MM013 - Page 34 Paragraph 4.13
Proposed Main Modifications
Representation ID: 7057
Respondent: Pirton Parish Council
Proposed Main Modifications
Representation ID: 7625
Respondent: Mr Roy Parker
As a regulation 19 respondent I make representation on the Inspector's main modifications with regard to issues that I do not think has been adequately addressed. I refer also to my initial representation of 29th November 2016 to the submission document and my letter of 6th January 2018 written statement to the examination.
Settlement boundary of Cockernhoe and Mangrove Green as category "A" villages under SP2
I have previously recorded my firm view that the above settlement boundary should not incorporate the East of Luton area of EL1, 2 & 3 under SP19. This area should be identified by a distinct settlement boundary of its' own.
The East of Luton development under SP19, if it is finally adopted, should not be identified as part of Cockernhoe and Mangrove Green because to the best of my knowledge not one person living here has responded in favour of that development and many have responded against it.
There is a possibility of a judicial review against SP19 and if that happens then it would be best for that element of the Local Plan to be isolated so that the remainder of the Local Plan can proceed for the benefit of the community.
I made this point in my letter of 6th January 2018 concerning points 10.29 (a) & (b) of the Inspector's Schedule of Matters and in my email of 29th November 2016 under references 4.9, 4.13 and 13.66 of the Local Plan submission document. For convenience I attach Appendix "B" to my letter of 6th January 2018 showing the "true" settlement boundary of Cockernhoe and Mangrove Green contained within the wider settlement boundary incorporating EL1,2 & 3.
In the Inspector's main modifications under:
MM010 and MM013 -SP2 -Category "A" villages -both clear examples that Cockernhoe & Mangrove Green's defined settlement boundary does not refer to the wider area incorporating EL1,2 &3.
MM023 (a)(iii) - SP5 -this similarly should not include EL1,2 & 3 within the Category "A" villages settlement boundaries
MM038 -where the settlement boundaries of Category "A" villages are stated as allowing for approx. 400 homes, this obviously cannot include EL1,2 &3.
Overall the inclusion of the 2,100 homes labelled as part of Cockernhoe & Mangrove Green settlement boundary is offensive to residents who have fought against the damage this will do to their rural way of life.
Central Bedfordshire draft Local Plan 2015-2035 published June 2017
Central Bedfordshire's initial Local Plan was thrown out by the Government appointed Inspector. It did not comply with the duty to co-operate with Luton's unmet housing needs. In June 2017 they published their revised draft Local Plan. Luton's housing market area showed a shortfall of 9,300 new dwellings and Central Bedfordshire's revised Local Plan includes providing 7,350 new dwellings to assist Luton with the balance of 1,950 coming from North Herts DC. One element of Central Beds 7,350 new dwellings is 2,000 homes West of Luton, near Caddington. Central Bedfordshire's draft local plan makes an excellent point, which I have highlighted in red, concerning these additional dwellings near Caddington, as follows:
"The proposal is to expand Luton to the west of the M1 and to the western edge of Luton. The village of Caddington lies to the west of the site and Woodside and Slip End villages lie to the south. It would be appropriately separated from these existing villages, as well as from the Caddington Woods development, to prevent coalescence of settlements."
Is the Inspector aware that Bloor Homes outline plan is significantly different from the one that they consulted on? In their initial consultation plan the nearest building to Dancote, situated at the edge of Cockernhoe, built in 1915 and one of the oldest properties in Cockernhoe, was planned to be 100 metres away and in the revised "Illustrative Masterplan" it is now 20 metres away! If Central Beds Council's policy is to safeguard existing villages from coalescence by "appropriate separation" why is it that NHDC fail to adopt a similar policy for the good of their existing communities? Whilst I am totally against the East of Luton development I believe the least we should expect from NHDC is that there is "appropriate separation" for Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Tea Green. In my view this should be a minimum of 100 metres. I drew attention to the change in plans and closeness to Cockernhoe in my objection to Bloor Homes outline planning application under reference 17/00830/1 of 13th April 2017. You will note this outline planning application was submitted after my email of 29th November 2016 concerning the submission document. If Central Beds can put this in their Local Plan then surely North Herts DC should do the same as a commitment.