Site ID: 1337

Object

Representation ID: 5207

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Monk

Endangering the Cardington mooring mast site and any aviation at the sheds in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 5310

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Pelham

A600 already predicted to be saturated even without this development.
It would also inhibit Cardington airfield aerospace use.
Shortstown parish council also object to this site proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 5327

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jan Wiegratz

Poor access to public transport, especially rail, car access into Bedford from South of A421 already subject to significant delays during peak hours.

Support

Representation ID: 8848

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Simpson

Agent: Bidwells

This Issues and Options representation is made on behalf of Mr Simpson who has land interests at Cotton End, Bedford.
1.2 The wider site was put forward for consideration through the Call for Sites process in 2020 as two separate parcels setting out alternative options for development (Site ID: 1332 and 1337).
1.3 The Strategy Options document that is being consulted on was prepared ahead of the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF). A requirement was introduced within Paragraph 22 of the revised NPPF for Local Plans proposing new settlements or urban extensions to towns/villages to be set within a vision which looks at least 30 years ahead. Paragraph 22 will apply to the Bedford Borough Local Plan based on the transitional arrangements that have been put in place and as a result, the Council will need to undertake additional work to establish a longer-term vision for the Local Plan 2040.
1.4 Mr Simpson, as the sole landowner, is promoting land at Cotton End, Bedford as a location for mixed-use development in the Local Plan 2040. Overall Mr Simpson is promoting, 78.83 hectares of land within this location.
1.5 The site was presented as two separate parcels as part of the Call for Sites process. A wider, more strategic land parcel that covers some 56.44 hectares and a smaller site for 21.39 hectares that is considered suitable for the more immediate period. Although many of the points raised in the submission will be similar for both land parcels, the phasing and timeframe for the land coming forward would be different and as such we request that both sites are considered separately.
1.6 This representation sets out a number of comments and concerns in relation to the proposed strategy set out in the Draft Strategy and Options Document as they affect Mr Simpson’s interests.
Land at Cotton End, Bedford – Smaller Site 1337
1.17 The site is approximately 21.569 hectares (53.30 acres). The site effectively wraps around the north-east of Cotton End with access achievable from/off High Road to the west.
1.18 The site is currently in agricultural use (arable and pasture) and is shown in the below image.
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Draft Strategy Options
Page 5
1.19 As with the Larger Site, the site is not subject to any topographical, landscape or heritage designation. Where constraints have been identified these can be appropriately mitigated through design. For example, the site is within Flood Zone 1.
1.20 As with the Larger Site, an Initial Heritage Appraisal has been prepared to support this proposed allocation and it has been determined that any levels of harm arising would be “less than substantial harm” to the setting of the assets. The initial assessment of the potential impact consideration determines the following:
● “The retention of the open space around the Manor Farmhouse allows for the existing contribution the site makes to it in this location to be retained.
● Proposed access adjacent to the Manor Farmhouse will need to be carefully considered in terms of its size, detail and appearance as this may adversely affect the setting of the building. There is, however, a historic precedent for the subdivision of this space to the front of the building up until the late 20th century, as evidenced by the historic mapping. The reinstatement of this may bring about some benefits to help outweigh the potential harm arising.
● The retention of the paddock to the north of 21 High Road retains a very generous setting to that building which is in keeping with its historic and functional connection.

● Partial loss or erosion of the wider open setting which will result in a reduction of the wider rural context; however, this loss can be mitigated through the inclusion of buffers of open space and/or enhanced landscaping across the site, where appropriate, as well as the potential for green corridors through the site to retain a connection to the wider landscape.
● The built form within Site B will have a connection with the existing Cotton End settlement which will help ground it within its context.”
1.21 This site shares the same locational characteristics and access opportunities as the larger site, as detailed in the above section.
1.22 The site is suited for residential development of circa 400 dwellings at a density of 35 dwellings per hectare, again assuming 50% of the site is developed for non-residential uses. This approach to development would take guidance from the surrounding landscape in terms of its design and positioning.
1.23 In Section 6, we have reviewed and commented on the site assessments that have been undertaken by the Local Planning Authority as a result of the Call for Sites.