'Tortured process' of Biggleswade Land East development sees it deferred yet again

A major development on land east of Biggleswade has been deferred yet again – as hopes were voiced that allowing more time for talks could bring a swift end to the “tortured process”.

Options of deferring applicant UK Regeneration Limited’s proposals for around three months or refusing the scheme were presented to Central Bedfordshire councillors.

Outline permission was granted previously for up to 1,500 homes, while a second approval changed the access to the land.

The company subsequently asked for a reduction in developer contributions before it emerged landowners West Sunderland Farm Company Limited had gone into receivership.

The project also includes commercial development, a primary school, leisure and community facilities, as well as open space, allotments and a country park.

These plans were deferred in August for more talks between the parties and planning officers.

“The applicant can’t enter into the Section 106 (legal) agreement because the land is in the receivers’ control,” said a report to Central Bedfordshire Council’s development management committee.

“In the absence of such terms, the application would fail to comply with local and national policy.”

Planning officer Nik Smith explained: “Summaries of this advice have been shared with the applicant and the receivers. Both parties have indicated there may be a way through the current impasse.

“We don’t know the details of that at this stage. They’ve requested further time to reach a resolution.”

A draft Section 106 agreement has been sent to the council on the day of the meeting, but was still to be reviewed, he added.

Independent Biggleswade South councillor Hayley Whitaker said: “What a mess,” predicting “a legal challenge to whatever decision we make because of the complex situation”.

She suggested refusing the application, saying: “We’ll be sitting here in three cycles time having exactly the same conversation.

“That allows whoever buys this land to submit a new application and we start afresh without the legal complications. It provides the clarity we need to take the site development forward.”

Planning consultant for the receivers Colin Danks, from Copperfield, asked the committee “to defer making a final decision to enable the Section 106 to be completed”.

This would “best serve CBC and Biggleswade without causing harm to the allocated site”, he said.

“We hope a positive conclusion of the receivers’ process will support a more timely delivery of the east Biggleswade garden village and the Section 106 benefits required.”

Conservative Dunstable Watling councillor Nigel Young warned: “If we don’t allow more time, we’ll have a volume housebuilder because it’ll be the only way to go.

“It really was something good for Biggleswade and that remains my view. We shouldn’t abandon this and let the ship sink, particularly as we’ve a (draft) Section 106 submitted now.”

Conservative Caddington councillor Kevin Collins advised: “It would be foolish to reject this because you really go back to square one. You’re renegotiating the Section 106 on today’s prices, which may not be as good.

“Before us is a credible suggestion that we’re weeks away from moving to the next stage of this tortured process with a garden community we like the look of and contributions which benefit Biggleswade and the wider area.”

Councillors agreed to defer the development for up to three committee cycles.