1.33

Object

Representation ID: 6306

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Zwetsloot

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
 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: 6428

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Donna Thompson

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 6437

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Kent

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 6533

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Trolley

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 6592

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Aiden Farmer

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 6714

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Froude

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 6752

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Ms S Kelly

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 6804

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Damian Smith

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 6852

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Ibbett

I do not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. Our parish council 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. I 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. I 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.

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:
• 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 questions the validity of the consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 6891

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Master Corey T Farmer

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 6983

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Tusting

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:

• 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: 7021

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Tusting

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 7072

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: June Coles

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 7119

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Stephen Coles

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 7199

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Knight

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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: 7286

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Laura Jones

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 7496

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hambleton

I do not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 7605

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Nicola Tagg

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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.

I 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.

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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary
I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. My 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: 7652

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Goodship

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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.

I 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.

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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary
I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or under utilised land. This is profoundly untrue. My 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: 7747

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Thompson

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


Staploe Parish Council 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: 7808

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Emilio Meola

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: 7846

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Ibbett

I do not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. Our Parish Council 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. I 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. I 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.

It is unusual and confusing for all concerned in the consultation, leading to an unfair and misleading consultation, 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. 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:
• 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.

Object

Representation ID: 7950

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Lorraine Jewell

I do not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 8008

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Larry Gooch

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 8114

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Dr Emma Thompson

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


I believe that the Issues and Options consultation was invalid. It represented growth in our parish as “urban growth” showing our whole parish as brown – urban land on brownfield or 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: 8153

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ross Thomson

I did not agree that this Issues and Options consultation was sound or fair. I agree with Staploe Parish Council who responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or 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:
• 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.

1.33 100 word summary


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

Support

Representation ID: 8192

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bernadette 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: 8251

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Francis

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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: 8295

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Erin Francis

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this Issues and Options 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:
• 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.
1.33 100 word summary


Staploe Parish Council 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: 8337

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Francis

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:

• 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.