New homes approved in Sharnbrook - even though fire engines can't get to them
Two new homes have been approved on land behind 105 High Street in Sharnbrook — but only after Bedford Borough councillors expressed misgivings about emergency access and safety.
he application, which includes demolition of stables and construction of two four-bedroom homes, was passed by a narrow vote at the planning committee (Monday, June 16), despite concerns that fire engines cannot access the narrow lane serving the site.
Council highway officers objected to the application, citing concerns that the access road is too narrow, visibility onto the High Street is poor, and that fire engines and refuse lorries cannot reach the site.
Councillors were told that sprinkler systems would be used instead of on-site access for fire appliances, a solution that didn’t sit well with everyone.
“I really don’t like this,” said councillor Alison Foster (Conservative, Harrold).
“I’d like to know how many sites we’ve approved where a fire engine can’t get down.”
Access for ambulances was also questioned, with councillors noting tree overhangs and tapering at roof height could cause clearance issues.
But councillor Martin Towler (Conservative, Riseley) said: “The builders have got to get down there with Transit vans carrying the materials to build the damn thing.
“If they can get one of those down there, they’ll probably get an ambulance [down there] too.
“If they can’t get a Transit down, they’re never going to build the place in the first place.”
Councillor Foster said: “I know it’s not really anything to do with this committee, but I do think it will affect the sale prices of the houses if we do eventually give it consent.
“I just don’t like the fact that fire engines can’t get down there and the people who buy those houses can’t be properly protected.”
Despite multiple objections from residents and the parish council, officers argued the scheme was acceptable in planning terms, citing previous appeal decisions and lack of a five-year land supply.
Three councillors voted in favour, two against, and one abstained.
“I don’t like it,” said councillor Towler, “But we don’t want to go back to inspectors again.”