Object

Representation ID: 8888

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Mills

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or underutilised land. Our whole parish is classed as open countryside for planning purposes. Our three tiny hamlets are not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 definition (6.21) and we are therefore defined as open countryside. We feel that describing the brown option which would see the majority of our parish covered in a large scale, high density, and urban development as using brownfield or underutilised land is very misleading. We believe this could compromise the validity of the consultation as those responding would logically propose development on brownfield or under-utilised land over Greenfield sites.

We believe the pros and cons list for the brown option is very inaccurate for our parish. A large development in Staploe parish would not support services etc. in Bedford – we are 13 miles away and people would use services in St. Neots which are already under pressure due to large scale development on the eastern side of the town. There would be very little potential for residents here to make sustainable travel choices – we have one bus on Thursday and it would require huge investment to improve public transport. This would not reduce the need for growth in rural areas – we are a rural area and it proposes building all over our parish. Development in our parish would not improve viability of retail and leisure in Bedford Borough. People would go to St. Neots.”

1.33 100 word summary
I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or underutilised land.