Object

Representation ID: 8740

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

2.28 The emerging preferred options put forward by the Council continue to have an urban focus and the four variations all focus development on the urban area, A421 corridor, and existing and planned rail stations. This approach relies heavily on rail investment and also focuses growth to the south of the town, with very little growth planned to the north of the borough.

2.29 Representations addressing our client’s interest elsewhere in the Borough endorse a ‘hybrid’ approach making provision for village-related development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. Reassessment of Option 3c provides an appropriate starting point for such an approach. Within this strategy option the Council has applied arbitrary ‘one size fits all’ totals to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres

2.30 A number of KSC’s and RSC’s have sites which have been identified as potentially suitable through the Councils Call for Sites (Summer 2020) and have been assessed as such by the Council through Local Plan Site Assessments. Milton Ernest is one of those RSCs which is in the process of producing a Neighbourhood Plan and was apportioned a housing target through the Local Plan 2030. The MENP is currently at examination stage with the Examiners


report recently being published which has recommended the Plan proceed to referendum subject to modifications.

2.31 Milton Ernest was identified in the Local Plan 2030 Policy 4S as a centre suitable for the delivery of between 25 to 50 dwellings. Local Plan 2030 Policy 4S also states that “In rural service centres allocations may exceed 50 dwellings where specific local justification is set out in Neighbourhood Plans demonstrating that it would be appropriate in terms of the scale, structure, form and character of the settlement and the capacity of local infrastructure”.

2.32 The Neighbourhood Plan currently includes one housing allocation Policy ME H1: Rushden Road comprising our client’s interests. The land has been promoted through various Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan consultations.

2.33 Policy ME H1 was originally published stating the proposed delivery of a “maximum of 25 dwellings”. However, this point has been addressed through the Examiner’s suggested modifications in that it is advised that maximum be replaced by minimum to reflect policy and potential future housing need.

2.34 Our client intends to bring the scheme forward for residential development within the amended Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as set out in the MENP policy ME H1. This does not preclude the Borough Council, within its assessment of site options, considering the potential for additional growth within the wider site area outside of the Neighbourhood Plan’s proposed amendments to the SPA boundary, at this sustainable location. Similarly, the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Report does not preclude a sensitive extension of the site area outside of the proposed SPA boundary amendment in order to provide for additional built or non-built uses (e.g., open space) associated with residential development upon the site.

2.35 Given the above, we would ask that Bedford Borough Council, reconsiders their proposed development strategy to test a ‘hybrid’ approach including ‘village-related’ development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. This could readily be achieved through allocating an additional amount of development to those northern parishes previously considered suitable for additional housing development, thus addressing the substantial risks to non-delivery associated with the Council’s Preferred Options and helping to sustain and enhance the role of the most sustainable settlements in the hierarchy.