Question 2
Pavenham PC supports the Council’s draft Vision although there are one or two points that we would ask the Council to consider further – a) In para. 1, the Council must be careful not to contradict the aspiration to facilitate “sustainable food production” whilst at the same time allocating sites for housing provision across areas which already play an important part in “facilitating sustainable food production”; b) The emphasis on sustainable development, green infrastructure and renewable energy is supported provided the provision of any of those elements does not act to the detriment of the areas of “valued local landscapes”; c) In the third paragraph there is a reference to “infrastructure projects”. This is a somewhat generic term and meaningless unless further clarified. To which infrastructure projects are the Council referring? The Parish Council would suggest that a “Vision” should not incorporate seemingly laudable but undefined objectives; d) The Parish Council fully supports the Council’s aspirations for the Town Centre as noted in our response to Question 8 below; e) The Parish Council also fully supports the Council’s vision for the countryside although we would suggest that at the end of the first sentence of the seventh paragraph beginning – “The borough’s countryside …..” the words “and protected” should be added after the word “recognised”. Without such an addition, the entire paragraph would be rendered meaningless and would allow the “intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside” to be recognised – and having recognised it, still allow it to be developed.
When addressing climate change it is likely that ‘Active Travel’ will be turned to and increased throughout the Borough. The Society believes, that in delivering any network management it is important that active travel solutions do not exclude equestrians who are the most vulnerable road user. Increasingly: • Off-road routes are being provided for cycling which could benefit equestrians who are also vulnerable road users; and • Surfaces of routes such as bridleways and byways, with rights for riders or carriage drivers, are being changed to facilitate cycling but to the detriment of equestrian access. This is particularly influenced by current funding initiatives making provision for cycling. However, with more awareness in the planning stages, ALL non-motorised vulnerable road users can benefit from all off-road tracks and none need be excluded. Importantly, it is sensible and cost effective to include all who wish to exercise and transport themselves in safety away from the danger and pollution of motor traffic and with care for the environment, rather than only accommodating one section of society.
I have read through the need to build more homes and infrastructure to support them. In view of society’s shift to communicate by electronic means following Covid 19, rather than face to face, is there any justification for either the East West Rail link or building more roads and the incurring of costs that might prove to be white elephants? Our green areas and provision for wildlife is constantly being eroded in the pursuit of profit and future growth. What measures do you have in place to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough’?
The draft vision, as the mission statement for the plan, lacks ambition. It also does little to describe the way in which the new local plan will significantly up a gear in respect of housing and infrastructure delivery. Currently as written it could be mistaken as the vision which underpins the current Local Plan 2030, one which includes an aspirational but likely unachievable focus on housing delivery at the Borough’s town centre sites and which dodges the need to identify a wide range of immediately deliverable development opportunities on the fringes of the Bedford urban area. Also, bearing in mind that one of the key reasons for the immediate review of the Local Plan 2030 is the implications of the Oxford Cambridge Arc the omission of any reference to this growth strategy is questioned. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is still limited confirmation of the true objectives of the strategy for the Arc there is no question that the corridor represents a critical area of growth in the south east with Bedford Borough at its fulcrum. Reference is made in the vision to connectivity to both Oxford and Cambridge but, as worded, the vision does little to describe how critical growth in and around Bedford will be to achieve the objectives set out in the Arc-related Joint Declaration dated March 2019 of which Bedford Borough Council was a signatory.
1. We broadly welcome the aspirations of the Draft Vision for the future of the borough, (with one major omission which we deal with below) but the Vision has no practical significance if it is not explicitly connected to the policies to be developed in the revised Local Plan. This could be put right by expanding the heading as follows; By the end of the plan period, and by the application of the new policies developed within it: The borough will have become etc. etc.. 2. The omission which concerns us is the future health of the Great Ouse and the health of the entire water courses and groundwater system within the borough. Increasing water demand, pollution from waste and surface water run off and the increasing effect of weather extremes pose serious threats to the health of the Great Ouse and its tributaries and to agriculture, natural ecosystems and the built environment through extremes of high and low flows and the reliability of groundwater levels. If the Vision is to be credible as a comprehensive view of the borough then it must include explicit reference to the natural water system linked to plan policies designed to protect it from the impacts of new allocated development.
The vision may be strengthened by including a commitment to continuing to plan with local communities as was the case with the use of Neighbourhood Plans in recently adopted 2030 Local Plan.
The vision appears to be quite extensive. It is noted that this focuses upon east/ west connections; e.g. east/ west rail (with A421 corridor) and green infrastructure opportunities; particularly the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Park and Forest of Marston Vale. The vision appears to have an overwhelming southern focus. It does not address opportunities that could be opened up through enhanced north/ south connections; e.g. along the Midland Mainline/ A6 corridor. It is noted that further consideration is being given to opportunities in the northern parts of the Borough; e.g. related to the strategic growth proposals at towns in close proximity to the Borough Boundary – Rushden, St Neots and Wellingborough, but it is emphasised that any such proposals should be properly supported through significant infrastructure provision.
The Vision is far too long and should be reduced ideally to half its length or less. Most of the material thus removed could then be recast as objectives. There is a grammatical error in the second sentence which must be corrected – by the removal of the word “against”.
As might be expected the draft vision is hopelessly contradictory and not believable. Given the history of Bedford in the last 40 years, does anyone seriously think it has the capacity to achieve this idealised fantasy. The contradictions start on line one with "the Borough will be a greener etc place to live" whilst at the same time the BBC threatens the countryside with its proposed rail route to the North, through the countryside it says it seeks to protect. It is as if the vision is a glib 'wish list' written by the marketing dept of the BBC in complete isolation from national policy, BBCs capacity, funding, and so on.
Ouse River Valley should be included in the vision and a net gain in the natural environment should be included in addition to a net gain in biodiversity and reducing the carbon footprint.
1. Detailed consideration should be given to the improvement of public transport facilities from the A6 area north of Bedford, in order to discourage the use of motor vehicles - either by a parkway station or a Park and Ride facility. 2. Electric uses to be introduced - Borough wide, where possible.
The draft vision would seem to be ideal. Our faith in whether it can be delivered is qustionable.
I think you have covered most points.
The Vision states that the Borough's countryside, its intrinsic character and beauty including areas of tranquil retreat will be recognised. Ravensden Parish Council considers this statement is too vague and does not go far enough. There should be a balance between the need for development and the protection and enhancement of the countryside because of its intrinsic character and beauty. The rural assets surrounding Bedford add real value to the whole Borough and should be protected and enhanced as much as the regeneration of the town centre is promoted. The long-term tangible benefit to the whole Borough will be realised in terms of health, well-being, environment and sustainability. Whilst the Vision claims some benefits could arise if East West Rail comes through Bedford, it does not - but should - mention the dis-benefits to the rural communities through which it will pass and that these impacts should be mitigated. The Vision states that local communities will embrace sensitive development through Neighbourhood Plans. This principle is acceptable so long as the level of development is appropriate to the parish and community in which it is to take place, and is endorsed by local communities through NP referenda. Since the Vision accepts the role of Neighbourhood Plans in the forward planning process, they should not be overridden by the Local Plan Review, or there is a serious risk of undermining confidence in the whole neighbourhood planning process. Although this Plan Review will not take into account longer term development needs arising from the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (as they have yet to be defined), the Vision for the Review could consider providing a spatial framework post plan period in which such development might be accommodated. The Parish Council provides its thoughts on this matter in its response to Questions 3 and 4 below.
The Council should resist government housing targets and attempt to retain the rural nature of the Borough.#The regeneration of the Town Centre should be more of a priority that supportiong the Arc as a long term project.
Hail Weston village falls within Huntingdon District, however, is adjacent to Staploe and Duloe Parish, within Bedfordshire Borough Council. The HWPC main objection to development of this size is it 13 miles away from Bedford and people will use services in St. Neots. The infrastructure in St Neots is already under pressure due to large scale development on the eastern side of the town: Loves Farm, Loves Farm East and Wintringham developments. HWPC object to the large-scale development in the countryside which will dramatically alter the character of the countryside. HWPC would favour the grey, dispersed option as development would be in proportion to the size of the settlement. The A1 provides a physical barrier between the town of St. Neots and rural Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. Any development in Bedfordshire close to the A1 would be blighted by the significant noise and air pollution that the additional traffic on the road causes.
According to the vision “The Borough will have to become a greener, more sustainable and attractive place to live” We feel that if more houses are built on arable land then the opposite will be the case. It also states “The development of East-West Rail through Bedford will be complete. Bedford will benefit from a new town centre transport interchange including links to Oxford and Cambridge, increasing connectivity, investment and growth. Local development will be well served by transport links and speedy internet access integrated into the planning process and completed before residents move in.” The vision does not consider the adverse effect on villages such as Wilden having to accommodate a double line railway through their Parish.
Agreed response: It is difficult to take issue with any of the statements included in the draft vision, they are all to be supported. As might be expected, many of the paragraphs are repeats of those included in the vision for the approved Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030. The new paragraphs do rather concentrate on the Bedford urban area. Does this rather pre-suppose decisions to be made on the potential locations for growth identified in this consultation?
Wixams main line station would benefit travel into the proposed employment areas. Impact on the rural areas to be assessed and damage to their heritage mitigated. Support the improvements to the town centre in Bedford and its use as a communal space. Would like to see consideration of repurposing the town centre to provide more working office space including the use of flexible office space.
The Great Ouse Valley needs greater protection. There is too much of an emphasis on the use of agricultural land for housing development in the rural areas rather than on brown field land both in town and south of Bedford at the Stewartby Brickworks site. There should be no scope for large scale development north of Bedford town which houses some of the prettiest villages in Bedfordshire. Our small rural villages already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. This will only increase if any large scale development is permitted north of the town. There should be no development along the A6 corridor north of Bedford town.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.
We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.