ASPLEY GUISE COUNCIL

PO Box 6402, , MK10 1HD

Judy Martin Planning Officer, Central Council Priory House, Monks Walk Shefford Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ

10th June 2020

Dear Judy,

Aspley Guise Parish Council (AGPC) have voted unanimously to object to planning application CB/20/01472/Full: Land to West of Gypsy Lane with reference to the following Material Planning Considerations:

1) Incompatible or unacceptable uses: a) The National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 13 point 145 states “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt….” The construction of new buildings is inappropriate development in the Green Belt land unless there are very special circumstances. Limited affordable housing can be appropriate, but this proposal in this location is unacceptable for a number of reasons and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated. Rural exception sites for affordable housing are sites where agricultural land is given planning permission so that affordable homes can be built and reserved exclusively for people with strong local connections, generally done with the support of the residents and the parish council. The parish council does not support this application. There are other sites in the Parish that are more suitable to provide affordable housing. b) The plan is inconsistent with infill in a greenbelt area. It represents an extension into open countryside and would reduce the openness of the Green Belt in this location. c) The development is inconsistent with the 2009 CBC Core Strategy and Development Management Policies that state new development under the Rural Exception Policy should be near amenities. This site is not near amenities. d) The land is designated as to be used for recreation. Development will mean a loss of this scarce resource in Aspley Guise

2) Deficiencies in social facilities: a) Aspley Guise (AG) shares facilities with : Doctors surgery, NHS dentist and car parking for shops (all located within Woburn Sands) b) There are no shops in AG and public transport is limited, there is a once monthly bus service to Milton Keynes and two buses per week to . c) This is not a sustainable location for new housing. Residents would be forced to use their cars for work, shopping and visiting services.

3) Overshadowing /loss of outlook: a) This application will directly impact 6 properties that border this piece of land.

ASPLEY GUISE PARISH COUNCIL

PO Box 6402, Milton Keynes, MK10 1HD

4) Overlooking and loss of privacy: a) AGPC disagree with the statement made in section 6.27 of the Planning Policy Statement (PPS) dated 5th May 2020 submitted with the application. The proposal will impact at least 6 properties. b) The new dwellings themselves will have privacy issues with the existing properties viewing directly into them, from an elevated position.

5) Highways issues: a) Increased traffic flow for 8 houses with associated visitors and services accessing the area. Due to the location, all residents will be reliant on cars. b) Access and exit will be hazardous, exiting onto a narrow lane with limited visibility. c) Proposed removal of safety feature: Within the Traffic Notes, the proposal suggests removal of the triangle at the junction of Gypsy Lane and Mount Pleasant/Horsepool Lane. We understand this triangle was specifically built many years ago as a safety feature to protect pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorists by slowing vehicles and helping to prevent HGV’s, removal will actually allow vehicles to travel faster again. d) This area is used by walkers and is also a walking school route, with a public footpath running alongside the site from Gypsy Lane to Spinney Lane. A junction to Gypsy Lane will present an increased hazard to pedestrians. e) Section 5.9 of the PSS), states this development supports sustainable travel patterns, however it will encourage and increase car use by the nature of its location on the extremity of the village.

6) Adverse impact on nature conservation: a) Hazel dormice are reported on the site, their breeding sites and resting places are protected by law (Gov.UK Guidance), but this is not mentioned in the survey submitted with the planning application. b) Also present on the site are badgers, 2 species of deer, hedgehogs, and it used by many species of birds. c) Loss of hedgerows: The development will result in the removal of hedgerows as stated in section 4.3 of the ecological report. The Ecological appraisal states that the hedgerows include Box, a rare plant. d) The site has been left to be fully overgrown and a haven for wildlife.

7) The PC has recently commissioned a new Green Infrastructure Plan, which although still in draft format includes some helpful points when considering this application that are listed below: a) All of the parish is within the Greensand Country Landscape Partnership area, a 4-year project designed to protect and enhance the Greensand Ridge landscape and engage local communities with it. The project has been funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund because of the importance of the local landscape, its fragility and the opportunities for protecting and enhancing it. b) Through the community consultation the Clump Field was identified as the ‘favourite space’ (despite it not being an accessible greenspace). This is adjacent to the proposed development.

ASPLEY GUISE PARISH COUNCIL

PO Box 6402, Milton Keynes, MK10 1HD

c) The Leisure Strategy (2017) notes that while the parish is well provided for in terms of Countryside Recreation Sites (Aspley Woods) and Large Formal Recreation Areas, there is a lack of urban parks and informal recreation spaces. No informal recreation space is proposed to be provided to serve the development. Although adequate allotment provision existed at the time of the Leisure Strategy assessment, this is no longer the case, and there are no longer any allotment sites within the parish. Allotments not only help people provide locally grown fruit and vegetables, they also provide a valuable recreational resource for people of all ages. The Parish Council’s 2019 Allotment Survey identified significant demand for allotments, and potential sites have been identified, with landowners being approached. d) The GI Plan recommends sites for Local Green Space designation (a designation introduced through the National Planning Policy Framework (revised 2018)), and the former allotment site has been designated within the draft plan as an area of Local Green Space, following a methodology developed by local organisations with Central Bedfordshire Council, and is based on the Government criteria.

8) In addition to the Material Planning Considerations listed above, AGPC ask CBC to take into account the following considerations: a) The landowner is currently in breach of enforcement notice CB/ENC/18/0413 for this site and is still depositing waste at the site entrance. b) AGPC would like CBC to undertake its own wildlife survey of the site, which we understand was the intention with regards to the previous application. c) If the application is approved, that conditions are stipulated to prevent the allotment allocation being removed in the future. d) The PSS section 3.2 incorrectly states the allotment site suffered from poor occupancy. We are told that the site was fully occupied and had a waiting list, and our own recent survey has shown the demand for allotments has increased even further. e) The PSS section 3.5 shows a list of services and facilities within AG that supposedly support the need for more housing, however AGPC ask CBC to consider that some of the facilities listed are not appropriate to support affordable housing. f) The PSS section 5.33 states the “allotments on the application site are surplus to requirements”. This is incorrect, demonstrated by the AGPC Allotment Survey, published in September 2019, where 36 residents stated they wanted an allotment immediately and a further 14 residents wanted one within 12 months. g) Appendix C, visibility splays. This drawing shows a visibility splay with the hedgerow fully removed. This is in contradiction to the PPS and to the Ecological survey. This drawing shows the only way the visibility splays can be achieved is through the hedgerow removal. Hedgerow deemed “important”. h) CBC committed to send their Wildlife Officer to review the site after the first application, but to our knowledge this hasn’t been done. i) The application appears to rely heavily on the 2015 Housing Needs Survey, which the PC recognise is nearly 5 years old. Since it was produced other affordable housing has been built within the immediate area at Woburn Sands and the Council feel this more than compensates for the need identified in the 2015 Aspley Guise HNS.

ASPLEY GUISE PARISH COUNCIL

PO Box 6402, Milton Keynes, MK10 1HD

j) We understand that residents were advised by CPRE on the 29/5/20 that CBC have planned enough housing to meet the needs of affordable housing for the next 5 years, which doesn’t include this application. k) The PC are aware that there is strong objection to this application within the village, and at time of writing you have received 37 objection letters against the application, and there is a local petition against it with 235 signatories.

Based on the above we respectfully ask that CBC refuse this application.

Yours sincerely,

Lynne Simons Parish Clerk & RFO On behalf of Aspley Guise Parish Council