Support

Representation ID: 7933

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Pavenham Parish council

The Parish Council has carefully considered all of the options identified by the Borough Council. It wishes, at this point, to underline the fact that this response should not be viewed as a NIMBY response, and that by indicating a preference for a development option that looks to the east of the Borough, the Parish Council is also very conscious that the views of Parish Councils most likely to be affected by these options will quite properly carry considerable weight.

That said, Pavenham Parish Council’s preferred option is Option 2c, namely “Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail based growth parishes plus two new settlements.

By selecting Option 2c as its preferred option, the Parish Council should point out that such a preference is entirely consistent with the views that it has expressed over the past 5 years. Regardless of the route eventually consented for the Bedford to Cambridge rail link, it is entirely logical that any future growth within the Borough should be concentrated within the central urban area and along the rail and transport corridors for reasons of connectivity.

The Parish Council would in this context also point out that in terms of connectivity, growth to the north of the urban area and away from the urban centre must be viewed as both impractical and illogical in terms of connectivity. The A6 to the north of Bedford is patently sub-standard is already under pressure – even without the current Sainsbury’s et al road works.

Looking at the proposed objectives – indeed requirements if the Borough is to meet its targets - namely, some 151 hectares of employment land and 12,500 new dwellings, it is queried in any case whether land north of the urban centre in the Borough could actually support such development in terms of basic infrastructure ranging from transport, drainage, sewerage, highway connectivity to modern systems of communication. Whilst it is appreciated that developers will always be able to provide answers to such questions – the means of providing those answers usually comes at great cost to the environment leading often to irreparable damage to an already fragile countryside.

The Parish Council appreciates that option 2a and 2b would meet essentially the same objectives and indeed considerable thought was given to whether Option 2a should be the preferred option.

It was felt, however, that on the assumption that the proposed Bedford to Cambridge rail link will actually be delivered – a new town settlement supporting the proposed new station at Little Barford seems a logical first step.

As far as a new town settlement at Wyboston is concerned, the Parish Council feels that a second settlement would avoid the risk of random development sites being identified by developers which in light of the high residential allocation targets in the Local Plan 2040 could be difficult for the Borough Council to refuse.

As noted above, the Parish Council is reluctant to comment on options that will affect Parishes to the east of the Borough and not its own administrative boundary. From the perspective of Pavenham Parish Council, however, it is considered that natural growth along the rail and road Transport Corridors would enable the affected Parishes to participate more effectively in the selection and allocation of sites. That said, whilst the Parish Council believes that there is a logic in supporting a new town settlement at Little Barford to serve the new East-West Rail Station, it follows that if the Parishes along the Transport Corridor prefer Options 2a, 2b, or 2d, then Pavenham Parish Council would be happy to defer to their view.