1.4

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9125

Received: 19/07/2022

Respondent: Sir Graham Fry

Representation Summary:

I agree with the comments made by Staploe Parish Council concerning the previous consultations.

Full text:

I agree with the comments made by Staploe Parish Council concerning the previous consultations.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9186

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Tom Tagg

Representation Summary:

Although not relevant to the current LP2040 plan, my previous objections remain unaltered:
The Issues/Options was not compliant as it described my Parish (Staploe) as brownfield, under-utilised urban land, when it is high class agricultural land and open countryside.
The Draft Plan was not compliant as it referred to the Dennybrook development being for 2,500 homes not the 11,500 homes actually planned.
The transport modelling for a new settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed (also all transport modelling by Aecom).
The Draft Plan considered sites (e.g. Eaton Bank) submitted late, preventing comment by the public.

Full text:

Although not relevant to the current LP2040 plan, my previous objections remain unaltered:
The Issues/Options was not compliant as it described my Parish (Staploe) as brownfield, under-utilised urban land, when it is high class agricultural land and open countryside.
The Draft Plan was not compliant as it referred to the Dennybrook development being for 2,500 homes not the 11,500 homes actually planned.
The transport modelling for a new settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed (also all transport modelling by Aecom).
The Draft Plan considered sites (e.g. Eaton Bank) submitted late, preventing comment by the public.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9299

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Miss Andrea Witham

Representation Summary:

The issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan was not justified because it relied on this consultation. It described Staploe parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with grade 2 agricultural land.
In the Draft Plan Dennybrook was described as a development of 2,500 homes but it's clear that the developer was intending more thant 10,000.
Both the expanded version of Dennybrook and Eaton Bank were submitted after the call for sites deadline so we had no change to comment on them

Full text:

I believe the plan to be compliant and sound but point out that the initial consultation was not compliant as it wrongly described the parish as brownfield.
In the Draft Plan Dennybrook was referred to as a site of 2,500 homes but it's clear that the developer was proposing 10,000+ homes.
Both the enlarged Dennybrook site and Eaton Bank were put forward after the call for sites deadline leaving us no time to comment.

Full text:
The issues and options consultation was not compliant and as a result the plan was not justified because it relied on this consultation. It described Staploe parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to the concerns raised by us and so I am happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the proposed new rail station.
Similarly people in the parish were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we believe the outcome is
compliant and sound.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9300

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Crawford

Representation Summary:

Objected to the issues and options consultation. Described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land.

Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a development of 2,500 homes but not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport modelling had big mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so we support the outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline.

The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Full text:

We were concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to our concerns and so we are happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land.

Similarly we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

Finally, we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so we would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding road network.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9307

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Pavenham Parish council

Representation Summary:

This representation is submitted by Pavenham Parish Council. The PC recognises the steps that have been taken by the Borough Council in acknowledging the importance of growth around the A421 corridor and the consequential changes that have been made to reflect that in the current draft Plan.

The PC has no reason to believe that the draft Plan, building on the previous Plan, is not sound.
This is the Parish Council's single response to the consultation.

Brian Greenwood - Acting Administrative Officer, Pavenham Parish Council

Full text:

This representation is submitted by Pavenham Parish Council. The PC recognises the steps that have been taken by the Borough Council in acknowledging the importance of growth around the A421 corridor and the consequential changes that have been made to reflect that in the current draft Plan.

The PC has no reason to believe that the draft Plan, building on the previous Plan, is not sound.
This is the Parish Council's single response to the consultation.

Brian Greenwood - Acting Administrative Officer, Pavenham Parish Council

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9323

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Eric Benton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Plan is said to be based on Option 2b of the previous options. This stated that the parishes of Wootton, Kempston Rural, Elstow, Wilstead, Shortstown and Cotton End would have growth of 1,500 houses. The Plan for Submission has 3,100 for Wilstead and Shortstown alone and I haven't counted the others.

Full text:

The Plan is said to be based on Option 2b of the previous options. This stated that the parishes of Wootton, Kempston Rural, Elstow, Wilstead, Shortstown and Cotton End would have growth of 1,500 houses. The Plan for Submission has 3,100 for Wilstead and Shortstown alone and I haven't counted the others.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9358

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Originally Staploe Parish Council objected to the issues and options consultation. Described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land.

Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a development of 2,500 homes - not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport modelling mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so we support the outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline.

The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Full text:

Comment:

Staploe Parish Council were concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to our concerns and so we are happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land.

Similarly we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

Finally, we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.

The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so we would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding road network.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9402

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Lorraine Jewell

Representation Summary:

There were earlier flawed consultations which resulted in unsuitable green areas being considered for major development. This site is no longer under review so the current outcome can be considered compliant and sound. A fresh consultation would be required should this location ever be reconsidered for development as it is not brownfield as first consultation suggested, it is grade2 agricultural, the development would have been for 11,500 houses, not 2,500 as suggested in the original consultation and also the transport report was flawed. If this site had been included in the current plan it would have been non-compliant and unsound.

Full text:

I was concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our the area of Honeydon, Staploe and Duloe as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened the concerns of myself and other parishioners and so as long as no revisions relating to the decisions made in light of that earlier erroneous consultation then I would consider the outcome and the plan to be compliant and sound.

Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land.
Similarly I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement and so long as that remains the case then I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. Should any revision be made further accurate consultations would be required to ensure compliance and soundness.
The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. Again assuming no revisions return to this settlement as there would need to be a new consultation without the errors made previously.
Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound, based on the above assumptions.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9490

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Peter Knight

Representation Summary:

Originally I objected to the issues and options consultation. Described
my parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in
open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land.
Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a
development of 2,500 homes - not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport
modelling mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so I support the
outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline.
The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Full text:

I was concerned that the issues and options consultation was not
compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It
described my parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a
greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However,
the Borough Council appear to have listened to my concerns and so I am happy with the
outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable
location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land.
Similarly I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”
consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of
the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the
development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation.
However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so we believe the
outcome is compliant and sound.
The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there
were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has
not been proposed in this final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”
consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of
Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted
well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last
day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them.
However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan, I believe the outcome is
compliant and sound. The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central
Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail
has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area
around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement
at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham
Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at
Tempsford so we would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with
these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding
road network.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9740

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

I'm concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish (Staploe, Duloe, Honeydon) as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to mine and our parshies concerns and so i'm happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on
grade 3 agricultural land.
Similarly I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the
Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation).
This gave little if any opportunity for us as residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so I would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with
these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding
road network.

100 word summary:
Originally Staploe Parish Council objected to the issues and options consultation. Described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land.
Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a development of 2,500 homes - not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport modelling mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so I support the
outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline.
The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9741

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Emily Thomson

Representation Summary:

I'm concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish (Staploe, Duloe, Honeydon) as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to mine and our parshies concerns and so i'm happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land. Similarly I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for us as residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so I would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding road network. 100 word summary: Originally Staploe Parish Council objected to the issues and options consultation. Described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a development of 2,500 homes - not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport modelling mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so I support the outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline. The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9769

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: Wyboston Chawston & Colesden Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We were concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish location as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a rural greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to the PC and residents concerns and so we are happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the existing rail station with more direct access and also closer to the proposed new rail station and using only grade 3 agricultural land.
Similarly we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
Finally, we were concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank - a further 2500 dwellings) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots, (with St Neots Town Council stating that they have NOT been consulted on this Plan) This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so we would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding road network.

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9854

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

I'm concerned that the issues and options consultation was not compliant and therefore the plan would not be justified because it relied on this consultation. It described our parish (Staploe, Duloe, Honeydon) as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to mine and our parshies concerns and so i'm happy with the outcome and believe the plan to be compliant and sound. Little Barford is a more suitable location than our parish as it is closer to the new rail station and on grade 3 agricultural land. Similarly I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 was not compliant because it referred to Dennybrook (the largest of the proposed new settlements) as a development of only 2,500 homes when in fact the development would eventually be 11,500 homes – this was not made clear in the consultation. However, the Borough Council appear to have discounted this settlement so I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. The transport modelling for the settlement at Wyboston (Dennybrook) was flawed in that there were errors in the number of transport movements stated. However, as this settlement has not been proposed in this final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound. Finally, I was concerned that the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies” consultation in July 2021 included a call for sites and sites such as an expansion of Dennybrook and a new site (Eaton Bank) were considered even though they were submitted well after the submission deadline (and in the case of Eaton Bank it was submitted on the last day of the consultation). This gave little if any opportunity for us as residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan I believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
The Duty to Cooperate statement demonstrates that meetings have been held with Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Councils and with many relevant agencies but little detail has been given about how they will manage the level of development planned for the area around St Neots. This is going to be important for St. Neots with the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. St Neots are also developing to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park. It will also be very close to new developments proposed in Central Bedfordshire at Tempsford so I would like to see more in the plan about how Little Barford will integrate with these sites and how it will affect St Neots town’s services, town centre and the surrounding road network. 100 word summary: Originally Staploe Parish Council objected to the issues and options consultation. Described our parish as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when it is a greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. Objected to the “Draft Plan: Strategy options and draft policies”. Referred to Dennybrook as a development of 2,500 homes - not clear that it would eventually be 11,500. Transport modelling mistakes. The Borough Council have discounted this settlement so I support the outcome. Object to sites being considered after the deadline. The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10388

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Party Bedford Borough Council

Representation Summary:

The Council’s response to consultation comments
A great deal of misinformation has been spread regarding the local plan. The Borough Council should, in its response, clarify and correct these misunderstandings or inaccurate reports. In many cases the responses are well-intentioned.
We should also seek alliances with parish councils to explain the issues with the standard method but also challenge the current and proposed planning systems.

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10451

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Conservative Group

Agent: Bedford Borough Councillor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

As we have said in our response to the Draft Plan: Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation we believe the consultation process referred to in Para 1.4 of the Introduction to the Draft Plan was flawed by the absence of the full range of options from the only document, the Development Strategy Topic Paper, that would have been seen by the majority of residents.
We have previously commented on the absurdity of not permitting the Council to delay the preparation of this plan until the long promised but still delayed Spatial Framework for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc has been published. We remain of that view and do not share the Councils apparent confidence (1.16) that the implications for economic growth and strategic housing will be unaffected should the Framework ever emerge.
We are equally sceptical about the significant dependence of the plan on the eventual completion of the proposed EWR to Cambridge (1.23-1.28). At the time of writing the future of this part of EWR looks at best uncertain yet several irreversible fundamental aspects of the plan are predicated on the existence of the railway.

Attachments: