Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 9769

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: Wyboston Chawston & Colesden Parish Council

We were 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 location as a brownfield, urban site with under utilised land when actually it is a rural greenfield site in open countryside with highly productive grade 2 agricultural land. However, the Borough Council appear to have listened to the PC and residents concerns and so we are 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 existing rail station with more direct access and also closer to the proposed new rail station and using only grade 3 agricultural land.
Similarly we were 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 we 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 we believe the outcome is compliant and sound.
Finally, we were 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 - a further 2500 dwellings) 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 residents to comment on them. However, since these sites have not been included in the final plan we 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, (with St Neots Town Council stating that they have NOT been consulted on this Plan) 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 we 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.

Support

Representation ID: 9770

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: Wyboston Chawston & Colesden Parish Council

We 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.