Bedford borough councillors approved plans for up to 40 homes in Biddenham despite concerns about the safety of walking routes.
The planning committee (Monday, 27 April) heard they had little choice but to approve the application under current planning rules.
The outline application for the 1.86-hectare site south of Bromham Road, which lies outside the urban boundary and within a designated local gap, was recommended for approval by officers.
Members repeatedly criticised the proposal during the meeting, raising concerns about traffic, loss of open space and pedestrian access.
Cllr Jim Weir (Conservative, Great Denham) said he knew the site “really, really, well.”
“Let’s be clear, there is no safe walking route for children to any of the schools that have been mentioned.
“Unless you want to play dodgems across the Bromham Bridge and take your life in your hands, it’s a site that is in the wrong place for development.
“I don’t like this application, but I can’t find a way where I could legitimately vote against it,” he said.
Cllr Leigh Coombs (Lib Dem, Shortstown) said his heart told him he couldn’t vote to approve a speculative application without sustainable travel options other than buses.
“It seems to me that you’re going to have to take a car or you’re going to have to dice with death,” he said.
The committee was advised that, while some planning policies were considered out of date, the council could struggle to defend a refusal at appeal.
Planning officers said there were no objections from highways authorities and that the development was considered acceptable in transport and safety terms.
Gavin Chinniah, head of planning and building control, said there were “large sections” of the officer’s report laying out the sustainability and the reasons why the council should support the application.
“There’s been obviously a comment raised by our highways colleagues, there’s also been consultation with National Highways, who’ve raised no objection in regards to the safety,” he said.
“So, it is difficult for officers to weigh [comments] in the round really, when you’ve got a lot of consultee comments which are in support of the application.”
Stephen Harris, agent for the applicant, said the plan had been supported by technical consultees, with “no objection on any site-specific point”.
“In the absence of a local plan and lack of five-year land supply, the council obviously needs sites such as this to come forward, which don’t have any site-specific constraints,” he said.
“Safety of our young children should be paramount”
Committee chair, cllr Jonathan Abbott (Lib Dem, Clapham and Oakley) said: “I don’t like this application, I am going to make a proposal though. I am going to propose we follow the officers’ recommendation.
“And believe me, this is a very reluctant proposal, but I can’t for the life of me see a sound reason to propose a refusal.”
The application was approved by five votes to none, with two abstentions.
After the meeting, a neighbouring ward councillor criticised the decision, warning it could put children at risk.
Cllr Robert Rigby (Conservative, Bromham) told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “I think it is appalling that our planning system can put the lives of our children at risk by allowing this application.
“Bromham Bridge is totally unsafe for young families to get to Bromham School, and Biddenham School is so far away that the journey is impractical for young children.
“In my opinion, this site is totally unsustainable and should have been refused.
“The safety of our young children should always be paramount.”
by John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
