Sites proposed for development in Gravenhurst
Central Bedfordshire Council are consulting on sites both within and adjacent to Gravenhurst, for residential development as part of their new Local Plan. This could mean hundreds of new homes built in the countryside not just in our little village but also on the outskirts of our village boundary adjacent to neighbouring villages.
In the last 5 years Gravenhurst has seen significant housing development that has changed the look and feel of our village. If village organisations and residents don’t engage with consultations like this, there is a real risk that land could be identified for development without fully considering the impact it has on Gravenhurst.
By responding, we can make the case for:
- Preserving Gravenhurst’s identity as a rural village.
- Enhancing important green spaces and community facilities.
- Ensuring future growth is planned and sustainable.
- Making sure infrastructure is considered before development.
How to respond to the Call for Sites proposals in Gravenhurst
- Visit: https://centralbedfordshire.oc2.uk/document/99/9170#d9170
- Click on ‘Comment’ button under site 136315 – Barton Road.
- Click on ‘Create an Account’ and follow the on screen instructions. It is essential to create an account as CBC are only accepting online responses.
- Click ‘Support’ or ‘Object’ to development of site 136315.
- Type in your comments about the site or copy, paste and amend our responses as shown in the section below.
- Click ‘Submit’ to confirm your response.
- Click on ‘Comment’ button under site 136316 (next site in list) and repeat steps 4 to 6 above.
- Repeat for all Gravenhurst sites.
Note: There are some sites adjacent to or overlapping the boundary with Gravenhurst that will affect us. These sites are in Silsoe, Shillington and Gravenhurst. Please also consider providing comments to those sites (see sections below)
Map showing all sites proposed for development in Gravenhurst
Please view, copy or amend our responses to create your own submissions. Simply click on the ‘+’ button to the left of each site description.
If you prefer download a Word version here.
Note: CBC have imposed a word limit of 100 words for all comment submissions.
Development would:
- Create permanent, urbanising encroachment of settlement envelope beyond clearly defined boundary into rural, open countryside cascading down the hillside, removing pastureland and eroding unsettled hill slope.
- Not conserve, restore or improve character and distinctiveness of the landscape area.
- Contradict the Landscape Strategy for the character area.
- Diminish intrinsic rural characteristics of area around rural Upper Gravenhurst settlement/setting.
- Alter visual impact/environment of transition from village to open countryside.
- Adversely affect views from/ to St Mary the Virgin (Grade I), South/North.
Contradicts Policies CBLP SP7, EE5, HQ1 and GNP RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4.
Site refused at appeal APP/P0240/W/23/3332586
Development would:
- Create permanent, urbanising encroachment of settlement envelope beyond clearly defined boundary into rural, open countryside cascading down the hillside, removing pastureland and eroding unsettled hill slope.
- Not conserve, restore or improve character and distinctiveness of the landscape area.
- Contradict the Landscape Strategy for the character area.
- Diminish intrinsic rural characteristics of area around rural Upper Gravenhurst settlement/setting.
- Alter visual impact/environment of transition from village to open countryside.
- Adversely affect views from/ to St Mary the Virgin (Grade I), South/North.
Contradicts Policies CBLP SP7, EE5, HQ1 and GNP RC1, RC2, RC3 and RC4.
Site refused at appeal APP/P0240/W/23/3332586
Development would:
- Create significant backland development and built form/mass in countryside outside settlement envelope.
- Create severe highways safety, capacity, and logistical challenges, most notably severe congestion and deadlock, emergency service and waste vehicle restrictions, and pedestrian vulnerability as primary access is via single-vehicle track.
- Create highways safety issues as access between 2 bends in road and no footpath for connectivity.
- Increase flood risk for High Street homes with loss of permeable ground in area where water table is high and run off from lands is already substantial and impacts neighbours.
Note: Lands have restrictive covenant limiting use to agricultural/garden use.
Development would:
- Remove Grade 2 BMV agricultural land.
- Create permanent, urbanising encroachment beyond settlement envelope into rural, open countryside.
- Create visible built mass on elevated ridgeline down unsettled slope towards Barton Road/Shillington Road.
- Be detrimental/harm rural identity, distinctive character of the village, and its setting.
- Harm and not respect, retain or enhance character, appearance and distinctiveness of the local landscape character area contrary to the Landscape Strategy.
- Adversely affect beauty of the countryside elevated views from/to village across intervening low ground.
- Alter visual impact/environment of transition from village to open countryside.
- Be unsustainable as distance from amenities creates car dependency.
The Parish Council comments on sites outside our boundary that we believe will have an effect on us are currently being formulated and will be completed and uploaded to this page ASAP after consulting with neighbouring parishes. Please return to view, copy or amend our responses to create your own submissions.
Site 136832 – Greenwoods
To comment on this site go to https://centralbedfordshire.oc2.uk/document/99/9198#d9198 and click on the comment button under site 136832 (9th in list)
Development would:
- Remove BMV land.
- Cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt due to siting, scale and nature of development.
- Create new settlement in an unsuitable, unsustainable, and harmful location,
- Conflict with spatial policies protecting rural character, causing permanent and irreversible harm to local landscape beauty/open spaces/wildlife/biodiversity.
- Harm significance of a range of heritage assets
- Harm landscape, including setting/viewing of the Chilterns National Landscape.
- Crate coalescence of settlements.
- Sit outside transport network creating unacceptable hazards/inconvenience to network users.
Contradicts Policies CBLP DC5,EE1,EE2,EE3,EE5,EE7,SP1,SP4,SP5,HE1,HE2,HQ1,T1,T2,&T4 and NPPF
Site 136290 – Land between Bury Road, Gravenhurst Road and Seweage works
To comment on this site go to https://centralbedfordshire.oc2.uk/document/99/9197#d9197 and click on the comment button under site 136290 (2nd in list)
Development would:
- Remove BMV land.
- Create permanent, urbanising encroachment beyond settlement envelope into rural, open countryside.
- Harm and not respect, retain or enhance character, appearance and distinctiveness of the local landscape character area contrary to the Landscape Strategy.
- Harm significance of heritage assets (scheduled monument).
- Risk coalescence and erode rural distinctiveness of separation between Gravenhurst and Shillington.
- Lack of safe walking, cycling or public transport connections to facilities e.g.: healthcare creating unacceptable hazards/inconvenience to residents.
- Cause harm to future residents’ living conditions via disturbance from sewage works.
- Be unsustainable and have no connectivity to villages creating an isolated, car-dependent community.
Site 136505 – Land between A507 covering golf course down to Campton Road
To comment on this site go to https://centralbedfordshire.oc2.uk/document/99/9155#d9155 and click on the comment button under site 136505 (6th in list)
Development would:
- Remove BMV land.
- Create permanent, urbanising encroachment beyond settlement envelopes into rural, open countryside.
- Harm not respect, retain or enhance character, appearance/distinctiveness of local landscape character area contrary to the Landscape Strategy.
- Risk coalescence and erode rural distinctiveness of separation between villages and have no connectivity to current villages creating an isolated, car-dependent community.
- Lack of safe walking, cycling/public transport connections to facilities e.g.: healthcare creating unacceptable hazards/inconvenience to residents.
- Scale of development disproportionate to size of villages, negatively impacting local services, education, infrastructure and community identity.
- Loss of sporting amenity.
- Brownfield sites must be prioritised over greenfield.
Central Bedfordshire Local Plan – Background
Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) has begun a consultation on the 452 potential housing sites across the local authority area, from which, in a couple of years, a shortlist will be agreed for development in the next Local Plan.
At the end of 2024, the council conducted a legal process known as a ‘Call for sites’ where anyone with land they want to develop, could put this forward. 626 sites were proposed. Council officers then worked through this list, removing 132 sites which were obvious candidates for refusal such as:
- Not big enough for at least 10 new homes.
- Land in SSSIs, or sites which are in the highest flood risk areas.
- Land with a legal issue e.g. submitted without permission of landowner.
- Sites not directly next to the edge of a town/village and not big enough to form a new settlement on their own.
CBC has now put together a website where you can see exactly where the remaining 452 sites are located sorted by village / town. You can also see how big each site is, what it could be used for. The council has received proposals of land amounting to about 10,900 hectares which we estimate would be enough for circa 381,500 houses – only about 7% of this land would be required. However, this is NOT a guarantee. On some land a developer may want to build mansions with huge gardens, on another they might want to build tower blocks. Plus, the rules over use of Green Belt sites are rightly stricter, so these are less likely to be used. This means areas without Green Belt will be more likely to be allocated housing than those who have it.
This consultation now offers everyone the opportunity to highlight which sites are the most unsuitable, so please get involved and have your say.
Frequently Asked Questions
- DO WE REALLY NEED MORE HOUSES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE? No one would disagree we need homes for the next generation. But what we don’t want, is to see our countryside and wildlife destroyed by ugly new housing developments or the look and feel of our village changed.
- WHAT HAPPENS IF CBC DOESN’T HAVE A LOCAL PLAN? The government insists councils have an up-to-date Local Plan, and CBC had one approved in 2021. If local authorities refuse, or drag their heels, developers can just apply to build wherever they want to, knowing even if the council turns it down, this could easily get overturned at appeal, as the local authority won’t be able to demonstrate they have a plan.
- HOW MANY HOUSES ARE NEEDED? The original proposal was 14,800 by 2045, but this has been increased to 25,500 by 2050. The government controls the numbers.
- IS CBC CONSULTING THE PUBLIC? Yes. All the way through the process they must consult with the public. All local authorities are obliged to provide housing as per government targets but the locations in question are down to local authorities (CBC) to decide. Under the current plan, CBC is obliged to find around 2,000 houses per year. This number only changes if the government decides it will. There are housing sites allocated until 2035. The new plan would extend this to 2050, so yes, there will be new houses allocated in Meppershall to cover the extra years.
- WHERE WILL THE HOUSES GO? This is to be decided by CBC officers with feedback from the current and future public consultation. It will depend to some extent on the land put forward.
- DOES THE COUNCIL CARE WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS? They must consult. Housing will need to be allocated, we have no choice about that, but communities should be properly heard.
- WHAT ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE? In the past, we have seen huge developments built, across the country, with little in the way of infrastructure. CBC says that the new Local Plan will better attempt to understand and enable delivery of what communities want alongside new homes.