To receive any questions, statements and deputations from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Part 4G of the Constitution. 

The Chairman invited the public speakers to make their statements in accordance with the Public Participation Scheme.

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

Mr Booth spoke on behalf of the Lidlington Residents Group.  He explained that the Group had conducted a survey of all residents in the village which suggested that 98% opposed the proposed development for Marston Vale.  Lidlington was a small rural village and the Plan proposed a new settlement of 5,000 homes in Marston Vale.  He was concerned that the infrastructure would not be in place to support the additional housing.  This included improvements to junction 13 of the M1 and the upgrade of passenger services on the East West rail line.  Aspley Guise had been excluded from the Plan although the site could accommodate development more readily.  He proposed that the Council should allocate half of the proposed development for Marston Vale to the Aspley Guise area and in doing this it would improve the deliverability of the Plan.

Mr Baker, resident of Aspley Guise, spoke about the proposed allocation of 5,000 homes for Marston Vale.  He acknowledged the work in developing the Plan against the timeline set by Government.  He commented on the increasing growth in Milton Keynes and the impact of increased traffic that the proposed 5,000 homes in Marston Vale would have on the area.  He raised concerns that residents in Central Bedfordshire were not aware of the Plan.  He urged the Council to reconsider the distribution of the 5,000 homes proposed for Marston Vale and address the increase in traffic.  A partial review of the Plan was proposed and Mr Baker requested further details on this. 

Councillor Mr Bint, Milton Keynes Council, spoke in an individual capacity and commended the Council in reaching this point with the Plan.  Slowing down the process would put local development at risk as there would be more regional or national input.  He was pleased that the journey between Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes had been acknowledged and that both authorities were working together.  He believed it would be good for residents of both authorities to have new Local Plans and wished the Council every success for the rest of the process.

Mrs Lawrence, was pleased that the Council had listened to residents with regard to the village of Tempsford.  However, she raised concern that it was still included as an area identified for future growth and consideration would be given to it in the partial review envisaged.  She was concerned at the suggestion that the area had the potential for 10,000 plus homes in the area.  Land East of Biggleswade, east of the allocated village, south of Sutton and west of Dunton had also been identified for future development of up to 5,000 homes.  She requested that Tempsford be removed completely from the Plan.  She commented on the Government’s plans for the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford Corridor, including the target to build one million new homes along the Corridor and felt that the process that had led to this suggestion was undemocratic.

Mr Lynch commented on the concerns of residents in Tempsford as they felt no one was listening to them.  He was concerned that there had been no mention of Gibraltar Farm which was an important historical landmark.  He had heard that there were plans to make the Farm into a play area and felt that this was not appropriate. He requested a firm statement by the Council about the future of house building in Central Bedfordshire.  He acknowledged that houses were needed due to the increase in homelessness.  He requested help from his ward Councillor to improve the pavements and street lighting in Sandy.  He also requested that the Council relaunch its magazine as it kept local residents informed of what was occurring in Central Bedfordshire.

Councillor Ms McClymont, Sutton Parish Council, acknowledged the need to provide additional housing. The proposal for 51 houses in Sutton, a 50% increase in housing in the village, would not contribute to the Council’s aim of maintaining the character of local villages.  She believed that this was a distortion to a rural community and that housing should be evenly distributed across Central Bedfordshire .  She was relieved that the development proposed for the east of Biggleswade of around 1,500 new houses was substantially lower than originally suggested.  However, she was concerned that land between Dunton and Sutton had been identified for future growth with approximately 5,000 more houses. There was a lack of infrastructure to sustain a development of this size and enquired how the Council envisaged this would be achieved.  She also enquired whether the Parish Council and residents would have an opportunity to be consulted again on the identified future growth.  She welcomed the countryside gap but enquired who would be responsible for this land and would the village have an input into what it was used for. 

Mr Want confirmed that he supported the objections raised by Arlesey Town Council to the consultation in 2017.  He was concerned about the impact that further development would have on Arlesey.  He believed that the Inspector would determine that the Plan was unsound.  The Plan acknowledged that there was limited capacity on the road network, particularly along the A507 as a result of the existing growth.  However, the Plan was still proposing development alongside the A507 without making reference to improving the road.  He felt that Members could not make an informed decision as the evidence had not been published before the meeting.  He felt that the initial consultation feedback had not been listened to.  If the Plan was found to be unsound, Central Bedfordshire would be at risk of having uncoordinated development across the area.

In response to the above comments, the Executive Member for Regeneration:

·         acknowledged the comments made about Aspley Guise and Lidlington;

·         explained that where there was a red area in the Plan for allocation it did not mean that the whole of that area would be built on;

·         Members and the public were encouraged to attend the engagement meetings with developers to help influence master planning, as it was through this process that detailed proposals for each allocation would be developed, including in some areas countryside parks;

·         the Canal Trust had published a document that laid out where the canal would go, including footpaths and cycle ways and this would form part of the Marston Valley proposed development;

·         explained that the Council would be determining whether the draft Pre-Submission Local Plan should be approved for public consultation;

·         Members and the public were encouraged to respond to the consultation and attend the drop-in sessions.  Following the consultation, Officers would analyse the responses to the consultation and submit them to the Inspector.  All members of the public who objected to the Plan would have the opportunity to address the Inspector;

·         Tempsford was an area identified for future growth.  It was not appropriate to remove the plans for Tempsford given the need to provide for future growth;

·         having a Local Plan would mean that the Council retained control over where development would be located rather than it being delivered in an ad hoc way, sometimes without sufficient benefit to local communities;

·         the distribution of housing was evenly spread with proposals already in the system for housing development at Wixams, Houghton Regis and Chalton;

·         Government guidance had been followed as places with good roads and sustainable transport had been proposed for development;

·         countryside gaps could be working fields and act as valuable protection against coalescence; and

·         acknowledged the working relationship with Milton Keynes Council.

Fluoridation

Mr Gillard spoke about the comprehensive review that had been carried out by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology on artificial water fluoridation and the impact of that fluoridation had on the human body.  He believed that Public Health England were not taking the risks seriously and fluoridation was being added to drinking water in Central Bedfordshire.  He wanted to know what the Council was doing to protect residents in the area.

The Executive Member for Health had met with Mr Gilliard and his colleagues to discuss this issue and consider the evidence.  Bedford Borough Council was carrying out a review into fluoridation and the results from this review would be considered by Central Bedfordshire Council.  Public Health England had also attended the meeting with Mr Gilliard and had deemed that the levels of fluoridation in drinking water was safe.