We strongly object to the development at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural for the following reasons:

Since as early as 2002 the area has been discounted for development as part of Bedford’s local plan as follows:

Cited from the Local Plan Inspectors Report 2002:
“Even in the context of Wood End and Gibraltar, the four proposed sites have no planning virtues. The proposed site at the eastern end of Wood End would merely extend the ribbon of roadside development into a pleasant open gap. The three sites west and north of Gibraltar, amounting to some 8 ha, are strips of open land utterly unconnected to the existing built form, though of about the same size in total. They encroach on to open land, and their development would merely invite more proposals for building outside the settlement in due course.”

“…Nevertheless, I find that there are good reasons to keep the remaining gap between the northern edge of Wootton and Kempston as wide and open as possible.”

Cited from the Allocations and Designations Local Plan, July 2013:
“The gap between Wootton village and the urban area boundary at Kempston is less than 1 km. The intervening open land contains some development at Gibraltar Corner and in a ribbon to Keeley Green on the edge of Wootton. This area lies within the northern Marston Vale Growth Area and the pressure for additional development means that there is a risk of settlement coalescence. In order to preserve the separate character and identity of Wootton, the gap between it and the urban area requires additional protection.”

Cited from Executive Report , 10 January, 2018:
[The Executive agreed] “Removal of large scale allocations on the edge of the urban area at Salph End, Renhold and Gibraltar Corner responding to concerns about coalescence between Bedford and nearby villages.”

Cited from Local Plan 2030 (Statement of Consultation), March 2019
“Previously considered sites at Renhold and Gibraltar Corner were not included in the local plan as they would have impinged on gaps between the current urban edge and existing settlements, increasing concerns about coalescence.”

Cited from Inspector’s Report, December 2019
“Paragraph 9.22 summarises the reasons for rejection of the large number of sites in the Salph End Renhold and Gibraltar Corner areas which, consistent with the evidence in the Development Strategy and Site Selection Methodology topic paper [SD05], primarily relates to loss of undeveloped gaps between the built-up area of Bedford and other settlements […]The matter is clearly a finely balanced one although based on what we have read, heard at the hearings and, importantly, seen on our visits to the edge of urban area sites and the villages, we conclude that the decision not to select for inclusion in the plan sites at Salph End, Renhold and Gibraltar Corner is a reasonable one.

Most recently, as part of the Local Plan 2035 Site Assessments, September 2018, it was found that the land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural was excluded at [stage 2] of the local plan as it “does not relate well to existing settlements [and] as such it is not suitable for development”

In order to assess the suitability and availability of each site. Stage 2 asks three key questions, one of which was, “Is the site suitable for development?”

The explanation provided in the report states:

“For the purposes of this assessment, for a site to be suitable it must relate well to the structure of the settlement and existing facilities, must not seriously harm important open spaces or important views into and out of the settlement, must not have a serious harmful impact on heritage assets, and must not have serious access constraints. The suitability of each site is rated green, amber or red, where red means that the site is not suitable for development and therefore should be excluded from further assessment.”

It should be noted that the land at Gibraltar Corner received a red rating meaning the site was considered not suitable for development.

Despite years of designating the site as unsuitable, Bedford Borough Council’s U-turn on the suitability of the site at Gibraltar Corner is unjustifiable and takes no account of the years of evidence showing that the proposal would erode a portion of the separating space between this and the settlement in Wootton and have a severe negative impact on the quality of life for all residents.

Additional reasons for objection:

• The site at Gibraltar Corner is not close to the edge of the designated urban area, and therefore is not an urban extension. The development of the site would merely encroach on to open land, and would invite more proposals for building in due course.

• Loss of tranquillity through increased noise/air pollution due to increased amount of traffic through Kempston Rural.

• The proposal detracts from the distinctive rural character of Kempston Rural and its setting which offers glimpses of open countryside. The increase in built form would affect the perception of the ‘rural’ nature of ‘Kempston Rural’.

• Limited employment and infrastructure mean most residents will travel by car to a place of work, shopping and entertainment.

We strongly reject the proposals and request instead that the space remains as open countryside.