1.3
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3619
Received: 16/08/2021
Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group
It would be interesting to see where the respondent commenting on growth strategy lives – was there a NIBY effect ?
It would be interesting to see where the respondent commenting on growth strategy lives – was there a NIBY effect ?
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3654
Received: 16/08/2021
Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group
It would be interesting to see where the respondent commenting on growth strategy lives – was there a NIBY effect ?
It would be interesting to see where the respondent commenting on growth strategy lives – was there a NIBY effect ?
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3789
Received: 26/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs Gerardine Meola
The options were flawed. Brown - urban growth. The area identified to the north (Staploe/Wyboston parishes) is not urban. It is open countryside.
St Neots is an urban area in the neighbouring county of Cambridgeshire and the A1 motorway plus open countryside forms a barrier between St Neots and Staploe/Wyboston parishes.
The options were flawed. Brown - urban growth. The area identified to the north (Staploe/Wyboston parishes) is not urban. It is open countryside.
St Neots is an urban area in the neighbouring county of Cambridgeshire and the A1 motorway plus open countryside forms a barrier between St Neots and Staploe/Wyboston parishes.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3883
Received: 28/08/2021
Respondent: Sir Graham Fry
This consultation was fundamentally flawed. It identified the Staploe area as brownfield land, which was inaccurate and misleading. The stated pros and cons of development here were also inaccurate and misleading. There was no evidence that neighbouring local authorities had been consulted even though any development here would impact St Neots far more than Bedford. Moreover, the consultation was carried out in the middle of the pandemic when there were tight restrictions on public meetings.
This consultation was fundamentally flawed. It identified the Staploe area as brownfield land, which was inaccurate and misleading. The stated pros and cons of development here were also inaccurate and misleading. There was no evidence that neighbouring local authorities had been consulted even though any development here would impact St Neots far more than Bedford. Moreover, the consultation was carried out in the middle of the pandemic when there were tight restrictions on public meetings.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3898
Received: 28/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs MARGARET TURNER
The validity of the consultation is in doubt due to the classing of Staploe Parish as brown field or under utilised land
Bedford would no benefit from a settlement of this size 13 miles from Bedford as everyone would shop in St Neots
There are no green transport options for residents wanting to go to Bedford
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf stating: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land." For planning purposes the whole parish is classed as open countryside . In the Local Plan 2030 definitions the three hamlets of Duloe, Honeydon & Staploe are not even classes as small settlements. To suggest that the parish is the brown option of brown field or under utilised land is misleading and this compromised the validity of the consultation.
A development of 10,000 plus homes 13 miles from Bedford would be of no benefit to Bedford. Residents would be far more likely to shop in St Neots because of the proximity or if they did travel to Bedford would need to use cars as no-one is going to cycle 13 miles to go shopping and buses are non existent.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3957
Received: 29/08/2021
Respondent: Mr Mark Potts
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 under utilized land. This is profoundly untrue. This parish is entirely rural and classed
as open countryside and is all utilized as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
I would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only
0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail
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 under utilized land. This is profoundly untrue. This parish is entirely rural and classed
as open countryside and is all utilized as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
I would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only
0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4041
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Ann Mills
N/A
N/A
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4093
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Debbie Irish
As with previous so-called consultation or listening exercises, I do not agree that the first stage of consultation was properly communicated nor engaging with the relevant communities.
As with previous so-called consultation or listening exercises, I do not agree that the first stage of consultation was properly communicated nor engaging with the relevant communities.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4138
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Richard Baker
Decarbonisation and sustainability should be the main objective of the Local Plan.
Decarbonisation and sustainability should be the main objective of the Local Plan.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4155
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Mr paul giles
we 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 under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. Our parish is entirely rural and classed as open countryside and is all utilised as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
We would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only 0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail.
i do not feel that the summer 2020 was consultation was publisised enough, that said it identified urban, brownfield sites as a preferred option, and yet three of the councils preferred options include Wyboston/Denneybrook (site 977) which is built on 725 hectares of grade 2 agricultural land.
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.”
We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4177
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs Gail Browning
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf saying: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land."
Surely by suggesting that the parish is brown field or under utilised land is misleading and would question the validity of the consultation.
Bedford town would not benefit at all from this development as people would use St. Neots.
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf saying: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land."
Surely by suggesting that the parish is brown field or under utilised land is misleading and would question the validity of the consultation.
Bedford town would not benefit at all from this development as people would use St. Neots.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4234
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Mr Fletcher Giles
The validity of the consultation is in doubt due to the classing of Staploe Parish as brown field or under utilised land
Bedford would no benefit from a settlement of this size 13 miles from Bedford as everyone would shop in St Neots
There are no green transport options for residents wanting to go to Bedford
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf stating: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land." For planning purposes the whole parish is classed as open countryside . In the Local Plan 2030 definitions the three hamlets of Duloe, Honeydon & Staploe are not even classes as small settlements. To suggest that the parish is the brown option of brown field or under utilised land is misleading and this compromised the validity of the consultation.
A development of 10,000 plus homes 13 miles from Bedford would be of no benefit to Bedford. Residents would be far more likely to shop in St Neots because of the proximity or if they did travel to Bedford would need to use cars as no-one is going to cycle 13 miles to go shopping and buses are non existent.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4302
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Miss Andrea Witham
This consultation was not sound or fair and the response was pitiful.
Our parish is classed as open countryside for planning purposes; not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 (6.21); we are defined as open countryside. Describing the brown option which would see the majority of our parish covered in a large scale, high density, urban development as using brownfield land is completely misleading, as those responding would logically propose development on brownfield or under-utilised land over greenfield sites.
Development in Staploe parish would benefit St Neots, not Bedford.
I have read, understood and fully endorse the comments made separately by Staploe Parish Council, which are as follows:
Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.” We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected.
Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of
the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4315
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Miss Helen Leach
The validity of the consultation is in doubt due to the classing of Staploe Parish as brown field or under utilised land
Bedford would no benefit from a settlement of this size 13 miles from Bedford as everyone would shop in St Neots
There are no green transport options for residents wanting to go to Bedford.
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf stating: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land." For planning purposes the whole parish is classed as open countryside . In the Local Plan 2030 definitions the three hamlets of Duloe, Honeydon & Staploe are not even classes as small settlements. To suggest that the parish is the brown option of brown field or under utilised land is misleading and this compromised the validity of the consultation.
A development of 10,000 plus homes 13 miles from Bedford would be of no benefit to Bedford. Residents would be far more likely to shop in St Neots because of the proximity or if they did travel to Bedford would need to use cars as no-one is going to cycle 13 miles to go shopping and buses are non existent.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4349
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Miss Helen Leach
The validity of the consultation is in doubt due to the classing of Staploe Parish as brown field or under utilised land
Bedford would no benefit from a settlement of this size 13 miles from Bedford as everyone would shop in St Neots
There are no green transport options for residents wanting to go to Bedford.
Our Parish Council objected to question 4 of the Issues & Options document on our behalf stating: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land." For planning purposes the whole parish is classed as open countryside . In the Local Plan 2030 definitions the three hamlets of Duloe, Honeydon & Staploe are not even classes as small settlements. To suggest that the parish is the brown option of brown field or under utilised land is misleading and this compromised the validity of the consultation.
A development of 10,000 plus homes 13 miles from Bedford would be of no benefit to Bedford. Residents would be far more likely to shop in St Neots because of the proximity or if they did travel to Bedford would need to use cars as no-one is going to cycle 13 miles to go shopping and buses are non existent.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4448
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs Lucy Crawford
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 under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. Our parish is entirely rural and classed as open countryside and is all utilised as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
We would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only 0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail.
I do not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council's response to question 4 which was 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.”
I still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case and they may have selected the "urban" option thinking that development in our parish is urban and they may still believe that a development near Wyboston / Honeydon is urban due to this issues and options paper. The error has not been corrected in the draft Local Plan 2040.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, Bedford Borough Council need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. I believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. Such a poor response rate brings into further question the validity of the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4467
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Mr Ian Francis
As a resident I was unaware of any consultation during 2020
As a resident I was unaware of any consultation during 2020
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4493
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Smith
Because our hamlets are not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 definition (6.21) we are therefore defined as open countryside for planning purposes. Therefore I strongly object to the suggestion that the Staploe parish sites are brownfield sites or under utilised land. It is extremely misleading to describe the area as such, as respondents to the plan clearly would automatically propose development on brownfield or under utilised land over greenfield or open countryside sites. This description clearly compromises the validity of the consultation. Any development here would not benefit Bedford and adversely affect St Neots.
Because our hamlets are not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 definition (6.21) we are therefore defined as open countryside for planning purposes. Therefore I strongly object to the suggestion that the Staploe parish sites are brownfield sites or under utilised land. It is extremely misleading to describe the area as such, as respondents to the plan clearly would automatically propose development on brownfield or under utilised land over greenfield or open countryside sites. This description clearly compromises the validity of the consultation. Any development here would not benefit Bedford and adversely affect St Neots.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4529
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Smith
See above
I strongly object to the description of the brown option 'as our parish being comprised of brownfield site or under utilised land'.
In the Local Plan 2030 definition 6.21 the hamlets of Staploe, Duloe and Begwary are not even classed as a small settlement and as such are defined as open countryside.
In describing the site as brownfield or under utilised land: I do not agree that this consultation was sound or fair and the validity of the consultation could be compromised as respondents would naturally propose development on on brownfield or under utilised sited before development of green field and open countryside. The description as such is very misleading and false.
The parish is classed as open countryside for planning purposes.
We would see the majority of our parish covered in a large scale, high density, urban development
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4602
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Melvyn Chase
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 under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. Our parish is entirely rural and classed as open countryside and is all utilised as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
We would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only 0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail.
I have severe Parkinson’s and cannot type easily. Please duplicate all of Staploe Parish Councils responses for my views.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4655
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Joshua Zwetsloot
Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.”
We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4731
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr David Rawlins
This consultation was not sound or fair and the level of response was pitiful.
I have read and fully endorse the comments made by Staploe Parish Council, which are as follows:
Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.” We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected.
Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of
the consultation.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4822
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Tom Pearce
While I support the intention, the information provided within this consultation suggests that at least some locations have been mis-categorised (for example low density village areas classified as empty, fully active farmland marked as underutilised). If areas have been categorised incorrectly - by lack of research or by intent - then any plan is unable to reach the hoped-for solution.
While I support the intention, the information provided within this consultation suggests that at least some locations have been mis-categorised (for example low density village areas classified as empty, fully active farmland marked as underutilised). If areas have been categorised incorrectly - by lack of research or by intent - then any plan is unable to reach the hoped-for solution.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4865
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Julia Willison
The issues and options consultation represented growth in our parish as urban growth showing the whole of Staploe parish as brown urban land on brownfield or under utilised land. This is wrong. The parish is classed as open countryside, entirely rural and is all utilised as grade 2 high quality agricultural land.
The issues and options consultation represented growth in our parish as urban growth showing the whole of Staploe parish as brown urban land on brownfield or under utilised land. This is wrong. The parish is classed as open countryside, entirely rural and is all utilised as grade 2 high quality agricultural land.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4909
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Chris Giles
Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.”
We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5156
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Ian Francis
I dont believe the consultation has been conducted openly and fairly. The 2020 issues and options consultation classed our parish as "urban growth". Please look at a map/satellite imagery. The parish is very rural.
The figures I have seen indicate a poor feedback rate from the public, but proportionally high from our parish indicating there are strong view in the area that are not being considered.
OxcamArc is focused on rail based growth and yet 3 of 4 favoured development rely on site977, favouring a road transport reliant settlement. distances are not practical by foot or bicycle to transport links.
I dont believe the consultation has been conducted openly and fairly. The 2020 issues and options consultation classed our parish as "urban growth". Please look at a map/satellite imagery. The parish is very rural.
The figures I have seen indicate a poor feedback rate from the public, but proportionally high from our parish indicating there are strong view in the area that are not being considered.
OxcamArc is focused on rail based growth and yet 3 of 4 favoured development rely on site977, favouring a road transport reliant settlement. distances are not practical by foot or bicycle to transport links.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5472
Received: 06/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Stuart Ledwich
Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.”
We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation. We believe Bedford Borough Council should be arguing for an extension of time such that the Local Plan 2030 remains “in date” for another year to enable proper consultation, to allow the East West rail route to be announced and for the Oxford Cambridge Arc to decide about development corporations.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5569
Received: 06/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Julie Kilby
I did not agree that this 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 under utilised 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, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised 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.”
We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.
It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.
In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5619
Received: 07/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Phillip Yockney
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 under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. Our parish is entirely rural and classed as open countryside and is all utilised as high quality agricultural land (grade 2).
We would also call into question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only 0.12% of the population responded.
A rail based growth strategy policy may be required if growth is to be located around rail.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5620
Received: 07/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Phillip Yockney
The site at Dennybrook expanded in area by around 25% after the call for sites closed to engulf the hamlets of Honeydon and Begwary. We were informed only 8 months after the call for sites closed about this expansion which left only 4 weeks for residents to consider this and seek advice before the consultation on the Draft Local Plan openened. Duloe Field (site 3420) was also submitted after the deadline. We do not believe sites submitted after the deadline should be considered and certainly not very large sites submitted 8 months after the deadline.