t
Saturday 1 December 2018
Sunday 21 October 2018
Houghton Regis: Bury Spinney - To Planning Appeal Inspector
21-Oct-2018
To Planning Inspectorate, sent by email.
Dear Sir
COUNCIL REFERENCE: CB/17/04108/OUT
Appeal Reference: APP/P0240/W/18/3211493
COMMENTS
I note that the appellant's community amenity area as defined in the supplied document is actually the community amenity area from another developer's site. This is the other developer's intention but it is not yet in any case supplied. I note that the appellant's schools parcel plan as defined in the supplied document is actually the schools parcel plan from another developer's site. This is the other developer's intention but it is not yet in any case supplied.
The Thorn Road Highway does not belong to HRN2 developers or to the appellant.
With the HRN2 scheme, Thorn Road near the appellant's site entrance is intended to be re-modelled. See sketch map http://bit.ly/2EKirGq
Thorn Road is not yet re-modelled. The Inspector must give weight to the fact that events may occur and the remodelling may not happen. Re-modelling the road is outside the scope of the appellant.
Highways Safety
Poor lighting on Thorn Road, Lack of footpaths, and lack of cycleways on Thorn Road.
The Inspector is invited to walk between the appellant site, turn right into Bedford Road and proceed to the 40mph sign in Bedford Road where the footpath starts, and back again, to gauge how safe this route is at the present time. He is also invited to try riding the route on a bicycle. If possible the Inspector should do all this on a dark night.
Provided Highways safety measures are placed adjoining the appellant's site some highways objections may be overcome. This might include all of these 7 items listed below (refers to Figure 1):
1. A 20mph limit is placed on the road between A and B
2. A 7.5-ton lorry weight is placed on the road, at least between A and B.
3. 3.1 Provide a footway/cycle path along the southern side of Thorn Rd, at least B to A, but ideally from B to A and all along Thorn Road to its junction with Bedford Rd.
3.2 A controlled crossing then needs to be provided at Bedford Rd near Thorn Rd as this road is currently national speed limit.
3.3 A further footpath/cycle path needs to be provided from that crossing to a point 1/10th of a mile to the south where a footpath already exists.
All this is required to assist in the safe passage of children to school. They would not be able to use footpaths over former fields as at present those footpaths were closed from 1st October 2018 due to developments for HRN2 - see notices http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/bidwell-site-notice_tcm3-30322.pdf.
Those HRN2 developments may falter for years and until those footpath routes are actually available, any children from the appellant's site would face a hazardous journey by bicycle or on foot, so the appellant's application is premature.
4. Provide raised tables at entry points A and B, and at the site entry point.
5. Erect and maintain solar-powered speed awareness signs between A and B at suitable places in consultation with the Highways Officers at CBC.
6. Provide good lighting all along the Thorn Road from the appellant's site and as far up Bedford Rd as the Inspector feels necessary to enhance public safety, all to be agreed with the Local highways authority
7. Only if all of the above are provided at the expense of the appellant, then I feel Highway's objections can be overcome.
The appellant argues that "HRN2 brings with it a local centre, a school, and an area allocated for employment, footpaths, open space and a bus service which will ensure the site is sustainable. These facilities and services will be provided within easy walking distance of the appeal site. Thus the appeal site would not be isolated as alleged by the Local Planning Authority."
It must be noted that none of these facilities exist at present. Outline plans for these items is approved, the details of them are not yet announced in any reserved matters planning applications. Since the HRN2 scheme may falter for any reason, and at any time, the appellant's application is premature.
Regards,
etc.
Tuesday 7 August 2018
Houghton Regis: Tithe Farm Road: Comments on 'Buddleia View' Planning Application
First published 7/8/2018
My Comments posted to CBC on 04-Aug-2018. Application CB/18/02275/FULL
I refer to Design Guides. These are found at LINK.
The plans show the homes to have 3 bedrooms plus a substantial space marked as family room/study which could easily become a 4th bedroom.
2.2 Bedroom Sizes
The Residential Design Guide, states, minimum area, "12 metres square" for a double bedroom. The application plans show bedroom 1 and 3 to be each 11.7 metres square, and Bedroom 2 to be just 10 metres square.
2.3 Kitchen / Living / Dining Spaces
The Residential Design Guide, states, minimum area, for a 6 bed spaces, 33 square metres. The application plans show this area to be 26 metre square + an additional 6.5 metres square in a room
marked study/family room. That sums to 32.5 metres square, still below the Residential Design Guide minimum.
2.4 Storage Space
The application does not give measurements for wardrobes and cupboards. The Residential Design Guide, states,"3.5 metres square for a 6 bed space home".
5.2 Type and height of fencing to secure the external extent of the site is not stated.
5.3 No mention is made of type and height of internal fencing or boundary treatments.
5.4 No mention is made of what is to happen to the current chain-link fencing facing Tithe Farm Road.
5.5 A community park/ recreation ground, children’s play area and playing fields are located immediately to and bound the north and east of the site. The application does not demonstrate how the boundary would be treated or how the security of the garden plots would be protected.
8.2 Five parking spaces are shown fronting Tithe Farm Rd for units 8, 9 and 10 facing onto the junction with Recreation Road. This would necessitate dropped kerbs. To have a dropped kerb there must be at least 4.8 metres of parking space length per home according to CBC website. It is unclear from application plans how long the parking spaces will be.
Excess parking for these units, and visitor parking, might easily be on the kerb which is undesirable, and since they would be on the kerb facing a junction, even more undesirable.
8.3 Residential parking for 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 units fronting Tithe Farm Rd would dominate the street scene.
8.4 The side parking court for spaces numbered 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 8, 11 has no obvious correlation to housing. The spaces may become used by people not resident and not visiting.
8.5 Visitor parking spaces should be allocated at 0.25 per dwelling per Placemaking document, Design in Central Bedfordshire, but no visitor spaces are demonstrated.
8.6 Some parking spaces as allocated would block other vehicles in.
9.2 The height of the proposed buildings would obscure currently uninterrupted views across open recreational land for those homes on the southern side of Tithe Farm Rd facing onto the proposed development site. Even in the future, as the outline plans for HRN1 show, the land drops away beyond the northern edge of Tithe Farm Recreation ground, so the views ought to continue to be uninterrupted.
9.3 Buses are typically 10.3 to 12 metres long. With only one parking space directly allocated outside unit 8, additional car-parking might be tempted to encroach onto the bus parking zone.
9.4 Consideration must be given to any overhang of a bus that might block the proposed site entry road.
10.2.1 It is considered wrong to state that "The scheme will provide 12 high quality homes”, without providing measurements that meet the minimum standards of the Residential Design Guide.
10.2.2 It is considered wrong to state that " The scheme will provide 12 high quality homes”, directly responding to existing and anticipated future demand", without providing proof of demand over and above that demonstrated behind the reasons for HRN1 and HRN2 schemes.
10.3 It is considered wrong to state that "the proposed accommodation is 12 no. 3 Bedroom", when the ‘family/study room’ could easily become a 4th bedroom.
10.4 The D&A statement admits "Parking is provided at two spaces per unit"; this is only the minimum for a three bedroom home in Parking Standards (Placemaking, Central Bedfordshire
Design Standards) whereas 2.5 to 4 spaces are suggested for terraced to semi-detached with 3 to 4 bedroom homes.
10.5 It is considered wrong to state that "all parking is overlooked." Up to seven spaces for units 11, 8, 5, 6, and 7 are not overlooked in the parking court. Therefore security for vehicles is
compromised.
10.6 It is considered wrong to state "secure rear gardens for all proposed units" as boundary treatment has not been specified.
Previous plans permitted building up to 3 storeys that would have brought employment to the area. That is not a reason to assume three storey use is always permitted on the site.
12.2 The site was approved for a care home, and therefore tenaciously a community use, whilst also bring employment in. I strongly feel that this corner of Tithe Farm Recreation ground was always intended for use by the community. To permit housing on it would be to permanently remove land which could be used by the community for social purposes.
My Comments posted to CBC on 04-Aug-2018. Application CB/18/02275/FULL
I refer to Design Guides. These are found at LINK.
1.0 Privacy distances.
Very cramped.2.0 Overall size
2.1 The application Design and Access Statement states, "12 no. 3 Bedroom 6 Person House @ 99metres square". This is not in alignment with the Residential Design Guide, which suggests for three storey houses, 4 bedroom, 6 persons, should be 113 metres square, and even for a 3 bedroom 5 person house should be 102 metres square.The plans show the homes to have 3 bedrooms plus a substantial space marked as family room/study which could easily become a 4th bedroom.
2.2 Bedroom Sizes
The Residential Design Guide, states, minimum area, "12 metres square" for a double bedroom. The application plans show bedroom 1 and 3 to be each 11.7 metres square, and Bedroom 2 to be just 10 metres square.
2.3 Kitchen / Living / Dining Spaces
The Residential Design Guide, states, minimum area, for a 6 bed spaces, 33 square metres. The application plans show this area to be 26 metre square + an additional 6.5 metres square in a room
marked study/family room. That sums to 32.5 metres square, still below the Residential Design Guide minimum.
2.4 Storage Space
The application does not give measurements for wardrobes and cupboards. The Residential Design Guide, states,"3.5 metres square for a 6 bed space home".
3. Light
I have concerns that the small size of windows indicated may be insufficient to allow much natural light in.4. Solar
No thought has been demonstrated to the installation of solar panels or energy efficiency.5. Community Safety, fencing, planting.
5.1 Whilst additional planting is suggested, the type of extra trees to be planted is not mentioned.5.2 Type and height of fencing to secure the external extent of the site is not stated.
5.3 No mention is made of type and height of internal fencing or boundary treatments.
5.4 No mention is made of what is to happen to the current chain-link fencing facing Tithe Farm Road.
5.5 A community park/ recreation ground, children’s play area and playing fields are located immediately to and bound the north and east of the site. The application does not demonstrate how the boundary would be treated or how the security of the garden plots would be protected.
6. Bins
It is unclear where bin storage would be located. It must be demonstrated that they are sufficiently located away from property and fences to guard against being a fire hazard.7. Garage standards
No garages are being proposed.8. Parking Spaces
8.1 Essential parking for bicycles is not demonstrated.8.2 Five parking spaces are shown fronting Tithe Farm Rd for units 8, 9 and 10 facing onto the junction with Recreation Road. This would necessitate dropped kerbs. To have a dropped kerb there must be at least 4.8 metres of parking space length per home according to CBC website. It is unclear from application plans how long the parking spaces will be.
Excess parking for these units, and visitor parking, might easily be on the kerb which is undesirable, and since they would be on the kerb facing a junction, even more undesirable.
8.3 Residential parking for 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 units fronting Tithe Farm Rd would dominate the street scene.
8.4 The side parking court for spaces numbered 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 8, 11 has no obvious correlation to housing. The spaces may become used by people not resident and not visiting.
8.5 Visitor parking spaces should be allocated at 0.25 per dwelling per Placemaking document, Design in Central Bedfordshire, but no visitor spaces are demonstrated.
8.6 Some parking spaces as allocated would block other vehicles in.
9. Negative contribution to the street scene.
9.1 Character and style of the houses is inappropriate to the street scene. In this area of Tithe Farm Rd there are no town houses.9.2 The height of the proposed buildings would obscure currently uninterrupted views across open recreational land for those homes on the southern side of Tithe Farm Rd facing onto the proposed development site. Even in the future, as the outline plans for HRN1 show, the land drops away beyond the northern edge of Tithe Farm Recreation ground, so the views ought to continue to be uninterrupted.
9.3 Buses are typically 10.3 to 12 metres long. With only one parking space directly allocated outside unit 8, additional car-parking might be tempted to encroach onto the bus parking zone.
9.4 Consideration must be given to any overhang of a bus that might block the proposed site entry road.
10. Design and Access Statement
10.1 It is considered wrong to state that "the development will provide an additional 12no. three storey dwelling houses" as there are currently no three storey dwelling houses in the road.10.2.1 It is considered wrong to state that "The scheme will provide 12 high quality homes”, without providing measurements that meet the minimum standards of the Residential Design Guide.
10.2.2 It is considered wrong to state that " The scheme will provide 12 high quality homes”, directly responding to existing and anticipated future demand", without providing proof of demand over and above that demonstrated behind the reasons for HRN1 and HRN2 schemes.
10.3 It is considered wrong to state that "the proposed accommodation is 12 no. 3 Bedroom", when the ‘family/study room’ could easily become a 4th bedroom.
10.4 The D&A statement admits "Parking is provided at two spaces per unit"; this is only the minimum for a three bedroom home in Parking Standards (Placemaking, Central Bedfordshire
Design Standards) whereas 2.5 to 4 spaces are suggested for terraced to semi-detached with 3 to 4 bedroom homes.
10.5 It is considered wrong to state that "all parking is overlooked." Up to seven spaces for units 11, 8, 5, 6, and 7 are not overlooked in the parking court. Therefore security for vehicles is
compromised.
10.6 It is considered wrong to state "secure rear gardens for all proposed units" as boundary treatment has not been specified.
11. Tree Report
Refers to the site as "a brown field site". This is considered contentious as what might make it a brown field is not contamination of the land, but a few concrete bases of the former use of the site as a community church and church hall.12. Land Use
12.1 The site has had previous uses as a community church and church hall used for social functions.Previous plans permitted building up to 3 storeys that would have brought employment to the area. That is not a reason to assume three storey use is always permitted on the site.
12.2 The site was approved for a care home, and therefore tenaciously a community use, whilst also bring employment in. I strongly feel that this corner of Tithe Farm Recreation ground was always intended for use by the community. To permit housing on it would be to permanently remove land which could be used by the community for social purposes.
Sunday 15 April 2018
Construction — Regent's Place (Aylesbury Drive, Shelduck Field, Watervale, Pintail Croft, Orpington Rise)
House construction at Taylor Wimpey site, Houghton Regis.
Roads consist of Aylesbury Drive, Watervale, Shelduck Field, Pintail Croft, and Orpington Rise.
Roads consist of Aylesbury Drive, Watervale, Shelduck Field, Pintail Croft, and Orpington Rise.
First picture: view of Old Red Lion, Bedford Rd, Houghton Regis.
©A D Winter
Saturday 20 January 2018
Parkside Drive Construction (and Wild Flowers)
Parkside Drive - To Connect or Not to Connect? That Is The Question.
24/01/2014Speakers against connection of Parkside Drive.
Yesterday, I attended the Open forum meeting of a series of hearings this week to do with the Woodside Connection, a proposed new road to link Woodside Industrial estate, Houghton Regis, to a point close to the to-be-constructed M1 junction 11a. Most of the people commenting on the day represented themselves as residents, and by and large, all focussed their concerns about the "optional" Parkside Drive link.
I spoke after most of the others had, and kept to a personal viewpoint. I said that I had moved to the area in 2006 and had considered moving to the Houghton Park estate but as a commuter had realised that would have created extra journey distance for me, and had instead moved to where I had now, saving myself a mile and a half travelling each day; the point is that other people who lived in further away roads like Conway Close, probably went through the same thought process when buying their properties, and despite the distance had still chosen to live where they did for other reasons - quietness, and green amenity spaces.
I pointed out that I ran blogs for the area, to inform people what was going on in the locality, and to find out what they thought of issues; I had not been aware of a great clamour of excitement at the prospect of Parkside Drive being connected to the new main road.
I pointed out that in my view, localism was about councils responding to what the people wanted. This scheme to connect Parkside Drive was a top-down approach from the (Central Bedfordshire) council. I had not been aware that any great number of people wanted the Parkside Drive connected, therefore was puzzled as to why the council wanted to spend money.
I also drew attention to the potential for crime; having Parkside Drive connected for a quick entry and exit to a major road and motorway could be an incentive for criminals to turn over a nearby house. And I expressed concerns that opening up the amenity land could encourage access for unwelcome encampments by gipsies and travellers, if there were no embankments landscaped into the scheme.
Maps: look up Parkside Drive, Houghton Regis.
Tags: Woodside Connection, A5505
24/01/2014
Took these by the side of the old Bus Link to Lewsey Farm this afternoon.
 |
| This was a Single Track Road, that was closed to motorised transport. For a time it was used as a bus link to Lewsey Farm. That use was discontinued when stones were being thrown. The route is now a two-way road linking to Woodside Link Road. |
March 2017 - Construction of Parkside Drive Connection to Woodside Link
Later ... May 2017
Thursday 11 January 2018
Query on Growth Figures for Houghton Regis
Query: Is the "land at East of Parkside" double-counted within CBC's Local Plan 2018 which is now out for consultation?
Answer: It's confusing. And I've spent hours on this.
Houghton Regis North Framework Plan
states that "This will be a residential-led, mixed-use scheme of about 7,000 dwellings and 40 hectares of employment land together with its supporting infrastructure."
1. Plans in the North Framework Plan Area; Bedford Rd cuts the Framework into 2 parts. Site 1 and Site 2.
1.1 Site 1 Includes
HRN1 -"HRN1 will deliver 5,150 new homes " CB/12/03613
Map for HRN2:
This map excludes land east of Parkside from HRN1 and the Taylor Wimpey site.
Site 1: East of Parkside last application was a scoping opinion for 385 homes CB/16/04030
Site 1: Taylor Wimpey Regents Place 169 homes CB/14/03056
Site 1: total 5704
1.2 Site 2 Includes
HRN2 scheme outline for 1850 homes CB/15/00297/OUTThen add
A: Tillia Park on edge of quarry 140 homes SB/07/01448
B: Persimmon Kyngshouton 62 homes CB/14/03047
C: Bury Spinney 100 CB/16/02086
D: Land south of The Bungalow 50 homes CB/17/02512/OUT
Makes a total of 2202
[ The Orchard 6 (excluded from the Local Plan) ]
[ Other pockets of land, not all being considered for Local Plan known as Bidwell Vision. See my Houghton Regis Places map and side links that pop up when you click an area ( this includes land north of A5-M1 link north west of Bedford Rd roundabout) ]
Add the numbers for the two sites up.
5704 + 2202 = 7906
Site Assessment
East of Parkside was NOT included in the preliminary site assessments (link)
However, it does appear in The Local Plan Appendix A: List of new sites which pass assessment as NLP546.
LATEST PLAN
Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation (plan document p86)
"A figure of around 7,000 new homes could be accommodated; approximately 4,600-5,600 on site 1" "and approximately 1,500-1,850 on site 2."
Total calc for what the plan talks about is 6100 - 7450 on both
The Local Plan talks about adding these land allocations:
HAS28 Bidwell Gospel Hall (Dell Mount) - 25 homes
HAS29 Land East of Houghton Regis - 355 homes
25+ 355 = 380
Finally,
If Land east of Parkside is double counted, take away the figure CBC have used, i.e 355 from 7906, then add the 25 from Gospel Hall = 7576 which is beyond the number 6100 - 7450 that the Plan talks about.
The bottom line. What I would like to have seen in the plan is a simple table showing the numbers for 'Houghton Regis' that went into the plan, and then the extra numbers that are coming out of the plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)