Transport Technical Paper [EXAM 114]

I would like to make the following comments, in support of my objection to the additional evidence which was prepared as part of the examination of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Fails to address material changes since the Local Plan was submitted in 2018.
The additional evidence is silent on changes the Plan should address including: the latest ONS projections of population growth which are much lower than they were in 2018; the adoption by Milton Keynes of its Local Plan which includes development east of the M1; and the Government’s decision to abandon the commitment to the East West Expressway which undermines the justification for development on the proposed scale in Marston Vale.
Not included all the reasonable alternative sites in their review.
NLP 190 in particular has capacity for 13,000 houses and is west of Cranfield and would be ideally placed to take advantage of the Government’s investment of £95m to build a new road bridge over the M1 and a mass public transport hub to access Milton Keynes as part of the now committed development of East Milton Keynes on this side of the M1.
Assessment of the relative merits of available sites does not stand up to the evidence.
Marston Vale is assessed as ‘strongly positive’ on sustainable transport. Building 5,000 houses would more than double the number of car journeys which begin and end here. ‘Sustainable’ transport means that strategic and local roads can cope with the increased traffic and moving people out of cars and onto public transport, cycling or walking. There is nothing in the additional evidence which would support that happening. There is insufficient weight given to the designation of this site as part of the Community Forest of Marston Vale which functions effectively as a valued environmental amenity and an important contribution to managing climate change.
Fails to achieve the optimum balance and distribution of development.
The Plan involves delivering 25% of the overall need for development from Marston Vale on the grounds that it is located along a strategic route despite the decision to abandon the East West Expressway and ignoring sites on the A6 – M1 – A5 strategic route which has planning permission and is committed to delivery. It also involves the permanent loss of AoNB, green belt and community forest land whilst ignoring opportunities to develop options for expanding existing towns in Area D with access to existing facilities.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection.