Lidlington Parish Council

Lizzie Barnicoat Clerk to the Council PO Box 1548 MK44 2DX

August 2017 To Whom It May Concern:

Response to Central Council Local Plan 2015-2035 Draft Plan July 2017 Regulation 18 Consultation

Overview

Lidlington Parish Council strongly opposes the proposal in the consultation document for 5,000 houses and a new business park, and the proposal to take forward sites NLP103, NLP370 and NLP482 to the next stage of the process. A detailed response to the wide range of questions arising from the consultation follows, and is prefaced by this objection:-

Lidlington Parish Council disagrees with Council's inclusion of the parish of Lidlington as an area in which to build 4 new villages.

With the Council's proposal for such significant development in Lidlington, the Parish Council wishes to set out in its objection the wide range of supporting evidence as to why this is in breach of current planning principles, as follows. Unique Character of Lidlington and Historical Context

Lidlington is a small rural village currently comprising less than 600 houses. In recent years it has seen a decrease in local facilities, but a significant increase in development which has seen the village grow in the past decade by over 20%. The character of the village is rural, being set in the rolling countryside in the historic , allowing properties to look out to green fields.

The village is also particularly unique, given it has a railway line which runs through the centre of the village, effectively dissecting it into two. This is a very important factor to bear in mind. However, there have been some important recent changes:

 The construction of the bypass and completion of the A421 between the A1 and the M1 created a destination that attracted vehicles of all classes to the local area, and unfortunately to use the immediate minor, country road network surrounding Lidlington as a short-cut, or diverting through the village itself, creating congestion.  Centre Parcs, and an increase in other employment facilities in the local areas whilst creating employment opportunities has negatively impacted on the local road network particularly the A507, which is a key exit route out of the village and has in recent years become a very dangerous junction.

As a designated small rural village, the proposed extension of 5,000 dwellings within the parish combined with a new business park will swamp it. Central Beds own Settlement Hierarchy states this and confirms (page 124 of the consultation document) Lidlington is a small village. The Parish Council feels that taking this proposal forwards will in effect destroy Lidlington's unique character and is in direct contradiction of all the caveats in the consultation document. Bringing 5,000 houses and a business park to the village will not keep it small. This is a ten-fold increase – which is clearly over development.

Consultation Process

The local authority, in setting out their proposals in the consultation document, have done so in a very misleading way for residents and members of the public to truly ascertain the scale of the proposals. In many of the documents it has simply been listed as an allocation of 5,000 homes to Marston Vale, which is a well-known local area comprising a vast area of land. It is only in the finer detail that it becomes apparent which parts of are being proposed for the 5,000 homes, and again the description of their location is misleading. It is only on really getting into the in-depth detailed wording that Lidlington's proximity to the development becomes apparent. The site assessment clearly states that these homes will be within 800 metres of Lidlington Station. Yet there appears to be no qualms that this will not coalesce and wash over Lidlington. Proper information must be made available in order to assess this plan.

Growth Development in the Local Area

The recent growth in Central Bedfordshire has all followed similar patterns. In general they have been developments which have looked to enhance a specific area, bringing regeneration to the local community, such as in and . This style of development has not seen the creation of large new settlements which coalesce with or expand into an existing village setting. The proposed changes in Lidlington therefore appear to be contra to the Council’s previous position on such development. Landscape and Visual Impact on Wider Community

No one is entitled to a countryside view, but this land is part of the established Marston Vale area. The consultation document refers to maintaining a visual gap and talks about coalescence. However, it seems supremely optimistic to believe that this can be maintained between the 4 newly built developments in close proximity to one another and an historic small rural parish.

Lidlington is predominantly low-density development. History suggests that any schemes brought forward will be high density. This is totally against planning policy guidelines. Such development would be out of keeping with nearby housing and it is impossible to foresee how such high density housing would blend into the rural landscape. The Parish Council believes this would have a detrimental visual impact and 5,000 high density housing is out of keeping with the character of this small village based in the Marston Vale. Noise Pollution

Since the sites predominantly wrap around the housing area of the parish, during the construction phase Lidlington would be subjected to unacceptable noise and disturbance, not to mention disruption to local roads and services, for a prolonged period. This is not acceptable. Highways and Transport

The proposal for 4 large villages (over 1,000 houses each) with no clear route of access other than onto roads which have evolved on the ancient historical routes and were not originally designed or engineered to modern highway requirements, is short-sighted. These village roads are wholly unsuitable to sustain the large volumes of traffic that will result at the peak times.

It is clear the village road network and infrastructure of Lidlington would not be able to accommodate any required access points. As a result of the recent development mentioned in above, the increase in volumes and speeds of traffic, not only in the village but on local subsidiary roads, is very noticeable at peak flows.

Having such a significantly large housing development which relies on direct highways access onto the local road network and which potentially includes direct access onto a 'C' unclassified road is not acceptable. It is usual for large housing developments to be serviced by direct access onto urban roads which are part of the main highway route.

The associated traffic from 5,000 houses will have a significant detrimental impact on the road network within the parish, which as previously detailed is not designed to cope with this.

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 29-41) states that planning policies should ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’. The National Planning Policy Framework further states that planning policies should aim to achieve places which promote accessible environments containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and that developments should be designed to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists.

The NPPF, highway design standards (DRMB) and local policy require high quality pedestrian and cycle links. The Parish Council believes there is simply not sufficient room with the narrowness of the local village network to accommodate additional foot-ways or indeed a cycleway. Such changes would require significant engineering with a potential heavy impact on current residents, such as the removal of front gardens, if the village is to be accessible to the proposed 5,000 houses. Sustainability

The proposed development area is not close to existing services and facilities, other than those few currently found in Lidlington. These cannot meet the demands of 5,000 additional houses. This in turn will increase issues around parking at the local village shop which is situated on a narrow road and already has parking issues. There are no car parking facilities at Lidlington station but it would be prudent to assume many of the new residents in the 5,000 homes will want to take advantage of the improved East West rail link. This will bring chaos to the already stressed roads of Lidlington. If a 'new' village is to be grown from scratch successfully then this is a tall order. It takes a lot of time to 'grow' a community, to ensure it matures and has the right access to services. To achieve this four-fold appears very optimistic especially given the nearest example where this has been tried and yet is still rife with problems. The “ village” development was billed to bring a new community together, however it has several missing facilities promised to those people who bought their home and bought the 'vision' of Wixams; schools are oversubscribed, there is no healthcare facility, there is no train station, the local shops cannot sustain their business and close down, in addition to a number of unfulfilled developer obligations such as a community woodland area, all of which have not materialised. The Parish Council believes this idea of having four villages ‘growing’ is little short of fanciful. Healthcare

Whilst the Parish Council understands healthcare is not a local authority responsibility it is a significant area of importance for all current or future residents. The nearest surgery, which is at Marston, is at capacity with a rapidly growing population. People expect and need local healthcare facilities. The example of Wixams is again relevant here. There must be no further housing development in or around Lidlington until after healthcare facilities are significantly expanded and other facilities can be guaranteed not simply speculatively laid out in plans. Insufficient Infrastructure

The supplementary document states that the necessary supporting infrastructure can be provided. How much improvement of existing roads will be required if the village is to accommodate the traffic related to 5,000 additional dwellings and a business park? What detrimental impact will there be on being able to maintain Lidlington as a small rural community? These questions must be answered fully.

The Parish Council cannot see any evidence, precedent or statutory statements that will prevent the landowners from saying they need more than 5,000 dwellings to meet the cost of infrastructure provision, leading to even further unjustified development in the future.

Based on recent history, there is no evidence of robust planning enforcement if developers do not meet the agreed delivery of infrastructure. The lack of proper Unitary Council legal powers to enforce the promises of developers leaves us sceptical that the Waterways plan is just a fanciful pipe-dream. This is of great concern and has the potential to propagate the current belief that planning is all pain and no gain. Impact on Village School and Education Provision

The popularity of Thomas Johnson Lower School attracts pupils from a wide area. It is located in Hurst Grove which is a no through route. Many travel to the school on foot but also by car and on regular occasions there is heavy congestion at peak times. In view of the proposed Network Rail changes and consequent eradication of a safe pedestrian crossing direct to the school, combined with the proposal to increase housing significantly in the local area, this compounds and creates a number of issues. It will bring danger to the entrance route which in turn is a safety concern for both parents and local residents. There appears to have been no joined up thinking of how the school site could increase in capacity if more children are coming to the local area.

There also seems to be a major gap around future educational provision in terms of how this will be managed during the proposed significant growth. There is no clear vision or structure for how school place provision in the growth period has been calculated or what number of children needing a school place has been set at. This means such uncertainty of how this will be delivered and if schools are built first, last or whenever the developer may or may not feel like it, is not thought out properly

Looking at Bedford Borough Council's calculations on Page 15 the Background Evidence Table of their recent Local Plan consultation document (June 2017) it shows from the samples taken 500 houses requires a one-form entry school to be created. This would mean each 1 of the new 4 villages being proposed would need a two-form entry school each. Who pays for the building of this, who ensures it is delivered at the right time, and that children from out of catchment do not fill it up so those moving into the area then have no local school to send their children to? This does not sound sustainable.. Site Assessments (NLP 103, NLP370 and NLP482)

The Parish Council’s objections to the draft plan necessarily focus on NLP 370 and the 5,000 homes because of the devastating impact this would have on Lidlington. However, the council is also very surprised and disappointed to see that sites NLP 103 and 482 put forward to the next stage. Planning permission has already been refused previously for these sites so following further consideration the council can again see no justification for taking them forward. Access to this site down a narrow lane bordering land owned by Network Rail and potentially earmarked for EWR upgrade is not feasible and again lacks any joined-up thinking. The proposal for 65 dwellings for the 2 sites is completely unworkable. Not only are there access problems but the infrastructure in terms of roads, healthcare, and public transport is simply inadequate. The assessment of these sites in section 21 is disingenuous to say the least. Since April 2016 a further 50+ dwellings are either underway or planned making the real current growth >10%.

We also cannot agree with the NLP370 site assessment that “The majority of the site is classified as non-agricultural and is former clay working for the brick industry.” this claim is a fabrication, along with the assertion that Lidlington has a frequent bus service. Site NLP370 is far too large for Central Bedfordshire, and the Public to make properly reasoned judgements, it MUST be withdrawn from the plan

Conclusion

In summary the Parish Council have set out significant reasons to demonstrate why Lidlington is not suitable for 5,000+ houses, whether termed a “set of villages” or in- deed more appropriately collectively a “small town”. With this evidence it clearly shows why Lidlington must retain its classification as a small village and not be con- sidered for development on this scale as part of the local authority strategy. The Parish Council believes that it has demonstrated that such development in and so closely situated to Lidlington is against the Council's own current, recently re- viewed, planning policy statements.

Yours sincerely

E. Barnicoat Lidlington Parish Clerk