan for the HRN2 approved application CB/15/00297/OUT, shows clearly how the new community comprising up to 1,850 dwellings, primary school, employment land, local centre with various retail and commercial uses, as well as community uses are being provided. The plan shows that the development extends all the way up to the new roundabout with the A5/A505/M1 link. Site NLP360 if located directly on the opposite side, adjacent to the proposed employment site area for CB/15/00297/OUT. It is contended that given this material context, the NLP360 would be related to this expanded settlement and would therefore satisfy the relevant criteria for Stage 1B.
One of the core principles of the National Planning Policy is for planning to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities.
Another core principle is to promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the land in urban and rural areas, whilst another is to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
It is considered that the allocation of this site for development, either as a mixed development site or solely employment or residential site would fulfil these core principles of providing land in a soon to be, very sustainable location. Whilst a mixed-use site would provide a sustainable mix of uses in close proximity to HRN2 thereby complementing and contributing to it, its sole allocation as an employment or residential use would also be a sustainable and complementary alternatives. Whilst it is noted that site NLP360 has not been included in the employment site, it is contended that the cumulative impact of allocating a site as an employment site so close to an existing permission that will be built out, must be considered a sustainable option for allocation. The site is available and there are no constraints to its development, apart from its arbitrary designation in the Green Belt.
It is also noted that both the main site assessment technical documents for housing and employment both state that each site has been considered in isolation on its own merits. Decisions about the cumulative impact of multiple sites on an area will be made later in the plan process when deciding on which sites should be located. Such decisions will be supported in evidence including a sustainability appraisal. The allocation as a mixed use, residential or employment site would be a sustainable use of the land, given the HRN2 development.

For these grounds, it is considered that Central Bedfordshire should revise its conclusion and allocate the site for a mixed use or employment use.
Please come back to us if we can provide any further information.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1620

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

Possible inconsistencies in the logic and application of the process used in the site assessments.
1. The logic within the technical summary suggests that the total increase both past and committed should be added together before applying the RAG criteria.
2. The delay in producing the Local Plan has made the use of 2016 figures obsolete, and misrepresents the impact of permissions granted and developments started since that date. As at the end of July 2017 developments in Meppershall give a RED assessment across all sites within the village (rather than the AMBER as shown on the current plan).

Full text:

Site Assessment Criteria

The need to identify possible sites to achieve the county wide targets is recognised and the process used is clearly set out. However, MPC has identified two possible inconsistencies in the logic and application of the process used in the site assessments.

The site assessment technical document , paragraph 5.3.5 regarding Cumulative Impact states It is important to take into consideration how much pressure from new development a settlement has already seen, and is likely to see in the near future when assessing what impact new development could have.

1. The assessment process in question 20 takes recent housing completions data and provides a percentage increase for the last decade for each parish between 2006 and 2016 and question 21 identifies committed (i.e. additional) housing permissions as at 2016. Each question has the same assessment limits: Less than 5% growth (G), 5% to 20% growth (A) and More than 20% growth (R). A red assessment in both would require results in excess of 20% in both i.e. cumulative growth of 40%. The logic within the technical summary suggests that the total increase both past and committed should be added together before applying the RAG criteria.

2. The delay in producing the Local Plan has made the use of 2016 figures obsolete, and misrepresents the impact of permissions granted and developments started since that date. At present all individual sites for Meppershall assess questions 20 and 21 using the base increase from 2006 (655 homes) to 2016 (698 Homes), a 6.56% increase, and outstanding planning permission for 3 dwellings representing an additional 0.45% increase. This gives a cumulative impact of 7.01%, AMBER. These numbers fail to recognise the large number of developments started in Meppershall since 1 April 2016 but not included in the figures. As at the end of July 2017, developments of 6, 78, and 2, a total of 86 have begun (19.7% increase), and a further development of 9 has yet to start (1.4% increase). This is a cumulative 21.1% increase which reflects the true impact that Meppershall has suffered in the recent past and gives a RED assessment across all sites within the village. If the use of 2016 figures is continued the 95 houses given planning permission since 1st April 2016 would mean that Meppershall has already contributed substantially to its 20 year target and would require little more.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1624

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Meppershall Parish Council

Representation:

Disproportionate number of retained sites for Meppershall despite large increase in permissions granted in last 12 months

Full text:

Parish Summaries

The number of sites passing to the next stage for further consideration is summarised in the following table for all area D settlements:

pass total %age pass %age of total area d of pass
Blunham 2 11 18% 2%
Campton and Chicksands 2 5 40% 2%
Clifton 4 30 13% 5%
Clophill 2 12 17% 2%
Gravenhurst 3 6 50% 4%
Haynes 2 9 22% 2%
Henlow 8 28 29% 10%
Maulden 9 32 28% 11%
Meppershall 8 18 44% 10%
Moggerhanger 4 15 27% 5%
Northill 6 29 21% 7%
Old Warden 4 0% 0%
Pulloxhill 5 9 56% 6%
Shefford 3 16 19% 4%
Shillington 7 20 35% 8%
Silsoe 13 0% 0%
Southill 4 12 33% 5%
Stondon 14 21 67% 17%
AREA D TOTAL 83 290 29% 100%

Within Area D, only Meppershall and our neighbours Stondon are in the top 4 passes in both comparisons of the number retained to the next stage and the proportion of retained sites, and this despite the recent large increase in permissions in the last twelve months noted above.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1652

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation:

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion for ALP109 that the land is worthy of further assessment, and has potential for development is noted. Linden Homes will be undertaking more detailed assessment of the land and its capacity to deliver homes, and what appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to address issues highlighted in respect of landscape, hedgerows, flood risk, archaeology, and education. This work will be shared with the Council as soon as possible in order to inform the next iteration of the Site Assessment, and the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Full text:

The Stage 2 Assessment Conclusion for ALP109 that the land is worthy of further assessment, and has potential for development is noted. Linden Homes will be undertaking more detailed assessment of the land and its capacity to deliver homes, and what appropriate mitigation measures should be provided to address issues highlighted in respect of landscape, hedgerows, flood risk, archaeology, and education. This work will be shared with the Council as soon as possible in order to inform the next iteration of the Site Assessment, and the Regulation 19 version of the Draft Plan.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1803

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: DPS Homes Ltd

Agent: GC Planning Partnership

Representation:

Site NLP098 is well related to Potton and not detached from the settlement. It would be a logical extension to Potton that would have significant advantages over other sites which the Council intend to consider further as part of the Local Plan

Full text:

NLP098
The site should not be excluded from the local plan process and does not fail an objective assessment at Stage 1B of the assessment process. The site is well related to Potton and recent housing development on the opposite side of Myers Road. Sites should not be considered in isolation as part of this process and compared with other proposed sites as part of an objective process. There has been new housing development on the north side of Potton, and this site along with Sites NLP130, and NLP398 and ALP95 would make a logical extension to Potton, far more so than sites to the east of Potton Brook off Sutton Road, and equally so to sites proposed on Everton Road and Sandy Road, Potton, which the Council are considering further as part of the Local Plan. The Councils Stage 1B Assessment of this is defective.
It is proposed to provide woodland as part of the proposal that would enhance the landscape and address topography of the site. The existing landscaping to the front of the site would be enhanced which would ensure that there would not be the alleged negative views on surrounding development.
The site is of a similar elevation to recent housing development on the south side of Myers Road and would be no more prominent within the landscape than this recent development. Unlike the development on the south side of Myers Road, there would be extensive woodland planting, which would from the medium term onwards provide an enhanced landscaped edge to this part of the settlement.
A significant improvement to the junction of Myers Road and Everton Road would be provided.
The site is within walking distance of the town centre and very close to local schools.
More development is required for Potton to ensure that the town centre remains viable and vibrant, to offset the decline which would otherwise occur without additional housing.
This site should therefore proceed for further consideration.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1816

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: DPS Homes Ltd

Agent: GC Planning Partnership

Representation:

A new market town would not be sustainable in this location, and few if any of the homes would be delivered within the plan period. Instead consideration should be given to additional housing on the edge of existing local service centres in the local area.

Full text:

NLP450
Most of this site is not previously developed land. The proposed new town would be far less sustainable than extensions to existing service centres, that have existing shops, facilities and services. Considerable new infrastructure would be required, such as a new railway line and station as well as new road links, about which there is considerable uncertainty. In the light of the time that it has taken to deliver housing at Wixams, it is contended that very few houses, if any, would be delivered here within the local plan period. Therefore, at least 6000 of the 7000 homes proposed here are highly unlikely to be delivered within the plan period. Therefore at least 6000 houses should be provided elsewhere during the plan period, expanding nearby service centres such as Potton instead, to offset trend which would otherwise result in the decline of the town centre particularly retail businesses.

Comment

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1826

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Agent: Aragon Land & Planning Ltd

Representation:

Representation

Full text:

Representation

Attachments:

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1979

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: DPS Homes Ltd

Agent: GC Planning Partnership

Representation:

ALP465
This site should not be considered further as part of the Local Plan as it fails Stage 1B based upon site assessment criteria. It is not well related to the settlement, it would be separated from the main settlement of Potton by Potton Brook, and become isolated at a time of fluvial and pluvial flooding.

Full text:

ALP465
This site should not be considered further as part of the Local Plan as it fails Stage 1B based upon site assessment criteria. It is not well related to the settlement, it would be separated from the main settlement of Potton by Potton Brook, and become isolated at a time of fluvial and pluvial flooding.

Object

Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment)

Representation ID: 1982

Received: 25/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Baron

Representation:

NLP172
This has previously been rejected for development because of the significant harm to the character and appearance to the village. This would cause increased traffic and noise.

Full text:

NLP172
This has previously been rejected for development because of the significant harm to the character and appearance to the village. This would cause increased traffic and noise.