Support

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Giles

With reference to the four page flyer entitled Local Plan 2040, I would comment as follows

When you are asked to make a choice, one would expect the options would achieve very similar results. If not it's not a fair choice!

Let's take a significant factor in the plan, the number of houses to be delivered. Your introduction states a minimum of 12500 additional dwellings.
Option 2a and 2c add up to 12500, however option 2b adds up to 17585 40% more and 2d 15,500 24% more, so NOT a fair or equitable choice!

Lets compare 2a & 2b - The only visual difference is the two rather insignificant RED STARS, just one of which appears on the map to be what is being called locally as the Dennybrook project, a complex of FIVE garden ‘villages’ equating to 10,800 homes, but referred to on your map as Great Barford (3085 homes). however the ‘star’ is nowhere near Great Barford.These ‘stars’ appear on the other two options as well with identical numbers, totally 5585 homes, just HALF the numbers proposed for Dennybrook, let alone those at Great Barford and Wyboston.

The implication is that by selecting any of choices 2b c or d one is agreeing with 5585 home when in reality and by deception, one is agreeing with 10,800 PLUS Wyboston 2,500, plus Great Barford 3,085, a total of 16,385 Plus the other areas outlined - Urban 1500, adjoining urban 1,500, Transport corridors up to 7,000! So not a fair or equitable choice.

When Bedford Borough became a Unitary Authority it retained the name of Borough even though it now included ALL of North Bedfordshire. Borough implies by definition an urban built up area for residential use. That is NOT what exists in North Bedfordshire. It is a rural, with small to medium villages. When it comes to services the rural areas come last in priority so to retain its title of Borough it should develop within itself and not try and create new town in a totally rural setting, as far away from Bedford town as it can get. it should not try and hide that possibility behind some little red stars!

Therefore the only option that can be made from what you offer is 2a!

What is disappointing is that your are prejudicing the result by failing of offer any of the other areas of the Borough that have been considered in the past, many if not all are brown field sites, sites that should be developed FIRST before ripping up green field areas, creating multi millionaires in the process, just like the new development at Mowesbury. It suggests that money talks loader than common sense?

The reasons that these brown field sites were rejected, lack of access, applies equally to those suggested that are outside the ‘true’ borough.