Object

Representation ID: 10509

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Conservative Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

EMP6
Detailed comments have been made on this site by Renhold PC. However I would like to iterate a number of points. EMP6 is not in a sustainable location- unlike Priory Business Park which is sited on a roundabout off the A421 and can be easily accessed through Priory Country Park, this site does not offer real travel choice- it is car centric. Instead if this use is required it should be placed where the employment use can be accessed by various modes including more sustainable options.

The maps provided by the Council fail to show the coalescence and urban sprawl that this plan would cause- the plans do not show the site allocated in the Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan for 500 homes. This site and the EMP6 are close together and would leave a minimal gap between the villages of Renhold and Great Barford. In turn Renhold itself is already adjacent to the urban area of Bedford via Salph End. These proposals would mean that Renhold would be accessed via the employment side off the A421 roundabout ending the village nature of Renhold.

There would be an unacceptable damage caused to wildlife and habitat as well as landscape harm. These sites in EMP6 are on high ground and will be highly visible from Great Barford and from Renhold – again this can be contrasted with the Priory Business Park which is more acceptably situated in the landscape.

The proposals in EMP6 will also unacceptably impact on the historic environment.

The proposals at EMP6 will also cause additional traffic issues in the Renhold and Great Barford area.

There is a great concern that if the science park does not come forward then udner the terms of the NPPF the site will instead be developed for warehousing or for housing. While the idea of a science park might seem attractive to some on the basis that there will be high quality jobs which to some might mitigate the harm caused by the proposals (as laid out above) there would be no such mitigation if the site were actually developed for or for general housing.