Planning – Application Comments

Please see Documents tab for comments

These objections are submitted by Mr G.Slade on behalf of and with the full knowledge and support of Mr and Mrs Slade of 65a, WellWaters House, Main Road, Biddenham, Bedford, MK404BE.

Mr and Mr Slade are 92 and 87 respectively, both are house bound and rely on high levels of care and family support 24 hours per day 7 days a week. Mrs Slade has 3 home care visits a day and has in the past 3 years a very high dependency on emergency vehicles.
Mr Slade is extremely partially sighted with severe AMD.

Both are not digital users or capable of submitting objections as instructed to this planning proposal. The timeframe allowed and medium provided for this type of planning proposal, for neighbours of Mr & Mrs Slades capabilities is extremely short and mechanisms unachievable for them to meet.

Mr and Mrs Slade are fundamentally opposed to the planning proposal as they have been on previous occasions, where this planning proposal has not been granted in the past.
Along with the previously submitted objections of past attempts at this planning submission the following objections are raised.
It should also be recorded that these proposals whilst relying on Mr & Mrs Slade accepting, after 30 years of dedicated single access rights to the driveway and property (commonly known by all parties and residents of Biddenham), are being submitted with 'Shared access rights' with no notification, discussion or indication to them whatsoever. With this in mind the ownership certificate (Certificate of Ownership - Certificate B) at the end of the Application Form is incorrect - "Can you give appropriate notice to all the other owners/agricultural tenants? (select 'Yes' if there are no other owners/agricultural tenants)" Yes has been selected but this is not factual.

Objection to 'shared' access and use of Mr & Mrs Slade's Driveway to achieve the proposal:

Please explain why the applicant has not used their own road access and driveway for the proposal?

The applicant's own driveway is more suitable for the proposal, wouldn't require changes to the picturesque Main road streetscape with enlarged entrances, wouldn't require ambiguous measurements and boundary claims, scaled plans that are accurate to the proposed measurements and more importantly would be far more suitable to the sharing of access over a narrow single access driveway.

Mr & Mrs Slade's deed's clearly state they have the ownership and responsibility of the boundaries chain link fence. They have also maintained and managed the whole driveway (to the road) and its boundaries for the total time of their tenure at 65a Main Road.
The boundary stated in the deeds and plans, is clearly present today, with the original concrete posts from 1950/60 still clearly in place. This last post is approximately 8 meters from the curb side (right hand side of 65a Main Road driveway).
The last post of this boundary is clearly in existence and when aligned with the proposal would be over 3/4 of the way across the proposed new access to the applicant's proposed entrance to his own property.

This demarcation is further supported with the installation of the water meter for 65a Main Road being approx 0.5-1 meter forward from this last concrete post (7.5 meters approx from curb side right hand side of 65a Main Road driveway) with the waterboard placing meters on or very near to the boundary of properties.
(Note this meter is not shown or mentioned in the submission)

The above points alone make the proposal of the applications access to the applicant's own property impossible as shown in the submitted plans.

When the scale of the plan and its measurements are translated to the missing measurements (example: How far up Mr and Mrs driveway from the road entrance, the proposed share access would break the boundary, is calculated), it clearly becomes obvious that these submitted plans are not to scale or would even be achievable.
If the 'scale' of the width of the shared driveway is applied to the length of the 'shared' driveways proposal, the entrance (and width of the entrance) to the proposers property is not achievable, even with their own plans.
This is further evidenced with the actual measurements on the ground, of the boundaries on both sides of the driveways adjoining property boundary, in relation to the proposed plans 'scaled' representation. Please note none of these crucial measurements are shown on the plans.

Measurements and statements in the proposal of where the boundary between the properties start are misrepresented and inaccurately represented on the plans submitted. This appears to be for the convenience of the proposal to look reasonable in scale and representations.

There is also the important issue of root damage, disturbance and possible devastating impact to the listed trees at the front of the applicant's property with this proposal.
It is extremely hard to understand why this proposal chooses a higher impact and detriment to neighbours, change and impact to street scene and excessive risk to listed trees over a far more achievable, less disruptive and far lower risk of using the applicant's own road access and driveway (which has far greater room and space) to achieve a far more pragmatic outcome.

Objections to the proposals removal of boundary shielding (mature trees, hedges, years of natural growth) of Mr & Mrs Slade's driveway, with no submission to make good, re-establish age of boundary or look of boundary.

Objection to proposed expansion (radius) of access, based on risks to BT access chamber, under drive gas pipe work, underdrive BT cables and electricity all serving 65a Main Road and the occupants status as vulnerable by all utility providers, and their critical needs for these services at all times.

Objection to proposed development and plan due to medically essential access required 24 hours a day.

Objection to the proposed plans disruption, stress and noise

Objection to the proposed plan for a new dwelling being erected in the rear garden of the applicant, based on all previous rejection to this planning proposal, plus the detriment to 65a Main Road vista and entrance to 65a Main Road property.

Objection to proposed plans dwelling design with the look and modern design of the proposal not being in a sympathetic or coalescing design or style of all surrounding properties. Especially with the historical and picturesque setting of the applicant's own property being an iconic, recognised and much photographed structure in the village of Biddenham.

Objection to the proposed plans with the proposed Crown Lifting of iconic, historic and listed trees.

Objection to the proposed plans based on where the new properties bins are to be placed on collection days. Any consideration to place these in the entrance for the properties are firmly rejected, as obstructive to the proposed entrance.
There is equally no location to the right of the entrance due to a ditch being in pace.

Objection as there is no consideration been given for large delivery/collection vehicle access without damage to the listed trees, as they will only be crown lifted or the space currently or proposed will be large enough for these vehicles.

Objection as there is no mention given as to how/where utilities will be provided to the proposed property.