PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Site Assessment Results (Housing & Employment) - Site Assessment Technical Document

Representation ID: 7364

COMMENT Natural England (Aiden Lonergan)

Summary:

Green Infrastructure and off-site recreational pressures. We advise that at an early stage the principles regarding quantity and quality of GI is agreed, and that this is considered together with plans for links to existing habitats and the known ecological networks. Such links would include the provision of early-successional habitats that can develop as proposals progress. The broad approach recommended is for master plans to retain the highest value habitats and create new habitats on- or off-site that allow species to utilise. GI provides a means to bring nature into every neighbourhood. see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 7364

Representation ID: 7363

COMMENT Natural England (Aiden Lonergan)

Summary:

General advice on potential allocations1
Whilst it is difficult for us to advise without seeing masterplan proposals or firmer allocations, we are able to provide the following principles for consideration in the further stages of Plan preparation:
1. Net-gain in biodiversity. We would expect strategic proposals2 to demonstrate how they will achieve net gain in biodiversity. We acknowledge that a country park may form part of some proposals (e.g. NLP054 and NLP191), together with woodland creation...see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 7363

Representation ID: 7328

COMMENT O&H Properties represented by David Lock Associates (Ms Helen Pearson-Flett)

Summary:

The proforma below sets out comments to relevant categories of the CBC 'Site Assessment'. O&H
firmly object and disagree with some of the assessments made and provide alternative information
that should be utilised. The O&H information has been informed by rigorous assessment and master
planning and is therefore considered significantly more accurate.
Only those criteria where O&H provide alternative information have been included in the table. see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 7328

Representation ID: 7264

COMMENT David Wilson Homes (Mr Ross Blumire)

Summary:

West of Salford see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 7264

Representation ID: 6724

COMMENT - Wingfield, Jerram, & Monckton and 2 others represented by Strutt & Parker (Mrs Melissa Reynolds)

Summary:

ALP327 Land to the north of Snow Hill, Maulden and ALP327 Land to the west of Flitwick Road, Maulden
We object to the exclusion of these sites from the Local Plan process. It is claimed that these sites fail at Stage 1B, as development of it would cause coalescence between Ampthill and Maulden. The two settlements would not be connected by the development of this site. The proposals include strategic landscaping, which would be in keeping with tree belts and small linear woodland copses characteristic of the area, as noted in the Green Belt study. This has been ignored. see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 6724

Representation ID: 6631

COMMENT Willis Dawson represented by Pegasus Group (Ms Louise Follett)

Summary:

The document states that a full SHLAA will be available to accompany the
Regulation 19 consultation version of the plan. The methodology for the Site
Assessment study was a three stage process with stage one providing a screening
stage. Those sites meeting the criteria of Stage 1 would then progress on to
Stage 2 for detailed input from those within the Council concerning ecology,
heritage etc. At the end of Stage 2 a planning balance was applied to decide
whether there were too many constraints for a site top progress to Stage 3.
see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 6631

Representation ID: 6576

COMMENT Willis Dawson represented by HD Town Planning (Mr Mervyn Dobson)

Summary:

This document sets out an assessment of sites according to a range of criteria both in relation to constraints and also in relation to potentially sustainable positive factors. Willis Dawson note Paragraph 4.3.30 which indicates that notwithstanding a Green Belt designation sites may still progress if this meets three criteria - settlement has adequate service provision, the
site is adjacent to a main line railway or strategic road, and a size (more than 100 dwellings). see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 6576

Representation ID: 6545

COMMENT CPRE (Mr Gerry Sansom)

Summary:

The Site Assessment Technical Document does recognise Green Belt as a technical constraint where additional considerations are applied.
The Council has however automatically passed any sites designated as preforming weakly or relatively weakly within the Green Belt study - despite the Green Belt consultant's caveat that this classification does not count as exceptional circumstances.
Until we see the final site selection we cannot assess how the Council are justifying any selection decision.
see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 6545

Representation ID: 6323

COMMENT Arlesey Town Council (Ms Susan Foulkes)

Summary:

CBC's own site assessments marks the sites at Tempsford (N10), East of Biggleswade (N17), Henlow Airfield (N25) and East of Arlesey (N29) as "Low" on a measure of deliverability but "High" on a measure of viability. All four of these sites have been singled out as strategic options in the draft Local Plan which suggests that CBC is prioritising profit for landowners (which include CBC) and developers over the deliverability of the site. see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 6323

Representation ID: 5526

COMMENT Historic England (Debbie Mack)

Summary:

Historic England comments on SA criteria
Important to consider when assessing sites:
* Identify the heritage assets on/within the vicinity of the potential site allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including reasonable alternatives sites
* Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be removed or reduced

More details about Rep ID: 5526

Representation ID: 5435

COMMENT Historic England (Debbie Mack)

Summary:

All potential sites will need to be appraised against potential historic environment impacts. It is imperative to have this robust evidence base in place to ensure the soundness of the Plan. We recommend that the appraisal approach should avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its distance from, or intervisibility with, a potential site. Site allocations which include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable. Cumulative effects of site options on the historic environment should be considered too.

More details about Rep ID: 5435

Representation ID: 5160

COMMENT Greensand Properties LLP represented by Kirkby Diamond (Mr Andrew Wright)

Summary:

Consider Site Assessments to be unreliable and this adversely affects the soundness of the draft plan. Concern re: sites that might otherwise be suitable for development have been excluded from consideration due only to their GB designation - in full reliance of the GB Technical Study and apparently disregarding the limitations of that study. As a result, sustainable sites in locations that would be suitable in all other respects have been excluded from consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 5160

Representation ID: 5056

COMMENT Mr Rawdon Crozier represented by mr james mcmurdo

Summary:

Specifically asks the council to allocate the available and appropriately located Green Belt site Ref NLP013 in Eaton Bray for development.
Specifically asks the council to allocate the available and appropriately located Green Belt site Ref NLP012 in Chalton for development.
6.2 On behalf of our client, we thank you for the opportunity to

More details about Rep ID: 5056

Representation ID: 4739

OBJECT Meppershall Parish Council (Miss Alessandra Marabese)

Summary:

completions data for question 20 is obsolete now that we are in 2017. Mepperhsall does not need to supply more houses.

More details about Rep ID: 4739

Representation ID: 4735

COMMENT Meppershall Parish Council (Miss Alessandra Marabese)

Summary:

Summary of sites passing for area D.

More details about Rep ID: 4735

Representation ID: 4675

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Johnson

Summary:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

More details about Rep ID: 4675

Representation ID: 4669

OBJECT Mr Robert Lovelock

Summary:

CBC have made judgements about the proposed sites but have used data collected between April 2006 and April 2016 which gives misleading facts about the contribution Meppershall and other towns and villages has made towards CBC's housing stock development programme.
As the Draft Local Plan is not expected to be agreed until Spring 2018 this misleading data might cause CBC to not take into account housing developments in Meppershall and other towns and villages already approved and under construction which would alter the RAG (Red/Amber/Green) rating of each proposed site.

More details about Rep ID: 4669

Representation ID: 4657

COMMENT Mr Adam Perkins

Summary:

maps need to be shown highlighting where the boundaries of the sites are.
currently everything is too generic which doesn't allow for residents to know where housing will be.

More details about Rep ID: 4657

Representation ID: 4645

COMMENT Mr Eric Large

Summary:

NLP302
Error with site name - Should be Gurney's Lane

More details about Rep ID: 4645

Representation ID: 4394

OBJECT Mr Ernie Bradley

Summary:

Limited extensions to gardens would be allowable provided no harm to character of area yet NLP186 & ALP017 would impinge right up to Deepdale gardens & certainly harm the character of the area. These sites should be removed.

More details about Rep ID: 4394

Representation ID: 4391

OBJECT Mr Ernie Bradley

Summary:

The fact that NLP433 is included in the draft plan appears to override the need to preserve good grade agricultural land it therefore seems pointless to show your intention on good ground as there are plenty of alternative site in your draft

More details about Rep ID: 4391

Representation ID: 4275

OBJECT Ros Keech

Summary:

Building on sites ALP011 and NLP054 would destroy the rural nature of the small village of Shelton. The many footpaths in this area of countryside are used by residents and others on a daily basis and there is abundant wildlife. The infrastructure could not cope with development of this size, particularly if using the existing access points from the village, which are already under pressure and feed onto dangerous bends on Lower Shelton Road. The linear nature of Shelton should be preserved within an area that is already being heavily developed.

More details about Rep ID: 4275

Representation ID: 3955

OBJECT Tesco Stores Limited represented by Contour Planning Services Ltd (Mr Justin Mills)

Summary:

The Council should review its position in relation to Site Ref. ALP408, having regard to additional flood analysis currently being undertaken by Tesco - see more detailed comments in relation to Site Assessment Form (Sandy).

More details about Rep ID: 3955

Representation ID: 3881

OBJECT J Price Williams

Summary:

Objection to site ALP465 on multiple grounds (essentially similar to ALP199 which was rejected by CBC) Unsustainable.

Objection to site ALP217 - on multiple grounds including not being a natural extension to Potton. Ecology, transport and general unsustainable nature

More details about Rep ID: 3881

Representation ID: 3872

OBJECT The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire (Mrs Katharine Banham)

Summary:

No specific locations for proposals are given within the Local Plan document. This makes commenting on the impact they would have difficult. We have provided comments on some sites within the Local Plan; however, we still have concerns about NLP054 as it is adjacent to Marston Thrift SSSI, NLP416 as it is close to Duck End Marshy Grassland CWS and ALP116 given its proximity to Maulden Wood SSSI. There may also be other impacts in habitats and species which have not come to our attention.

More details about Rep ID: 3872

Representation ID: 3839

COMMENT Miss Sam Roberts

Summary:

I object to the proposed development around Caddington / Slip End which is in green belt land. There is not enough space for road developments needed which will increase traffic through Slip End and Caddington. Local roads do not have the capacity to support existing and proposed developments. Water supply and sewerage are at capacity already. The development is contrary to the neighbourhood plan.

More details about Rep ID: 3839

Representation ID: 3831

COMMENT Axis Land Partnerships Ltd represented by LDA Design (Mr Ed Salter)

Summary:

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached a representation on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships in support of an allocation at Site ALP033 Fairfield Farm, Land at Fairfield Road, Biggleswade. The representation comprises a main report in support of the site, a concept plan, heritage statement and minerals report.

More details about Rep ID: 3831

Representation ID: 3827

COMMENT 2017 Sarah West

Summary:

It would be more appropriate to develop to the north of Westoning closer to Flitwick than the south.

More details about Rep ID: 3827

Representation ID: 3817

COMMENT Mr Rawdon Crozier represented by mr james mcmurdo

Summary:

please refer to the attached document

More details about Rep ID: 3817

Representation ID: 3769

COMMENT Mr Hugh Jackson

Summary:

I support the conclusions in Appendix D as to NLP 085, 094, 402 and 408 as the reasoning is plainly correct.

I object to NLP039 being treated as appropriate for development. Development here would detrimentally advance coalescence of existing settlements and adversely affect the recreational open space afforded by the public rights of way at this point. It would damage also the open aspect views from the public way.

More details about Rep ID: 3769

Representation ID: 3669

OBJECT Julia Pankhurst

Summary:

NLP039 - object. This land forms an important open space between the settlements of Flitwick & Steppingley, preventing coalescence. Much used ROW & open space amenities would be lost if this was developed. It is also in the Green Belt. It is on the egde of the woods & development would significantly impact the start of the dark skies area.

More details about Rep ID: 3669

Representation ID: 3668

OBJECT Bovis Homes Limited represented by David Barnes

Summary:

See attached 3 uploaded files including location plan

More details about Rep ID: 3668

Representation ID: 3657

SUPPORT Julia Pankhurst

Summary:

NLP085
NLP094
NLP402
NLP408
Agree with the assessment made, not suitable for development

More details about Rep ID: 3657

Representation ID: 3641

OBJECT Owners of Land to North of Leighton Road, Hockliffe represented by Mr Jeremy Peter

Summary:

Surface water information submitted to demonstrate that site is viable.

More details about Rep ID: 3641

Representation ID: 3510

OBJECT Axis Land Partnerships Ltd represented by LDA Design (Mr Ed Salter)

Summary:

Please find attached our response to the initial assessment that has been undertaken for site ref. ALP033 'Land at Fairfield Road', Biggleswade

More details about Rep ID: 3510

Representation ID: 3272

OBJECT Planning Prospects represented by Planning Prospects (Mr Chris Dodds)

Summary:

We object to the dismissal of site Clifton NLP128 'land off Broad Street', as residential allocation. Please see attached document submitted in support of residential allocation of Clifton site NLP128.

More details about Rep ID: 3272

Representation ID: 3261

OBJECT mr John Deaton

Summary:

This development is contrary to Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood plan.
This land is entirely in the Green Belt.
Insufficient space for road improvements, or capacity to support existing developments [Caddington Woods etc. Major concerns over water and sewage supply and support.
Major concern of Caddington losing it's identity as a village location and becoming yet another urban jungle.

More details about Rep ID: 3261

Representation ID: 3214

OBJECT Mr Alex Vasiliou

Summary:

Information contained in this regarding ALP465 is inaccurate. I feel the site is been given unfair treatment and the plan is dishonest in its approach to scoring. please see document attached to cover my points why.

More details about Rep ID: 3214

Representation ID: 3125

OBJECT Planning Prospects represented by Planning Prospects (Mr Chris Dodds)

Summary:

We object to dismissal of site Potton NLP042 'land to the back and side of the cemetery', as residential development. Please see attached document submitted in support of residential development of Potton site NLP042.

More details about Rep ID: 3125

Representation ID: 2922

OBJECT Ms Linda Bryant

Summary:

ALP287
The Glebe in the centre of Campton gives the village its distinctive character. By building on that land it will change the village irrevocably. I thought the Council stated that it wants to retain the character of Central Beds as far as possible. Building on The Glebe, historic grazing land, goes against that.
The Glebe is grazed by local farmers, building on this land will reduce employment and cause economic difficulties.
Demolishing the barns on the Glebe and removing trees which are hundreds of years old will also change the nature of the Village which can never be regained.

More details about Rep ID: 2922

Representation ID: 2906

OBJECT Ms Linda Bryant

Summary:

NLP082
I have no real problem with a strip of land being developed alongside Greenway so that there is a continuation of the ribbon development. However there should be housing 1 deep along there otherwise the nature of this small village will be changed irrevocably.
My objection relates to the number of houses planned. 32 houses is too many for that strip of land.
There should be affordable housing available so that local young families have accommodation. BUT the Schools in the area are already full so please reduce the number of houses.

More details about Rep ID: 2906

Representation ID: 2869

OBJECT Mr Stephen Anderson

Summary:

I object to Ref` NLP302 Land off Prospect Road and Gurneys Lane due to the impact it will have on the local school and doctors surgery. The impact on traffic through the village will add to the pollution and noise I am subjected too.

More details about Rep ID: 2869

Representation ID: 2535

OBJECT John Kirk

Summary:

I object to proposed development at NLP 324 Dunton. Please read my whole comment and not just the summary

More details about Rep ID: 2535

Representation ID: 2497

COMMENT Mr Gareth Ellis

Summary:

Appendix E
Why is Flitton & Greenfield parish listed in Area A? This must be an error. In other documents it is listed in Area D - including the map. Given that it is a rural parish with poor transport infrastructure it clearly fits in Area D like its neighbouring parish Pulloxhill.

More details about Rep ID: 2497

Representation ID: 2457

OBJECT T Hirons

Summary:

I object to this.

More details about Rep ID: 2457

Representation ID: 2456

OBJECT j Donnelly

Summary:

I object to this.

More details about Rep ID: 2456

Representation ID: 2322

OBJECT Emma Jackson

Summary:

NLP416 is not suitable as it is part of the only remaining part of the historic Maulden Moor, displaying ancient "Fen" characteristics.
There is no Safe Route to school from this site other than using the very busy Flitwick Road. Additional access into Flitwick Road will cause danger to road users both existing and new.
The site is in very close proximity to the delicate eco system at Duck End Nature Reserve and evidence suggests development near to other nature reserves has caused irreversible damage.

More details about Rep ID: 2322

Representation ID: 2311

OBJECT Mr Darren Brooker

Summary:

NLP433. The technical assessment has not correctly and individually assessed the cumulative impact of development upon Sutton, Dunton and Biggleswade; in particular taking account of recently completed developments and sites already approved for new dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 2311

Representation ID: 2256

SUPPORT mr bryan randall

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 2256

Representation ID: 2252

OBJECT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Re: NLP149
This site was rejected following a Public Inquiry some years ago. It would represent backland development in this part of Clophill where the built form is generally linear along High Street. Importantly, the access on to High Street at this point would be very difficult - dangerous, even - as the road narrows outside nos. 58-64 High Street where on-street parking already causes problems.
Clophill already has outline planning permission for 50 new dwellings on Shefford Road, which will increase traffic along High Street. The site should be rejected.

More details about Rep ID: 2252

Representation ID: 2250

OBJECT Mrs Susan Farmer

Summary:

We object to any development on common 'Glebe' land and any large developments along Greenway.

More details about Rep ID: 2250

Representation ID: 2238

SUPPORT ALP207 represented by Mr Richard Parry

Summary:

On behalf of the owners of site ALP207 I fully support this site assessment document.

More details about Rep ID: 2238

Representation ID: 2143

COMMENT Meppershall Parish Council (Miss Alessandra Marabese)

Summary:

Detailed comments regarding the assessment criteria and how this has affected Meppershall. Discounting of figures beyond April 2016, makes sense to add together both past and committed development before applying RAG criteria. Meppershall has already taken a share of housing towards its target in development permitted since April 2016 to present.

See attachment for more detailed comments

More details about Rep ID: 2143

Representation ID: 2111

OBJECT GPS Estates Ltd represented by Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd (Mrs Sam Boyd)

Summary:

See Full comment attached

More details about Rep ID: 2111

Representation ID: 2033

OBJECT Judy Cutmore represented by Bidwells (Miss Emma Barral)

Summary:

ID ALP453- Old Bedford Road, Potton- Response to Site Assessment Results

More details about Rep ID: 2033

Representation ID: 1989

OBJECT DPS Homes Ltd represented by GC Planning Partnership (Mr Shaun Greaves)

Summary:

NLP433
The network of new settlements proposed in this location would be intrusive, require new major infrastructure and facilities, and would favour large housebuilders. It would be less sustainable than urban extensions to existing settlements. Preference should be given to smaller sites around existing service centres to assist in maintaining the vitality of the town centres and assist in slowing the decline in small and medium sized housebuilders, which has been a consequence of the preference of Local Planning Authorities for larger housing sites.

More details about Rep ID: 1989

Representation ID: 1988

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Baron

Summary:

NLP353
There is no infrastructure in Pulloxhill or Flitton to support 66 houses. The roads are already too busy and dangerous. There is no space in the schools and limited buses, no post office or doctors. There are other significant developments happening nearby(24 homes on greenfield Road) and the villages can not accept this without it changing the character and appearance of the area. The nearby Centenary wood is supposed to be a quiet amenity for villagers that has an abundance of wildlife and flora. This would destroy all the environmental work that has been completed on this site.

More details about Rep ID: 1988

Representation ID: 1984

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Baron

Summary:

NLP449
There is already permission granted for 24 houses opposite this site. This additional development would add more cars, more noise. There is no infrastructure to support this no doctors, post office, limited buses, no room in the school and significant traffic and car problems.

More details about Rep ID: 1984

Representation ID: 1982

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Baron

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1982

Representation ID: 1979

OBJECT DPS Homes Ltd represented by GC Planning Partnership (Mr Shaun Greaves)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1979

Representation ID: 1826

COMMENT Aragon Land & Planning Ltd (Mr Francis Caldwell ) represented by Aragon Land & Planning Ltd (Mr Francis Caldwell )

Summary:

Representation

More details about Rep ID: 1826

Representation ID: 1816

OBJECT DPS Homes Ltd represented by GC Planning Partnership (Mr Shaun Greaves)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1816

Representation ID: 1803

OBJECT DPS Homes Ltd represented by GC Planning Partnership (Mr Shaun Greaves)

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 1803

Representation ID: 1652

COMMENT Linden Homes represented by Marrons Planning (Gary Stephens)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1652

Representation ID: 1624

COMMENT Meppershall Parish Council (Miss Alessandra Marabese)

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 1624

Representation ID: 1620

COMMENT Meppershall Parish Council (Miss Alessandra Marabese)

Summary:

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).

More details about Rep ID: 1620

Representation ID: 1515

OBJECT Mr and Mrs L Malhotra represented by Mr Jeremy Peter

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1515

Representation ID: 1485

COMMENT Mr Jonathan Flory

Summary:

NLP038
NLP432

Please see attached letter and sketch drawing

More details about Rep ID: 1485

Representation ID: 1447

COMMENT The National Trust (Mrs Nina Crabb)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1447

Representation ID: 1426

COMMENT mr bryan randall

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1426

Representation ID: 1167

OBJECT Gerald Gough

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1167

Representation ID: 1055

OBJECT Mr Christopher Hodgson

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1055

Representation ID: 867

COMMENT Michael Reynolds

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 867

Representation ID: 863

OBJECT Mr Raymond Mole represented by GC Planning Partnership (Mr Shaun Greaves)

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 863

Representation ID: 852

COMMENT Mr Adam Perkins

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 852

Representation ID: 758

COMMENT Mrs Lindsay Box

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 758

Representation ID: 747

OBJECT Mr Robin Lewis

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 747

Representation ID: 746

COMMENT Mr Maurice Box

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 746

Representation ID: 550

OBJECT Adam Zerny

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 550

Representation ID: 418

OBJECT Ms & Mr Watt Murphy

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 418

Representation ID: 365

OBJECT Mr Daniel Harding

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 365

Representation ID: 364

COMMENT Kevin Powis

Summary:

Comments on site NLP253 in Maulden

More details about Rep ID: 364

Representation ID: 363

COMMENT Kevin Powis

Summary:

Comments of site NLP253 in Maulden

More details about Rep ID: 363

Representation ID: 259

COMMENT Mr Eric Large

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 259

Representation ID: 246

OBJECT Judith Broadbent

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 246

Representation ID: 242

OBJECT Mr G Gurney

Summary:

Objection to NLP452

More details about Rep ID: 242

Representation ID: 240

OBJECT Mr Michael Price

Summary:

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

see attachment for further text.

More details about Rep ID: 240

Representation ID: 239

OBJECT Mr G Gurney

Summary:

See attachment

More details about Rep ID: 239

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult