Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Object

Representation ID: 5982

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

I believe that the summary leaflet sent round to all houses in the Borough is flawed in that it does not make it sufficiently clear and transparent that other options can be selected or proposed, it does not distinguish between Little Barford or Dennybrook (site 977) and it doesn’t make it clear that the 2,500 homes at Dennybrook would be the first phase of a 10,800 home development, which is misleading . This is a fundamental flaw which we believe undermines the value of the responses to this consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 5983

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Staploe Parish Council proposed in response to the Issues and Options Paper that the more appropriate growth strategy would be to apply a dispersed growth strategy (grey option), targeting housing and employment growth attached and within existing settlements and along transport corridors. Such a strategy would negate the need to build on the wider ‘open countryside’ attributed to the Parish of Staploe and align with the parish’s submitted objections to being classified as “Urban Growth”.
I consider that the dispersed growth strategy is still applicable which would include housing growth to existing serviced settlements, plus A421 transport corridor and rail growth, as well as the proposed new settlement of Little Barford (option 2b, in part). Such a strategy would provide 13,085 dwellings, including at least an additional 10% allowance for growth to small and medium scale housing sites associated with the existing key and rural serviced settlements. Applying the ‘low option’ to the rail corridor would reduce the development pressures along this corridor.

In support of a dispersed growth strategy, it makes clear at Paragraph 68 of the NPPF that the Council’s Local Plan should identify a supply of housing covering ‘years one to five, specific developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 – 10 and, where possible, for years 11 – 15 of the plan’. Paragraph 69 goes on further to state that ‘Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly.’ The development around existing served settlements would provide for these small and medium sites, which could deliver early in the plan period negating the reliance of large urban extensions and new settlements which inevitably are built out towards the end of the plan period, and potentially beyond. It is noted within the Settlement Hierarchy (September 2018) that the main urban settlement of Bedford/Kempston provides the most services, employment, public transport and facilities, and it is therefore where additional urban development should be focused. In addition to this, further sites can be allocated to key and rural serviced settlements as identified in sections 3 and 4 of the Settlement Hierarchy report, which identifies six key service centres and 10 rural service centres. Further development in and around these settlements would support existing services and facilities. It is also noted that the report is currently being reviewed. I would like to highlight that our parish has always been classified as open countryside in the settlement hierarchy so we are surprised that we are now deemed suitable for large scale development and would like to know what has changed.

In terms of windfall development, this would be identified over and above any proposed allocations to existing serviced settlements. The Small Sites Topic Paper (June 2021) notes that the windfall requirement for Bedford Borough Council is 2,250 dwellings over the plan period. BBC have identified through the topic paper that this figure would be exceeded by 920 over the plan period, contributing positively to delivery. Whilst windfall cannot be entirely relied upon, the growth strategy outlined at paragraph 3.7 can provide for a quantum of development that is over and above that of the required housing need. It should also be noted that Bedford Borough Council easily exceeds the NPPF requirement of 10% development on small sites through windfall sites.

The proposed rail corridor development for option 2b identifies around 5,500 dwellings for the areas of Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby and Wixams. Applying the ‘low option’ to the rail corridor would reduce the development pressures along this corridor. However, it should be noted that applying the additional new settlement of Little Barford would add an additional 3,085 dwellings in the ‘rail corridor’. The preference of Little Barford as a new settlement will mean that the proposed East West rail Station to the south of St Neots will provide for a truly sustainable form of development where there is a choice of sustainable modes of public transport – adhering to the strategic objectives of the Council and the draft Local Plan. The site at Little Barford has better connectivity to the existing settlement of St Neots and to the existing mainline station than Dennybrook (site 977). This settlement at Little Barford would enable access to a large number of services and facilities, including existing employment which would reduce the need to travel by car. In addition, the timing for the East West rail connection between Bedford and Cambridge is due to commence in 2025. This could potentially align with the delivery of Little Barford. Future masterplanning for the Little Barford settlement could join up with detailed track alignment and station location for the East West rail station. St Neots already has planned expansions to the east at Loves Farm and Wintringham Park and Little Barford would align with this strategic expansion. In contrast any development at Dennybrook (site 977) would form part of the first phase of a large new town of up to 10,800 homes in an entirely rural, unserviced location.

In terms of the proposed settlement at Dennybrook (site 977) (site land west of Wyboston), this ‘new settlement’ does not provide a suitable alternative. This proposed settlement provides for around 2,500 homes. It is located very close to the existing settlement of St Neots and Wyboston and entirely engulfs the existing hamlets of Honeydon and Begwary. It appears to offer very little separation causing potential coalescence. This new settlement would also be car dependent with limited access to the wider road network due to the existing narrow roads. There is poor connectivity in terms of a choice of sustainable modes of transport, including the train. Further details in respect of the proposed development at Dennybrook are addressed in the site assessment for Dennybrook (site 977).

It is evident that the Council’s Draft Sustainability Appraisal, dated June 2021 (DSA) that all spatial options have been assessed. However, options 2b, 2c, and 2d clearly identify two new settlements. In order to fully consider the social, economical and environmental impacts associated with these two proposed settlements, their impacts need to be assessed separately and fed into the draft SA. At present, the options testing within the draft SA are not accurate as a result. Accordingly, Bedford Borough Council have not robustly assessed the options, and therefore have not adequately evaluated the likely significant effects on the environment, contrary to The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Another option may be a new settlement of 2,500 homes at Twinwoods or Colworth. The Parish Council believe that the problems on the A6 north of Bedford are going to need to be resolved anyway in order to support the housing development proposed in the 2030 plan and for residents to access the east west rail station in the centre of the town. We believe that development of a new settlement of up to 3,000 homes at Twinwoods (site 883) or Colworth (site 1002) could provide the infrastructure funding to support improvements to the A6 which have long been needed and provide residents with access to the east west rail station in Bedford. A northern parkway station could be considered in future to provide sustainable transport for those in the north of the Borough. Twinwoods would include a significant proportion of brownfield land and Colworth includes lower quality (grade 3) agricultural land and so would comply with the NPPF requirement to utilise brownfield land or lower quality agricultural land before high quality agricultural land. These sites would also support Bedford Town Centre. Colworth was the site supported in the 2035 plan which was later reviewed. The A6 was not a considered sufficiently problematic to prevent this site being adopted – the site was dropped because it was difficult to mitigate against the noise from Santa Pod. So we find it hard to understand why the A6 is deemed such an insurmountable problem now.
100 word summary
I consider that option 2b with a new settlement at Little Barford is the best option. The East West rail station south of St Neots will provide a truly sustainable form of development at Little Barford. It will be better connected to the new station than Dennybrook. The latter does not provide a suitable alternative – too far from the rail station, risk of coalescence, good agricultural land. Our second preference if Little Barford were deemed unsuitable would be Twinwoods at Thurleigh as a significant part of the site is brownfield land. See above and site assessments for reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 5984

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Infrastructure items are already identified within the adopted Local Plan, principally at policy 90S. What is critical is the timing for delivery of necessary infrastructure to support the adopted Local Plan and draft Local Plan going forward. If there is a transport corridor approach to growth then additional junction improvements may be required, and priority bus routes that interconnect with existing and proposed rail stations, including the East West rail station to the south of St Neots. We also believe that it is important to improve the A6 to the north of Bedford to enable those in the north of the Borough to access the town centre and the new East West rail station.
I do not believe that the transport modelling was adequate. The Transport Modelling undertaken by AECOM in support of the strategic options in the Draft Local Plan 2040 is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons.
No validation or calibration of the traffic model has been undertaken which is not in keeping with Department for Transport WebTAG guidance.
It is assumed that the Bedford Borough Transport Model was undertaken using Saturn, which was the model of choice for the Bedford Town Centre modelling project in 2015. In this case, Saturn cannot directly Model Public Transport therefore it is assumed that the engineers have made some significant assumptions with respect to public transport and trips being used, which have not been validated or calibrated.

TAG unit M1.2 introduces the National Trip End Model (NTEM). It includes forecasts of population, households, workforce and jobs over 30 years which are used in a series of models that forecast population, employment, car ownership, trip ends and traffic growth by Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA). The NTEM data set can be viewed using the TEMPro (Trip End Model Presentation Program) software. TEMPro estimates of trip ends at any level below aggregate regions (e.g. MSOA, district, or county level) are subject to uncertainty and should not be used as constraints in matrix development process without verification and possible adjustments. No uncertainty log was prepared which is a recommendation of WebTAG modelling guidance.
For direct use in matrix development, trip rate information estimated from household survey data should be considered instead to underpin trip end estimates at zone level. There is a risk that model may not be realistic or sensible due to the error around the model parameters used, or limitations in the extent to which the model can represent human behaviour. Therefore, before using any mathematical model, it is essential to check that it produces credible outputs consistent with observed behaviour. This is usually done by running the model for the base year (either the current year or a recent year), and:
• comparing its outputs with independent data (validation);
• checking that its response to changes in inputs is realistic, based on results from independent evidence (realism testing); and
• checking that the model responds appropriately to all its main inputs (sensitivity testing).
Five types of data can be collected and used to inform most models:
• data on the transport network, including the physical layout, number of lanes, signal timings, public transport frequencies and capacities;
• counts of vehicles or persons on transport services, links or at junctions;
• journey times;
• queue lengths at busy junctions;
• interview surveys, in which transport users are asked to describe trips either through household travel diaries or intercept surveys (e.g. roadside interviews, public transport onboard interview surveys.
These types of checks have not been undertaken to validate / calibrate the model.
AECOM have derived trip ends using CTripEnds for a number of journey purposes. Expanding synthetic trip ends produced by CTripEnd to the local zoning system is considered to be subject to significant discrepancies from observed especially if validation and the calibration exercise has not been undertaken.
It is also important to note that strategic models are not designed for use in a scheme specific assessment. For such an assessment it is recommended a revised forecast model would be produced from a recalibrated base year model using additional and more recent data and targeted to reflect a more specific geographical focus of resources and modelling effort.
As part of the Bedford Borough Transport Model documents it is quoted that average departing trips are 20 to 25 vehicles, which may be below the trip rates assumed as part of a detailed development assessment. The extract below is taken from the New Settlement West of Wyboston document.[Extract inserted here.]
It is unknown what scenario of Dennybrook (site 977) development that the above “20 to 25 outbound car vehicle trips in the AM peak hour” relate to, however an outbound TRCS residential trip rate is somewhere between 0.23 to 0.33 vehicles per dwelling.

The development scenario ranges from 2,500 dwellings to 10,150 dwellings. On this basis and using a 0.25 departure trip rate results in 625 to 2,538 departing trips all of which would be home based departure trips. The model assumes 5 loading zones which therefore means there could be 125 to 508 vehicles per loading zone. This is significantly higher than the 20 to 25 outbound vehicle used by the AECOM model, assuming they have loaded it per node.
AECOM may claim that some of the departing trips will be internal and therefore will not cross cordon line however taking the 125 departing vehicle trips associated with 2,500 dwellings scenario; 20% of these departing vehicles are considered not to be leaving the area. This percentage decreases further if the worst case number of dwellings is being considered, i.e. 10,150 dwellings. It has previously been highlighted that the AECOM model has not be validated / calibrated and now given the apparent significant under valuation of the likely vehicle trips that will be generated, it is clear that the assessment of the capacity of junctions and the highway network is fundamentally flawed.

The significant undervaluation of generated vehicle trips could be argued by AECOM as being a reduction due to the impact of the public transport. However, the proposed new railway stations associated with the East West Rail Link are located to the east of the A1, which is significantly far enough away for the Dennybook development to be considered to not directly serve it without requiring a vehicle car trip to be generated. In this scenario it more likely that occupiers of Dennybrook (site 977) dwellings will continue their journey by car as opposed to transferring onto rail.

Given this all of the assessments undertaken by AECOM to determine the rerouting and vehicle km travelled for any scenario are highly unlikely to be representative.
Town planning principles are that new development should be centred on and around existing sustainable urban area where local infrastructure exists and allow residents to travel using public transport to serve the development which can be easily extended.

If larger new settlements are the only realistic option then they should be centre on transport hubs such as a new railway stations so that they become the heart of the community and the de facto mode of travel. Locating a new settlement on the edge of town / out of town where the transport hub is also not well connected leads to a disjointed sustainable public transport which will always be second best to car travel.

If Little Barford is deemed unsuitable our second preferred option would be a new settlement of 2,500 homes at Twinwoods or Colworth. The Parish Council believe that the problems on the A6 north of Bedford are going to need to be resolved anyway in order to support the housing development proposed in the 2030 plan and for residents to access the east west rail station in the centre of the town. We believe that development of a new settlement of up to 3,000 homes at Twinwoods (site 883) or Colworth (site 1002) could provide the infrastructure funding to support improvements to the A6 which have long been needed and provide residents with access to the east west rail station in Bedford. A northern parkway station could be considered in future to provide sustainable transport for those in the north of the Borough. Twinwoods would include a significant proportion of brownfield land and Colworth includes lower quality (grade 3) agricultural land and so would comply with the NPPF requirement to utilise brownfield land or lower quality agricultural land before high quality agricultural land. These sites would also support Bedford Town Centre. Colworth was the site supported in the 2035 plan which was later reviewed. The A6 was not a considered sufficiently problematic to prevent this site being adopted so we find it hard to understand why the A6 is deemed such an insurmountable problem now.
100 word summary
The transport model used by AECOM is fundamentally flawed because the model has not been validated / calibrated (particularly with respect to public transport), a strategic model has been used incorrectly and the data has not been tested. AECOM have significantly undervalued the number of vehicle trips. Dennybrook is too far from the proposed new E-W rail station to cause such a significant reduction in car use. Therefore we believe that if a new settlement is required it should be at Little Barford. Our second choice would be Twinwoods with a guided busway or parkway station.

Object

Representation ID: 5985

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

There is a preferred option that I consider to be the most suitable strategy for Bedford Borough Council to employ when going forward to the next stage of the Local Plan process. As part of the preferred strategy, it is clear that should a new settlement be required in order to meet the Council’s Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHN), dated May 2021, then the proposed settlement of Little Barford is considered appropriate, and for the reasons set out in paragraph 3.17. The alternative site at land west of Wyboston (Dennybrook (site 977)) is considered the least preferred option and should be discounted as a sustainable location for development by Bedford Borough Council. The following comments and observations relate to the Call for Sites submission by Taylor Wimpey for a ‘new settlement’.

Under form ID: 977, submissions have been made for a new settlement covering around 750 Hectares of land, and providing between 7,500 – 10.150 dwellings (35 dph). BBC have identified the site as a potential ‘new settlement’ though providing around 2,500 new homes.

As previously noted under paragraph 3.17, the proposed site at Dennybrook (site 977) falls mostly within the Parish of Staploe which is very rural in character. Clearly, any significant development within the Parish would make a permanent change to the landscape, destroy wildlife habitats, massively impact pollution re noise and light, plus local emergency services will be immensely under pressure with the extra houses and residents. and the setting of the small hamlets and rural nature in the locality. Such physical changes cannot be reversed, and the Council would need to be satisfied through a thorough review of the supporting documents to the site submissions that adequately address the impacts, and in terms of achieving sustainable development – in line with Paragraph 16 of the NPPF and section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Housing need has been identified through the Council’s LHN. Using the process set out in the Planning Practice Guidance “Housing and economic needs assessment” (MHCLG – updated December 2020) the minimum annual LHN figure is 1,305 dwellings per annum. This equates to 26,100 dwellings across the period 2020 – 2040. However, existing committed sites and windfall provide a figure of 13,000 new homes. This provides a figure of 13,100 additional dwellings over the plan period. It is noted that Bedford Borough Council have stated that the housing need is 12,500 as a minimum. Regardless which of the two figures are proposed, the strategy applied within paragraph 3.17 of these representations exceed the Council’s housing requirement and negates the need for Dennybrook (site 977) as a new settlement.

When looking at the spatial approach to locating new development, the proposed site at Dennybrook would be located within close proximity to St Neots, with a possible merging into Wyboston. Given the scale of the proposed development at Dennybrook, even at 2,500 dwellings, there would a potential coalescence to the existing settlement of St Neots. Spatially, this would be contrary to the Council’s adopted Local Plan which seeks to prevent coalescence of settlements. In addition, policy 37 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan makes clear that developments need to ‘Protect the landscape setting and contribute to maintaining the individual and distinct character, and separate identities of settlements by preventing coalescence…’. It should also be taken into consideration that St Neots is experiencing its own strategic growth with an eastern extension 3,265 dwelling and 20 Ha of employment land over the plan period. Therefore, a new settlement directly to the west of the existing settlement of 2,500 would significantly increase the size of St Neots and may effect delivery rates for housing due to competing sites.

The transport impacts are acutely felt for this proposed new settlement. It is clear that the proposed development at Dennybrook (site 977) would be a car reliant settlement. The proposal will not benefit from a choice of sustainable modes of transport as opposed to other developments, such as urban extensions and the proposed development at Little Barford. Little Barford offers a varied choice of sustainable modes of public transport, including the possible linkage to the East West rail station south of St Neots. It is anticipated that there will be limited employment associated with the Dennybrook (site 977) with commuting considered necessary to nearby employment areas, for example, south of St Neots, Bedford or Cambridge via train. This would be contrary to sustainability objectives identified by BBC, and contrary to paragraphs 73, 104, 105, 106, and 110 of the NPPF, not to mention existing policies within the adopted Local Plan, namely Policies 2S, 87, 88, and 90S. In addition, the Dennybrook site does not align with a strategic transport corridor growth strategy, including rail.

In highways terms, it has been identified previously that Parish of Staploe is rural in character, with most of the road network narrow and single track. The inclusion of 2,500 dwellings (or over 10,000 according to the site promoted) would require significant infrastructure interventions, including the substantial widening of existing roads and junctions, which would lead to an urbanised appearance it what is a tranquil and idyllic countryside setting. Bedford Borough Council confirm within their assessment of the site submissions, that junction or highway capacity issues are a ‘serious capacity constraint’.

These representations are supported by a Highways Technical Note which has reviewed the Transport Modelling undertaken by AECOM in support of the strategic options in the Draft Local Plan 2040. The Technical Note considers that the Transport Modelling is fundamentally flawed. In summary, no validation or calibration of the traffic model has been undertaken, leading to significant discrepancies. Furthermore, within the Transport Model documents, it is quoted that average departing trips are 20 to 25 vehicles. When looking at the development scenario with the transport model of 2,500 – 10,150 dwellings, and using a departure rate of 0.25 departure trip rate, this results in 625 to 2,538 departing trips all of which would be home based departure trips. The model assumes 5 loading zones which therefore means there could be 125 to 508 vehicles per loading zone. This is significantly higher than the 20 to 25 outbound vehicles used by the AECOM model, assuming they have loaded it per node. AECOM may argue that the reduction is due to sustainable modes of transport being used. However, it is made clear within paragraph 4.6 that the site offers very little in terms of alternative sustainable means of transport. Accordingly, the Transport Modelling by AECOM cannot be wholly relied upon.

The landscape setting for the Parish of Staploe is one of a rural character, containing small hamlets, interspersed agricultural buildings, small holdings and arable agricultural land. As mentioned above, the roads are narrow and winding, and contribute to the rural setting. This form of land extends from the A1 to the east to Church End (Colmworth) to the east, down to Colesden to the south, and up to Little Staughton Airfield to the north. The landscape character is depicted within the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), updated October 2020. The wider Parish of Staploe falls within the Thurleigh Clay Farmland character area (1D). Within the ‘evaluation’ section at page 55 of the LCA it notes that potential future change could include Small scale development in villages which could lead to loss their distinctive character/ ‘Ends’; Road upgrades affecting rural road character; Suburbanisation of villages. This would suggest that even relatively small changes would affect the rural setting of the area. Moreover, the proposed landscape strategy for the area as identified within the LCA is to ‘enhance’ elements of the landscape. The introduction of 2,500 new dwellings would significantly and permanently erode the rural character of the Parish, contrary to Paragraphs 20, 153, 174, and 175 of the NPPF and policy 37 of the adopted Local Plan.

There are also several Grade II Listed Buildings located within the Parish of Staploe, and would be affected by the proposed development at Dennybrook (site 977). It is evident that the Council’s assessment to Call for Site states ‘The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.’ It is assumed by the above comments that further assessments are required before the site can be considered further as an allocation. It is clear that the existing Listed Buildings are dispersed throughout the area of the proposed development, causing potential impacts to their setting.

A further point to consider is that most of the land covered by the Parish of Staploe is Grade 2 agricultural land as identified by the Agricultural Land Classification. Paragraph 174 (b) of the NPPF makes clear that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: ‘recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland…’. Grade 2 agricultural land is considered to be the best and most versatile agricultural land and would be applicable in this instance.
In addition to the above, the Sustainability Appraisal scoring for the proposed new settlement of Dennybrook (site 977) identifies it as scoring lower than Spatial Option 3a. this spatial option was effectively discounted at the ‘Issues and Options’ consultation stage.


Overall, the land west of Wyboston (Dennybrook) does not offer a truly sustainable form of development, and thereby contrary to policies contained within the NPPF and of the Council’s adopted Local Plan. Accordingly, the proposed new settlement should be discounted when considering sites for allocation going forward to the pre-submission draft Local Plan.

If Little Barford is deemed unsuitable our second preferred option would be a new settlement of 2,500 homes at Twinwoods or Colworth. The Parish Council believe that the problems on the A6 north of Bedford are going to need to be resolved anyway in order to support the housing development proposed in the 2030 plan and for residents to access the east west rail station in the centre of the town. We believe that development of a new settlement of up to 3,000 homes at Twinwoods (site 883) or Colworth (site 1002) could provide the infrastructure funding to support improvements to the A6 which have long been needed and provide residents with access to the east west rail station in Bedford. A northern parkway station could be considered in future to provide sustainable transport for those in the north of the Borough. Twinwoods would include a significant proportion of brownfield land and Colworth includes lower quality (grade 3) agricultural land and so would comply with the NPPF requirement to utilise brownfield land or lower quality agricultural land before high quality agricultural land. These sites would also support Bedford Town Centre. Colworth was the site supported in the 2035 plan which was later reviewed. The A6 was not a considered sufficiently problematic to prevent this site being adopted so we find it hard to understand why the A6 is deemed such an insurmountable problem now.
100 word summary
If a new settlement is required then Little Barford should be the preferred option as it is close to the East West rail station. Dennybrook should be discounted because there is a risk of coalescence with St Neots, the local roads are unsuitable, the traffic modelling was inadequate, it would engulf existing hamlets and fundamentally change the rural nature of the parish, it would use high quality agricultural land and it is too far from the proposed E-W rail station to be sustainable. Our second choice option would be at Twinwoods as there is a significant proportion of brownfield land. See above for more detail.

Object

Representation ID: 5986

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

The majority of housing development should be focussed around the urban area of Bedford / Kempston / Wixams / Stewartby in order to support the ailing town centre of Bedford.

Object

Representation ID: 5987

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Employment growth should be centred around the transport corridors and where there are sustainable modes of public transport and other sustainable choices such as walking or cycling. On this basis we believe that employment growth should be around the urban area of Bedford / Kempston / Wixams / Stewartby.

Object

Representation ID: 5988

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

I believe it is very important that sufficient car parking spaces are provided in any new developments (many homes have three cars. Providing less parking space does not prevent people using cars it just prevents emergency services vehicles from accessing homes due to cars parked inappropriately. However, we also believe it is important to provide sustainable forms of transport for new developments and we believe option 2b with a smaller new settlement at Little Barford would be able to provide this.

We believe there should be significant buffering eg. trees, embankments, and green space between new housing developments and existing settlements.
We would like to see a range of housing types such as bungalows, affordable homes etc. However, we believe homes should be no more than two storeys in rural areas.
100 word summary
I believe it is very important that sufficient car parking spaces are provided in any new developments (many homes have three cars). However, we also believe it is important to provide sustainable forms of transport for new developments and we believe option 2b with a new settlement at Little Barford would be able to provide this. Plus eco friendly built houses re solar panels, air source heating etc.
There should be significant buffering eg. trees, embankments, and green space between new housing developments and existing settlements.
There should be a range of housing types such as bungalows, affordable homes etc. However, we believe homes should be no more than two storeys in rural areas

Object

Representation ID: 5989

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Electric charging points should be provided at all new homes and business premises, homes should be built to a high standard and well insulated (but still with access to loft storage space without compromising the insulation), heating should use ground / air source heat pumps / district or other low carbon heating, solar panels should be incorporated into the designs, bicycle parking should be provided, developments should include considerable green spaces, wooded areas and biodiversity gain of at least 20%. A very high level of flood protection should be included as this is likely to become an increasing issue

Object

Representation ID: 8753

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Staploe Parish could be profoundly and permanently affected by the decisions made in this plan and yet we have been unable to meet with residents in public to discuss this until very recently due to Covid. However, we found it particularly difficult to respond to the 25% increase in the area of the Dennybrook (site 977) site because it was made public at short notice 8 months after the call for sites deadline closed and only one month before the consultation opened. It was impossible to respond effectively to the Eaton Bank site in Duloe as this was submitted on 2nd September just one day before the deadline for the consultation. We do not believe that additional sites should be considered after the deadline for the call for sites or through the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan consultation.

1.2 100 Word Summary
Staploe Parish could be profoundly affected by this plan and yet we have been unable to meet with residents in public due to Covid. It was particularly difficult to respond to late site expansions such as that at Dennybrook or late site submissions such as Eaton Bank.

Object

Representation ID: 8754

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Staploe Parish Council did not agree that this consultation was sound or fair. We responded to question 4 as follows: “Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land. Our whole parish is classed as open countryside for planning purposes. Our three tiny hamlets are not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 definition (6.21) and we are therefore defined as open countryside. We feel that describing the brown option which would see the majority of our parish covered in a large scale, high density, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised land is very misleading. We believe this could compromise the validity of the consultation as those responding would logically propose development on brownfield or under-utilised land over greenfield sites.

We believe the pros and cons list for the brown option is very inaccurate for our parish. A large development in Staploe parish would not support services etc in Bedford – we are 13 miles away and people would use services in St. Neots which are already under pressure due to large scale development on the eastern side of the town. There would be very little potential for residents here to make sustainable travel choices – we have one bus on Thursday and it would require huge investment to improve public transport. This would not reduce the need for growth in rural areas – we are a rural area and it proposes building all over our parish. Development in our parish would not improve viability of retail and leisure in Bedford Borough. People would go to St. Neots.”

We still feel that this is a fair reflection that the issues and options consultation was flawed because it led people to believe that our rural parish was urban with underutilised or brownfield land which is very far from the case.

It is unusual to for a draft Local Plan to attempt a review of the strategic growth for the borough whilst at the same time reviewing certain planning policies that will support the Local Plan going forward. It may be through deciding the strategic growth of the borough that additional or existing policies need reviewing. For example, should the growth strategy employ a rail based growth strategy (e.g. new settlement at Little Barford linking to the East West rail station to the south of St Neots) then there may be a need for a specific rail based policy. Policy 90S of the adopted Local Plan identifies the infrastructure that may come forward as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as well as supporting identified allocations. However, a separate rail based specific policy intervention may be required should the growth strategy around rail as a ‘sustainable’ form of growth be selected. Nevertheless, BBC need to be confident that the growth options identified within the draft Local Plan, or indeed any other suitable growth strategy that might be applied, reflects the current policies within the adopted Local Plan and those that are currently subject to consultation.

In addition, the issues and options consultation was conducted during the covid pandemic when it was not possible to meet more than 6 people outside. We believe this was reflected in the responses: Number of respondents = 315
• 222 were from within the borough – out of a total estimated population of 174,687. This is a pitiful 0.12% response rate
• 93 were from outside the Borough or did not give a postcode
• 53% were from individuals.
Top areas for numbers of responses:
1. Bedford 46
2. Sharnbrook 23
3. Staploe 18 (a 6% response rate which was 50 times the Borough average)
By contrast – no other areas were in double figures. This brings into further question the validity of the consultation.

1.3 100 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.