Question 3
No comment
As detailed under our response to Question 1, there are number of uncertainties and unresolved matters which could impact on the level of growth required in the Borough, in particular (i) how the level of growth associated with the Oxford to Cambridge Arc is to be distributed; (ii) the Government’s figures for affordability (due to published in March 2021); and (iii) the review of the standard methodology to resolve the housing requirement. Within the Issues and Options document, it is acknowledged that during the course of the plan preparation the housing figures may change. Furthermore, it is very likely that the impact of Covid-19 may cause further delay in resolving the final figures for the Borough. However, the pressure to have a up to date plan has been increased with the government’s recent announcement in the ‘Planning for the Future’ policy paper which stated that all local planning authorities will soon be required to have up-to-date local plans, with interventions being triggered if the new requirements are not met. We would suggest given the current circumstances, the plan period should be 2020 to 2040 since it is difficult to qualify a longer plan period at this point in time.
I do not think the current planning should go beyond 2030, ideally, let alone up to 2040, although there could be a ‘provisional’ plan going up to 2040. I note that Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 for Bedford states:- “The Council will undertake a review of the Local Plan 2030, which will commence no later than one year after the adoption of the plan. An updated or replacement plan will be submitted for examination no later than three years after the date of adoption of the plan.” However, there are a number of key strategic decisions, as explained below, that need to be made before we an effectively plan on where to build up to an additional 5,000 – 15,000 new dwellings by 2040, on top of the further 11,000 dwellings stated in the Local Plan 2030. I also note from the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 31 and 33, state:- “The preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence. This should be adequate and proportionate, focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned, and take into account relevant market signals. Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary.” Therefore, whilst the Local Plan 2030 has only committed to one review, I believe based on all the major decisions to be made, plus the effects of COVID-19 of which we are yet to fully understand the medium to long-term impact on development requirement, there should be another review of the Local Plan 2030 once these decisions / impacts are known. These decisions include:- 1. Arc-wide spatial strategy for Oxford to Cambridge. This is not only important for planning such large number of homes for Bedford but also all areas along this Arc. Are there any planned dates or a schedule on when this strategy will be devised? 2. The route of the East-West Railway needs to be determined as I think it would be good to plan homes with in easy reach of the stations and to gain the advantages as cited in the consultation for ‘Pink – Rail Growth’ 3. To have confirmation if the Government's standard method for calculating the number of homes needed will change during this year as the government have announced that it intends to review the standard methodology. 4. A strategy for the re-purposing of our town-centre, for which COVID 19 has hastened the need for this; this could affect the availability of brown field sites in the town-centre. 5. The plans need to be reviewed again at appropriate intervals in relation to COVID 19 as presently we do not fully understand what long-term changes COVID 19 in particular the extent to which it will increase people working from home and how this will affect the need for office space.
No answer given
The period appears to be reasonable for the development of Local Plan 2030. However as I have noted in my response to Question 1: • Due to COVID-19, the consultation process should be postponed and the submission date of January 2023 extended, until meaningful public consultation can take place. • Due to the lack of information on the Oxford Cambridge Arc and the location of East West railway stations, the consultation process should be postponed and the submission date of January 2023 extended, until this information is available. • The annual housing requirement should use the 2018-based population projections and await the government review of the standard methodology this year.
No answer given
No answer given
Take the plan to 2045 and it would allow us to be more ambitious.
I agree with the plan period because of the greater uncertainty with any longer period. However there is a lot more in this section than only the length of the plan period, and there should be the opportunity to comment on other issues. It would appear that calculations are being made based on 2014 criteria rather than 2018 criteria. It seems a strange and unjustifiable decision that the earlier figures are being used (a worst case scenario) rather than the revised projections published 4 years later.
I agree with the plan period because of the greater uncertainty with any longer period. However there is a lot more in this section than only the length of the plan period, and there should be the opportunity to comment on other issues. It would appear that calculations are being made based on 2014 criteria rather than 2018 criteria. It seems a strange and unjustifiable decision that the earlier figures are being used (a worst case scenario) rather than the revised projections published 4 years later.
We understand that a number of local authorities in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc are intending to undertake Local Plan Reviews to address the Government’s aspirations for further economic and housing growth to 2050. As an infrastructure provider it would be helpful if the plan period was consistent with the other local plans being prepared within the Oxford Cambridge Arc. Similarly it would be helpful if the timescales for Local Plan Reviews and the Bedford Local Plan Review are aligned as far as is practicable.
Wootton Parish Council considers given the current circumstances (i.e. post COVID-19, economic recession and possible changes to working patterns), the plan period should be 2020 to 2040 since it is difficult to qualify a longer plan period at this particular point in time.
Unfortunately most villages are not well equipped for expansion on the scale proposed. Transportation and other infrastructure as well as employment bases are seemingly not accounted for in this plan. While the continued need for dormitory housing will exist it is likely to substantially decrease. So people commuting to London is unlikely to continue to sustain Bedford's job requirements. Logistics parks employ very few and will employ far fewer in the future as technology is growing in these areas (I know a bit about this if you have questions). Although there are some growth areas such as Cambridge and Oxford without substantially greater investments in transport Bedford is unlikely to work as a base for workers. The future will see much more home working but also green working requirements. People want an indeed need to cycle or walk to work and therefore employment opportunities must be 'built in' to housing. Some maybe in the countryside but estates of the type that have been made for the last 40 years in the area are wholly unsuitable. They have neither the space to allow a good degree of home-working, nor the green spaces and other facilities within good proximity (shops, cafes meeting spaces, parks, fitness) nor the transport connections. The nature of both the local, national and global economy is shifting and these plans seem at best anachronistic.
Yes. The plan period should not exceed 2040. A lot will happen in society during the plan period and so it should be subject to quinquennial reviews.
No answer given
In the uncertain future of a post Coronavirus world, any plan needs to be agile and able to adopt new strategies at short notice. Recent central government spending and regulations brought in to deal with the Coronavirus pandemic will take a long time to recover from. Growth plans should realign with the new demand – whatever that may be. Hence a revised Local Plan should be of short duration, as the future may require a change of direction that has not been forecast.
Ideally an even shorter plan period would make sense - so much uncertainty post COVID with reduced commuting to London and the knock on reduction in retail and hospitality sectors in the capital. This will undoubtedly have a knock on effect on population distribution throughout the region. In addition, economic downturn will impact on Oxford-Cambridge corridor development.
Ideally an even shorter plan period would make sense - so much uncertainty post COVID with reduced commuting to London and the knock on reduction in retail and hospitality sectors in the capital. This will undoubtedly have a knock on effect on population distribution throughout the region. In addition, economic downturn will impact on Oxford-Cambridge corridor development.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Suggest plan end is moved to 2050 to coincide with carbon neutral target
Suggest plan end is moved to 2050 to coincide with carbon neutral target
No answer given
It is impossible to predict the circumstances that will prevail in 2040, when things will look very different from today. There need to be contingency plans to deal with a range of possible disruptive external events such as economic collapse following Brexit, another pandemic, or areas of the country being rendered uninhabitable due to climate change.
too much changes within 20 years. also Local Plans seem to be made, requiring huge resources, but most people dont know about them, and the plans themselves never seem to be acted upon... eg 20years ago the Queens Park plan for Allens site was to include a footbridge over the railway line into the station and thereby directly into town - brilliant but it never happened. This would have included railway parking in Queens Park and would have substantially reduced the traffic across Bromham Road bridge into the actual station - it never happened. Same plan included a main road connection from bottom of Hurst Grove into the brewery - it never happened and we now have huge lorries negotiating the junctions of Ford End Road more recently, (tho not part of Local Plan), we were promised a cycle/walkway footbridge next to the rebuilt Bromham Road railway bridge - it hasnt happened and doesnt look like it will. cyclists are now dangerously sharing the main road over the bridge - not the way to encourage sustainable transport. btw the new road layout at the miniroundabouts is dangerous. The Ashburnham road crossing is too far down that road, and people are ignoring it,crossing the road at its widest point instead. the Bromham road east new crossing is too close to the roundabouts and it s hard to see potential pedestrians when driver has just been concentrating on negotiating the double roundabout safely.
No answer given
The 2014-based population projections heavily referred to in the draft are out of date and are about to be reviewed downwards by the Government. The future housing needs should be biased more towards the 2018-based projections in order to avoid the gross over-estimation of new housing requirement which is currently presented as fact in the Draft Plan. To persist with the grossly inflated older projections invalidates the basis of the Plan