LDF – Flawed Consultation
On the 1st of October 2013 the Arlesey Town Council meeting attracted
around 75 residents to the Village Hall. The meeting contained a
presentation of the masterplan for Arlesey to the council by Central Beds
Council representative Sue Frost and two representatives from Woods
Hardwick (architects for the Local Development Framework).
Two residents had booked public participation spots within the meeting.
The first Hugh Harper (ex town council chairman and now Arlesey Residents
Association chairman) read a speech from the council ‘top table’ outlining
the process to date on how Arlesey has been selected for 1000+ houses,
development of amenities, and what the proposals are. The second resident
Mr Cyrille West read a pre-written speech from the residents seating in the
Village Hall. He put forward his objections and fears on the consultation
and stating the Central Beds process had been “fatally flawed”. Mr West’s
speech highlighted four points:
• Firstly, the consultation process to date is fatally flawed. Statutory
guidance says that a consultation must be open, clear and transparent.
To date it has been none of these.
• Secondly, and moving on to the proposed scheme. It is big, too big
in fact and when compared to the existing size of Arlesey it is both
disproportionate and unsympathetic and will have a massive impact on
existing residents. In fact you are proposing to increase the size of our
large village/small town by 50% while threatening that the town will die
if the development does not occur. Of course, the council has no vested
interest being the principal land-owner.
• Thirdly, the so called ‘relief road’ will offer no relief to those who live in the
southern half of the Arlesey. The massive increase in the number of houses
it will serve will intensify the traffic problems south of Primrose Lane.
• ourthly, I would have thought that the Council would want to be
F
especially careful to do everything completely above-board. The Council
is both the land owner and the planning authority and it needs to take
care that there is no procedural impropriety.
4 |
No ٕ