Question 3
The plan could be longer say 2050, however it is unlikely to reecive approval so probably 2040 is the best achievable.
The Plan period should certainly be no longer than 2040. There are so many variables surrounding the Oxford to Cambridge arc that further forward planning will be obsolete almost as soon as it is written.
Agreed response: This is the proper plan period for now. It is not sensible to look further ahead until ambitions in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc are clarified and agreed.
We agree with the shorter time frame. Consideration should be made for the type of houses being built such as size of living space, affordable and designed to be in keeping with surroundings. New and better connection roads for rural settlements to avoid rat runs.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
In line with Government policy, the shortest plan period would be 2020 to 2040 Do you agree with this plan period? If you think the plan period should be longer, what plan end-date would you suggest and why?- Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.
A shorter Plan date would seem to provide more flexibility than a longer one, even a twenty year plan seems to be excessive when you factor in the huge uncertainty that major events such as Brexit and COVID-19 will and have brought to the country, especially in areas such as working patterns, location and net immigration. It would also make sense to set targets on a shorter term and to be based on more recent data (2014 seems very old in terms of statistical data). The plan also seems to be outlining an approach where it is encouraging large movements of population from elsewhere in the country to Bedford Borough rather than focusing on the housing need for those already residing here, this seems to be at odds with planning for local need.
Any plan needs to reduce car use and encourage walking/cycling to work/school in order to protect the environment. This therefore points to the Brown option as the most acceptable, if I have to make a choice of the options shown in the Plan. I am definitely against any solutions which involve urban sprawl and would like to see surrounding villages kept separate with their own clearly defined boundaries, each surrounded by open farmland.
No specific comment. However, you will be aware that Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes are working on their visions for 2050.
As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.
As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.
As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.
This form is submitted on behalf of 3 landowners who are currently promoting sites in Neighbourhood Plans in the Borough: As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.
4.6.1 Gladman agree that a 20-year period would be suitable as it is in line with the 15-year minimum set out in national policy. However, the plan period should be considered in the context of long-term ambitions for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc area that extend beyond 2040. For instance, Milton Keynes have suggested a strategy extending to 2050.
This form is submitted on behalf of 3 landowners who are promoting opportunity sites in the Borough: As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.
3.1 Whilst we agree that an end date of 2040 is probably the shortest period that can be planned for with regards to national policy (paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires a minimum 15-year period from adoption), we think the Plan could logically look longer term, principally because Bedford is a key area for growth, and because of its location in the OxCam Arc which means Councils should be thinking suitably long term to maximise these benefits. 3.2 We would suggest that the plan looks to 2050, in line with the time horizon of the OxCam Arc vision. This gives the Council headroom to plan for a bold vision over a sufficient period of time to see the benefits of growth and not be hampered by a plan period and associated housing and jobs figures which would be extended incrementally through Local Plan Reviews every five years. 3.3 The recent local plan examination of Uttlesford District Council1 is a clear reminder that it is important to align how a plan looks forward with the ambitious growth options that it has to consider. 3.4 The Uttlesford Inspector’s letter to the Council dated the 10th January 2020 was concerned that its Garden Community approach predetermined the development strategy long beyond the plan period and as such noted it was unduly inflexible (see paragraph 113). This risk would have been mitigated by extending the plan period. 3.5 Given new settlements are an almost inevitable ingredient in Bedford’s future, and that they will deliver over a longer-term period, it is important the Plan provides an appropriate time horizon to frame their consideration. Whilst we favour a longer plan period (e.g. to 2050), if a 2040 period is retained, it is important that the Council tests the longer-term options with reference to the implications beyond that plan period, reflecting the PPG (ID:61-060). 3.6 t is worth noting that a longer plan period (e.g. to 2050) would not demand the same level of detail be provided throughout the period; by way of example, the NPPF requires a minimum 15-year plan period but para 67 imposes a mandatory requirement for housing land supply only for the years 1-10 and where possible years 11-15. The PPG (at ID: 68-020) makes a similar observation. 3.7 Planning for more than the minimum local plan period gives Bedford the opportunity to think and plan big, through a considered long-term strategy which will deliver the most benefits and can be appropriately justified within the plan period. The Delivery of TwinWoods 3.8 The TwinWoods Garden Community can deliver around 6,000 homes by 2050. It is anticipated that delivery could begin as early as 2024/25 with delivery of c.3,500 homes by 2040. The scale of the TwinWoods Garden Community provides not just housing but allows for the provision of significant other benefits and infrastructure including up to 4,000 job opportunities, supporting community facilities and services, strategic and local transport infrastructure.
This form is submitted on behalf of 4 landowners who are promoting sites available for self-build dwellings: As has been set out, the examination of the 2030 Local Plan established that the requirements for this ‘immediate’ review is to address the development ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc and to maintain adequate house building rates in the context of the Inspectors noting that the 2030 Local Plan relied on Neighbourhood Plan housing sites. Although it is acknowledged that it will be challenging, it would appear logical to suggest that the plan period should correspond with the growth ambitions of the Oxford – Cambridge arc, and accordingly it is considered that the plan period should be extended to 2050.