Site ID: 704

Object

Representation ID: 3772

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Ken Cook

This proposal for housing development adjacent to a designated area of nature conservation importance and also woodland which which is important for wildlife will have a serious affect on the natural environment in Wilstead. There should be agricultural buffers between woodland and nature conservation sites. Also the scale of this proposal will have a detrimental effect on the facilities provided by Wilstead as well as its impact on many threatened species of wildflowers and insects too numerus to mention here

Object

Representation ID: 3936

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Cook

This proposal would have a serious impact on a site of nature conservation importance. Also on an area which although not designated as such includes many diverse insects and flowers. It also adjoins Wilstead Woods which will have a serious impact on wildlife there.
From the village prospective it is too large a development accessed via Cotton End Road. It is also too large to be met by Wilstead's facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 3974

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Dodson

Site is far to big for the infrastructure of the Village, especially Cotton End Road. Access to this site is extremely narrow as it is only a dirt track. Several proposed sites have to be accessed from Cotton End Road which will not cope with hundreds off extra vehicles per day. Housing developments are already progressing in areas surrounding Wilstead, at Wixams, Shortstown and Cardington. The newly created Wixams development has plenty of scope to expand further. Creating brand new villages and towns doesn't then effect existing communities, as people moving there will know what to expect.

Object

Representation ID: 4225

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Wooding

Oppose further housing development that will increase traffic flow along Cotton End Road.
Road is already too busy, too fast and becoming dangerous in the absence of average speed cameras.

Any further development should be on the periphery of the village.

This proposal will also adversely impact upon people's walks in the countryside and reduce the rural feel.

Object

Representation ID: 4794

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Brady-Watts

This is much too big a development for a small village,we do not have the infrastructure to cope
No GP surgery,a village school already at, capacity.
An entrance on to Cotton End Road would cause ,dangerous traffic problems,it already a problem close by at school times.
This is an area of fields which are important to keep,so we can have asses to the country side.
This sort of development would ruin our village

Object

Representation ID: 5122

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Wilshamstead Parish Council

Outside the Settlement Policy Area for the village and forms an important open space for residents of Whitworth Way and Armstrong Close. provides immediate access to the countryside for village residents and visitors.

Object

Representation ID: 5510

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Darnton

Filling in large areas of countryside within the parish would change the whole nature of the village. Many, if not the majority of, people come to live in Wilstead because of the amenity offered by green spaces within the village as they no longer wish to live in urban areas covered by concrete.

Object

Representation ID: 6181

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Driver

Site 704:

There should be no building on this site because of:

1. Extensive flooding and drainage issues on the south side of Wilstead village. (see 1a)

2. Building adjacent to Wilstead woods is a significant fire hazard and threat to any homes built in this area (as evidenced by recent fires in Turkey, Greece, Italy, California etc – this issue will not be confined to foreign shores). Future housing should not be built close to such a fire hazard. (see 2a)

3. You will destroy the very amenity Bedford Borough claim to be trying to develop – i.e. ‘Develop a strong and multi-functional urban and rural green infrastructure network’ (see 3a)


1a. There should be no building south of Wilstead village because the land there has significant drainage issues and is prone to flooding. Water flows off the hill on the south side of the village and has historically caused flooding to houses along the Cotton End Road and Whitworth Way. Many original Whitworth Way properties still suffer flooding to their gardens in spite of promises made by Bellway homes with their new site which should have eradicated that problem by creating a balancing ‘pond’ (which incidentally does not have any water in it). When you build on this kind of terrain, you cause knock-on effects to existing properties surrounding such sites because water is drained or diverted to neighbouring sites/properties. The experiences of Germany this year - with the very significant flooding endured by them - should be a warning to all planners not to allow building on areas where flooding and poor natural drainage are currently a problem. Climate change will only exacerbate these problems.

2a. This year there have been two illegal fires started in Wilstead woods that I know of. Also, Wilstead woods has had fire warning notices posted this summer. Anyone seeing film footage of the suburbs of Athens burning this year will be aware of the issues surrounding property sited close to flammable woodland.

3a. Bedford borough claims to be aiming to:-
facilitate ‘the development of more sustainable and inclusive places for local communities,………… and offer the opportunity to live healthier lifestyles.
Develop a strong and multi-functional urban and rural green infrastructure network through protecting, enhancing, extending and linking landscapes, woodland, biodiversity sites, heritage sites, green spaces and paths.
Improve access to green and blue infrastructure for the enjoyment and health of all.’
This green infrastructure already exists around the village of Wilstead, so why destroy this amenity by putting 500-2000 houses in and around Wilstead village? You will destroy the paths, open spaces and woodland which is currently enjoyed by both the residents of Wilstead and The Wixams. People also come from other areas to walk across the fields and into Wilstead woods. There are also bridleways which will be destroyed and deprive interested parties of their outdoor pursuits.

During the lockdowns of 2020, the footpaths surrounding Wilstead and Wilstead woods resembled Piccadilly Circus because so many people brought their young children to the woods for picnics, and took their children for rambles across the fields. People were dog walking, blackberry picking and seeking out bluebell patches in Wistead woods. Wixams no longer has a network of country walks because they have already been built on.

If you turn this village into an urban sprawl, you will destroy all of this. Wilstead village has a much older population than The Wixams. If you force a change of demographics on this village, you will destroy the quality of life available to older people who do not need or want the fast pace of a massive multi-generational urbanisation like The Wixams or Milton Keynes. Personally, I am no longer able to leap out of the way of groups of adolescents hurtling along the pavements on their push bikes as they emulate their BMX Olympic heroes at The Wixams.

The needs of older people should be taken into account and be a part of the overall housing strategy. Not all older people need institutional care facilities. Most of us can live independently in the right environment.

Object

Representation ID: 8411

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Fisher German LLP

Site is within or adjoining UAB, SPA or built form of small settlement?
The scoring for this criterion should be changed from a (?) to a (+) as the site adjoins the settlement boundary for Wilstead.

In an area where protected species are known of likely to exist?
An ecological survey for the whole site has not been carried out to date. Given the site’s use as an arable field, it is considered that the site’s ecological value will be relatively low. Nevertheless, should any protected species be found, suitable mitigation will be able to be implemented as part of a scheme.

Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
A scheme could be capable of providing a biodiversity net gain, subject to scheme details. Point 2c should therefore be a (+) rather than a (?) on the site assessment.

Likely to impact on designated or non-designated heritage assets or their settings?
It is considered that a scheme is capable of coming forward which is sensitive to and protects any heritage assets identified as potentially causing harm. The nearest listed building is 58 Cotton End Road (Grade II listed). This building is already partially screened by existing development on Armstrong Close / Whitworth Way and it is considered that a scheme can be suitably designed to respect nearby heritage assets.

Highway or junction capacity issues?
The Council’s assessment is noted to be an (x) for this criterion. We propose that this scoring is changed to a (?) given that no detailed highway capacity assessment has been carried out to date. The highways comments note that the site would benefit from its own bus stop or public transport route. This is something which could be explored further through preliminary site assessments and pre-application discussions and is something that would be acceptable in principle to be provided on site.