Agenda and minutes

Tom Middleton – Question

Mr Middleton asked the Mayor to confirm, according to the Council's Constitution, the required timescales for providing a written response when a Member indicated that one would be provided.

Reply by the Mayor

The Mayor commented that he would provide a written response.

Tom Middleton – Question

Mr Middleton reported that, according to the Constitution, a response should be provided within 10 working days. Mr Middleton then made reference to the question he had asked at the meeting of the Executive on 19 November 2025, 35 working days ago, about a savings proposal of £200,000 attributed to securing third-party contributions for the maintenance and calibration of average speed cameras. He asked for confirmation as to who these third parties were.

Reply by the Mayor

The Mayor confirmed that a written response would be provided as soon as possible.

Tom Middleton – Statement

Mr Middleton advised that, as many Executive Members would be aware, parish councils were currently in the process of setting their precepts. The fact that no consultation had been completed with parish councils regarding this potential additional expenditure was extremely concerning and was an example of the administration’s poor financial management. Only last week, it was revealed that, not only was the Council potentially applying for exceptional financial support, but had already applied for up to £55 million of exceptional financial support. He hoped that the £200,000 saving would not be passed on to parish councils or local residents and anticipated that there would be further cuts to come.

Councillor Sultan on behalf of Mark Spencer - Question

Councillor Sultan referred to the questions put by Mr Spencer at the last meeting of Full Council on 26 November 2025, for which he had not yet received a response. In regard to the clear and significant impact that the loss of the Moor Lane green space would have on local residents, particularly given the area’s extremely high deprivation levels (within the top 7% nationally), Councillor Sultan asked, on behalf of Mr Spencer, whether the Mayor would confirm his support for a motion not to sell this green space.

Reply by the Mayor

The Mayor commented that he supported the retention of open space for public use.

There were no new petitions submitted by members of the public.

To approve as a correct record and to authorise the Speaker to sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 26^th November 2025 (copy enclosed).

  RESOLVED:

To approve as a correct record and to authorise the Speaker to sign the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 November 2025.

To receive the Speaker’s Communications (copy enclosed).

The Speaker’s communications were received.

The Deputy Speaker advised that he had agreed to bring forward the notice of motion submitted by Councillor Sira to after agenda item 7, as the decision on this item would impact on the Council’s response to a Development Consent Order, the deadline for which was midnight that evening.

Councillor Akhtar submitted a petition of 692 signatories regarding East West Rail’s proposal to build a multi-storey car park near Ford End Road in Queens Park.

Councillor Vann submitted a petition of 1207 signatories requesting the Mayor not to introduce charges for green waste.

As these petitions had both exceeded the threshold required, they were referred to the next meeting of Full Council for debate.

To debate the subject matter of petitions previously received and having more than 30 signatures, in accordance with the Council’s Petitions Scheme under Procedure Rule FC30, as follows (report of theDemocratic and Electoral Services Manager and Statutory Scrutiny Officer enclosed):

1.   Reinstatement of the raised pedestrian walkway under Lovell Road,

Oakley railway bridge

2.  Stop any sale of Silver Jubilee playing fields to developers and keep this

open space for residents and recreational use

3.   Oppose the selling by Bedford Borough Council of all land off Ashmead Road and Jackman’s Farm and demand protection from development for these green open spaces in Brickhill for our community

4.  Recognition of the Sylheti Language, Syloti Nagri Script and Heritage

(1)  Reinstatement of the raised pedestrian walkway under Lovell Road, Oakley railway bridge

Councillor Abbott presented a petition of 100 signatories requesting the immediate reinstatement of the raised pedestrian walkway under Lovell Road, Oakley railway bridge.

In introducing the petition, Councillor Abbott welcomed the improvement to the pump system which was installed following the removal of the walkway in May 2025; however, he expressed the view that the reinstatement of a raised walkway would improve safety for the school children and others who used the bridge to walk between the villages of Clapham and Oakley. Whilst acknowledging that the pump had worked effectively during the last storm, it was not yet clear whether it would continue to be effective, and, in any event, the walkway also provided a physical barrier between pedestrians and the road. Without the walkway, pedestrians remained exposed to spray and were in close proximity to traffic. These remained risks that the drainage infrastructure alone did not address and longer-term drainage solutions relied on actions by third parties.

Councillor Abbott moved, and Councillor Vann seconded, that:

“This Council notes that in May 2025, Bedford Borough Council removed the raised walkway under the railway bridge on Lovell Road, between Clapham and Oakley, after installing a new pump system intended to prevent flooding.

This Council notes that flooding under the railway bridge forces pedestrians — including many schoolchildren — to choose between wading through dirty floodwater or walking along a narrow kerb beside oncoming traffic.

This Council believes that since May 2025, the situation has worsened: the pump has repeatedly failed, leaving the pavement submerged under several inches of water.

This Council welcomes the recent work to relocate the pump to improve its effectiveness, as an alternative solution to the problem highlighted by the petition.

This Council resolves to ask the Executive to monitor the effectiveness of the relocated pump and to reinstate the raised pedestrian walkway immediately if the pump fails again.”

In response to a question from Councillor Weir on whether the petition represented the views of Oakley Parish Council, Councillor Abbott replied that the Parish Council was pleased with the action taken since the petition was first presented at the previous meeting of Full Council but reiterated that the relocated pump had not yet been tested by numerous flood events.

Councillor Walker explained that, due to several flood events at the location, she had asked for the walkway to be installed as a temporary measure. Officers had then investigated more permanent solutions and had identified the pump as an effective method for removing surplus surface water arising from a malfunctioning drain on land owned by Network Rail. She added that the walkway had not improved the situation for other road users, as cars had still been affected by flooding at the location. The relocated pump appeared to be effective and the local parish councils had been fully engaged in the process of identifying this solution to a very long-standing issue. The first location of the pump  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Raising matters of significant concern regarding the proposed East Park Energy Solar Farm DCO Application

“This Council notes:

1.  The proposal for the East Park Energy Solar Farm located within the Wyboston Ward, North Bedfordshire, which seeks to

develop a large-scale solar energy installation across extensive areas of open countryside.

2.  That while this Council supports the transition to renewable energy and recognises the importance of meeting national net-zero

carbon targets, such developments must be appropriately located, environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the character of the local setting, and address the concerns raised of local communities.

3.  That the proposed development would result in the loss of agricultural land, at a time when maintaining domestic food security

remains a national priority.

4.  That the scale and visual impact of the proposal would significantly alter the rural landscape, affecting the character of Wyboston and surrounding villages.

5. That concerns have been raised by local residents and community organisations, regarding:

Visual harm;

Landscape harm;

The cumulative environmental impact of multiple large-scale solar farm proposals in and surrounding North Bedfordshire;

Potential flood and surface water management risks;

Adverse impacts on existing local wildlife and biodiversity; and,

Limited direct benefit or engagement with the local community.

This Council believes:

1.  That renewable energy projects should be pursued in a manner that balances environmental responsibility with the protection of

rural communities, biodiversity, and agricultural capacity.

2.  That alternative and less intrusive options, such as the use of brownfield land, commercial rooftops, and distributed smaller-scale solar schemes, should be prioritised before the development of large tracts of countryside.

3.  That Bedford Borough Council has a responsibility to ensure that local voices are heard and that development proposals reflect

local environmental and community priorities.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.  Formally, to continue to raise aspects and matters of significant concerns regarding the proposed East Park Energy Solar Farm

development on the grounds that it:

   Represents an inappropriate industrial-scale use of open countryside;

   Represents a temporary loss of valuable agricultural land;

   Would cause unacceptable visual harm;

   Would cause environmental and ecological harm, and as such, the  

  Council must ensure that the harm as identified and mitigation

  measures as proposed are enforced and managed by the applicant for

  the duration of the development and during decommissioning and,  

  ensure continued, adequate community engagement.

2.  Request that the Mayor and the Council’s Executive issue a formal statement of raised significant concerns regarding the

proposed development, as set out above, during the Examination.

3.  Write to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero urging that national planning guidance be strengthened to ensure that large-scale renewable solar farm are appropriately sited and that due consideration is given to food security, biodiversity, and rural community impacts.”

Councillor Sira moved, and Councillor Coombes seconded, the notice of motion as amended and circulated to all Members prior to the meeting on East Park Energy Solar Farm.

In moving the motion, Councillor Sira emphasised that she was doing so on behalf of the residents of Wyboston Ward, who were concerned about the scale, location and cumulative impact of the proposed development. In so doing, she acknowledged that the Council supported renewable energy and recognised the importance of meeting national net zero carbon targets. The development was approximately 2,000 acres, so was of a size that would fundamentally change the character of the rural landscape. Local residents and community organisations had consistently raised issues around visual and landscape harm, the loss of agricultural land at a time when food security remains a national priority, potential flood and service water risks, impacts on biodiversity, the cumulative effect of multiple large -scale proposals in North Bedfordshire and the need for proper community engagement and enforceable mitigation.

Councillor Sira emphasised that the motion did not seek to stop renewable energy but requested the Council to ensure that the development was appropriately located, environmentally responsible, and sensitive to the character and needs of rural communities and to ensure that the Council had a clear, formal voice during the examination process.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Coombes raised his concerns about the size of the development, the loss of arable land and the impact of this on food security, and the efficacy of solar energy.

Members raised concerns about whether the motion reflected the Council’s current position on renewable energy and queried whether a technical response would also be provided by Officers, given that this was a nationally significant infrastructure project. Councillor McMurdo highlighted his concerns about due process and whether the motion was accurate in referring concerns to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

In response to a question, Councillor Sira confirmed that the deadline for submission of the Council’s response to the Development Consent Order was midnight that night, and this was why the motion had been brought forward on the agenda, to ensure that Officers had sufficient time to draft a response in line with Full Council’s position.

Councillor Towler and the Mayor spoke in support of the motion, citing in particular the loss of arable land and the scale of the development.

Councillor Hendrickx moved and Councillor M Royden seconded that the motion be amended to read as follows:

“This Council notes:

1.The proposal for the East Park Energy Solar Farm located within the Wyboston Ward, North Bedfordshire, which seeks to develop a large-scale solar energy installation across extensive areas of open countryside.

2.That while this Council supports the transition to renewable energy and recognises the importance of meeting national net-zero carbon targets, such developments must be appropriately located, environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the character of the local setting, and address the concerns raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Councillor Meader – Question

Councillor Meader, following on from the question he asked on this subject at the last meeting of Full Council on 26 November 2025, requested an update from Councillor Spice or Councillor Gribble regarding his request for the new pedestrian crossing on the junction of the High Street and The Embankment to be moved further down The Embankment towards or past the Swan Hotel, which would make it safer for pedestrians crossing and easier for motorists turning right onto The Embankment.

Since raising the issue at the previous meeting, Councillor Meader had been overwhelmed by the response received from members of the public, many of whom expressed concerns regarding the safety of a crossing at the present location. There had been several near misses that had been unrecorded, and it was a view shared by many that it would not be long before there was an accident at the crossing.

Reply by Councillor Gribble

Councillor Gribble expressed concern about the non-recording of near misses and emphasised the importance of this information being captured. She offered to work with Officers to improve recording of these incidents and asked Councillor Meader and other Members to forward any feedback from the public. She reported that an independent road safety audit had been carried out on the crossing, and there had been no issues raised. However, this would be kept under review.

Deputy Speaker – Question

The Deputy Speaker asked Councillor Gribble to clarify the process for recording near misses.

Reply by Councillor Gribble

Councillor Gribble advised that she would ensure that information on this process was circulated to all Members.

Councillor Meader – Statement

Councillor Meader expressed uncertainty as to how all the near misses at this location could be recorded. He was simply passing on his view, and that of many others, that the current location of the crossing was causing mayhem. He welcomed further investigation into the positioning of this crossing and monitoring of its safety. He believed it was only a matter of time until a pedestrian was hit on the crossing.

Councillor Vann – Question

Councillor Vann welcomed the Government's requirement for councils to introduce food waste collection and mentioned the roll out of the caddies for food waste to households in the borough in preparation for the commencement of food wate collection from Monday, 30 March 2026. However, the press release and frequently asked questions page on the website was not informative as it should be and residents still had several questions about the collection of food waste, particularly how this would operate for residents of flats. He asked for improved communications to go out to residents in respect of this significant change to waste collection.

Reply by Councillor Gribble

Councillor Gribble reminded Members that the collection of food waste would start on the 30^th of March, so not all caddies would have been delivered yet. She was working closely with the Communications team to gather feedback on any gaps in information provided, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider a report submitted by the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Authority (copy enclosed).

Councillor Headley moved, and Councillor Gambold seconded, that the report from the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Authority be received.

In moving the report, Councillor Headley advised that the Authority had adopted an approach to engaging with local planning authorities, particularly regarding developer contributions.

Councillor Foley highlighted the continued high number of road traffic collisions to which the Fire and Rescue Service was called to respond to. As the Government was consulting on a new road traffic strategy, Councillor Foley hoped that measures would be introduced to dramatically reduce the number of these incidents.

On the motion being put to the meeting, the Deputy Speaker declared it to be carried.

  RESOLVED:

  That the report of Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Authority be received.

There were no questions of Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Authority.

There were no reports of the Mayor or Executive Members.

To consider any written report of the Executive.

The Mayor moved, and Councillor Weir seconded, that the delivery of the Improvement Plan approved by the Executive be supported by Full Council.

In moving the recommendation within the report, the Mayor advised that the Plan had arisen from the resilience review undertaken by CIPFA and sought to support the Council’s journey toward financial sustainability, setting out a comprehensive framework focused on cultural transformation, stronger governance, and improved oversight, supported by external bodies such as the Local Government Association and an independent improvement panel. It was built around four core aims: establishing a clear vision and positive culture, ensuring the Council was fit for the future, achieving financial resilience, and committing to long?term transformation. The plan had been developed with input from all political groups and would evolve over time as a “live document,” with performance measures and dashboards to be created.

The Mayor expressed the view that the report also reflected on longstanding financial challenges including the maintenance of assets such as buildings, drainage and highways, in addition to the current pressures in children’s services, adult services, temporary accommodation, and other commitments.

The Mayor emphasised that the Improvement Plan was not political but a necessary step in taking responsibility for the future of the Council, its staff and its residents. The Plan provided a structured approach to recovery and future work, and he urged Members to support it to demonstrate unity and commitment to addressing the challenges faced by the Council.

Councillor Valentine, making reference to the action plan included as an appendix to the report, queried why some actions had been identified as having “commenced”, whilst others had start dates in December 2025, so should have also, at the point that the report was published, have commenced. This led to confusion as to whether actions had commenced or not.

Councillor Weir advised that, within his Portfolio area, he was confident that the actions for December 2025 had commenced, although he could not comment on all 144 actions. He added that some actions were co-terminous with actions in the Stability Plan. Further to concerns raised about assurance, Councillor Weir volunteered to produce a document for Members on how the actions in the plan would be monitored. Monitoring arrangements included the improvement board meeting on a fortnightly basis and a project manager had been appointed to oversee the delivery of the Plan.

Additional concerns were expressed by Councillors Foley and McMurdo on the clarity and content of the document, especially as the Improvement Plan was originally intended as a response to the Council’s adverse financial position as identified as far back as March/April 2025 and it was noted that the submission of the Plan had been delayed since at least September 2025.

Several Members also highlighted the lack of meaningful cross-party engagement by the current administration, and it was noted that, whilst the Improvement Plan was being presented to Full Council, the approval of the Plan was an Executive function and the Executive had already agreed the Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To consider any written report of the General Purposes Committee.

There were no reports of the General Purposes Committee.

To consider the written report of the (Licensing Act 2003) Licensing Committee on the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy (copy enclosed).

Councillor McHugh moved, and Councillor Gallagher seconded, that the updated Cumulative Impact Policy be approved.

On the motion being put to the meeting, the Deputy Speaker declared it to be carried.

  RESOLVED:

(1)  That the three existing cumulative impact zones in the Town Centre (Midland Road, Tavistock Street and the High Street) be retained.

(2)  That off sales be added to the High Street Zone.

To consider the revised allocation of committee places following Councillor White becoming a Member of the Green Group (report of the Service Director for Governance and Monitoring Officer enclosed).

Members received the report of the Service Director for Governance & Monitoring Officer on the outcome of the review of the political balance of the Council and on committees following Councillor White joining the Green Group.

Councillor Coombes moved, and Councillor Simmons seconded, a proposal for the Conservatives to vacate a seat on Environment & Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be replaced by a Member of the Green Group and for the Green Group to lose a seat on Budget & Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be replaced by a Member of the Conservative Group.

On the motion being put to the meeting, the Deputy Speaker declared it to be carried.

  RESOLVED:

(1)     That the political proportionality of the Council be noted.

(2)     That the proposal put forward by Councillor Coombes be agreed.

(Note: Following the meeting, it was determined by the Service Director for Governance & Monitoring Officer that the proposal put forward was not in accordance with the updated proportionality and it was agreed with Group Leaders that the allocations would be submitted to the next meeting of Full Council for determination. In the interim period, the current Committee membership would remain unchanged.)

To fill any vacancies or note any changes in membership of Committees arising from Agenda Item 15 above.

There were no changes to committee membership to report under this item.

To consider Minutes of Committees or decisions of the Executive (if any) deemed to form part of a Committee’s or the Executive’s report in accordance with Procedure Rule FC26, unless considered in conjunction with the reports at Agenda items 12 to 14.

There were no minute requisitions to consider.

To receive an update on the motions passed by Full Council relating to parking and highways matters (copy to follow).

The Deputy Speaker moved, and Councillor Weir seconded, the receipt of the report.

On the motion being put to the meeting, the Deputy Speaker declared it to be carried.

  RESOLVED:

  That the report be acknowledged.