3.11

Object

Representation ID: 3459

Received: 20/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Trigg

Wootton area has so much development already. At risk of destroying greenbelt beyond repair.

Object

Representation ID: 3632

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group

Most people think of “the A421 corridor” as being between Bedford and M1, they would not expect/want more growth in villages between Bedford and A1. The east will already be hit by EWR.

Object

Representation ID: 3676

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: GB PC

The term "A421 corridor" may have been interpreted in previous "issues & options" as to be west of Bedford where growth is seen to be taking place, and not to include the villages to the east. Eastern Parishes will already be hit and compromised by routing of EWR new alignments

Support

Representation ID: 3699

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Clapham Parish Council

3.0 Clapham PC supports the exclusion of Twinwood and Colworth as possible new settlements as the A6 would not be able to cope with the additional traffic.

3.11 Clapham PC supports development in the urban area, along the A421 corridor and associated with the new railway stations at Little Barford/Wyboston. Council has no comments on the specific options.

Object

Representation ID: 3891

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Sir Graham Fry

As noted in my comment on Chapter 1, this consultation was conducted on a misleading basis.
It presented Staploe as brownfield and presented the pros and cons of development here inaccurately.
Moreover, because of Covid restrictions etc, the level of responses from within the Borough was too low at only 0.12% to draw valid conclusions.

Object

Representation ID: 3922

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs MARGARET TURNER

The issues & options document shows Staploe Parish as urban development when it is prime agricultural land and not at all urban

Object

Representation ID: 3964

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 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

Representation ID: 4007

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Turner

The issues & options document shows Staploe Parish as urban development when it is prime agricultural land with diverse wildlife not at all urban.

Object

Representation ID: 4124

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr paul giles

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

Representation ID: 4197

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gail Browning

“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

Object

Representation ID: 4258

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Fletcher Giles

The issues & options document shows Staploe Parish as urban development when it is prime agricultural land and not at all urban

Object

Representation ID: 4344

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Leach

The issues & options document shows Staploe Parish as urban development when it is prime agricultural land and not at all urban.

Object

Representation ID: 4480

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4550

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Smith

See above

Object

Representation ID: 4564

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Andrea Witham

The consultation was not done fairly. Staploe Parish is not a brownfield site or under utilised land. This is a rural parish and all of site 977 (Dennybrook) is greenfield. See my response in 3.10

Support

Representation ID: 4591

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Edward Chamberlayne

I support the option to focus development on the existing urban areas and the A421 corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 4604

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gerardine Meola

Only 279 respondents to the Issues and Options consultation out of population of 150,000 + residents is a fail.

The urban area of St Neots is not within Bedford Borough so it will not plan services for proposed new developments, it will not plan for 2500 houses 2040 and definitely not 10,000+ houses 2050 on land west of Wyboston, at that point it will engulf St Neots.

If development near EWR needs to take place, it should be at Little Barford 2500 houses only.

Two large developments on the outskirts of St Neots will be detrimental to St Neots.

Support

Representation ID: 4609

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Ivins

agreed

Object

Representation ID: 4649

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4705

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.
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:
• Bedford 46
• Sharnbrook 23
• 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

Representation ID: 4757

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Rawlins

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). I question the effectiveness of the issues and options consultation as only 0.12% of the population responded.

Object

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Tara Skey

I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in Staploe parish as “urban growth” showing the whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. The parish is entirely rural and classed as open countryside and is all utilised 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

Representation ID: 4942

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: O&H Land

Agent: Varsity Town Planning

O&H Land support the principle of growth centred around the stations on East West Rail and the A421 Corridor. The Council's Local Plan preparation timetable should allow for East West Rail Co. to clarify their station strategy before finalising a land use allocation strategy. This is imperative to ensure that the most sustainable sites are allocated for growth. O&H's land at Randalls Farm (BBC ID 905) is one such site and has the potential to be brought forward for a higher density mixed use scheme associated with a new stopping station.

Support

Representation ID: 5164

Received: 03/09/2021

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.

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:
• Bedford 46
• Sharnbrook 23
• 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

Representation ID: 5187

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Francis

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

Representation ID: 5499

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.

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:
• Bedford 46
• Sharnbrook 23
• 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

Representation ID: 5596

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.

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:
• Bedford 46
• Sharnbrook 23
• 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

Representation ID: 5647

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

Representation ID: 5698

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Miss amber scally

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.

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:
● Bedford 46
● Sharnbrook 23
● 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

Representation ID: 5759

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Hannah Hambleton-Jewell

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.

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:
• Bedford 46
• Sharnbrook 23
• 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.