Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 9358

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

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

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

The Duty to Cooperate with St Neots will be important.

Support

Representation ID: 9359

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Staploe Parish Council support this policy which proposes growth on brownfield sites, sites south of Bedford and at a new settlement in Little Barford. This is in keeping with the NPPF which states that brownfield sites, and sites with sustainable transport links are preferred and that grade 1 and 2 agricultural land should be avoided.

Support

Representation ID: 9740

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

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

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

Support

Representation ID: 9854

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

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