Question 4

Showing forms 31 to 60 of 280
Form ID: 331

Yellow – A421 based growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 352

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Grey– Dispersed growth

Despite the best intentions infrastructure rarely develops hand in hand with residential development. So the focus has to be on existing centres where infrastructure already exists. The adoption of brownfield sites has to be the priority bringing older sites back into use and not threatening the green space that helps to characterise our county and which you have recognised in this document. Where we have development on the A421 - this too can work if we are sufficiently innovative rather than simply allowing endless ribbon developments. The third area is the SENSITIVE and proportional growth into existing communities to support local services, schools and retail without demanding new road and rail investment.

Form ID: 387

Brown – Urban based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Grey– Dispersed growth

No answer given

Form ID: 403

Grey– Dispersed growth

No answer given

Form ID: 417

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

No answer given

Form ID: 465

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 485

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 497

Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

It makes sense to link new development to the new sustainable transport which will be created, not the other way round. I strongly support Staploe Parish Council in objecting to the idea in the Brown proposal of building a new settlement in this parish. To do so would run directly counter to the vision put forward in this consultation. This parish is not a brownfield site: it is prime agricultural land in open, rolling countryside, providing "sustainable food production". As has so far been the Borough's policy, the environment here deserves to be preserved and celebrated, not built on. A new settlement would irreparably alter the surroundings of the listed buildings which the Borough makes so much effort to preserve. It would create new threats to the biodiversity found here, including great crested newts, corn buntings, water voles and above all, the nationally rare Bath Asparagus plant. There is virtually no provision of sustainable transport at present, and the opportunities to create it would be limited to a bus service to St Neots and cycle lanes. Most new residents would probably use their cars to get around and to travel to work, and so add to the problems of congestion, poor air quality and climate change. The nearest railway station is on the eastern side of St Neots, and to get to it requires one to cross the A1 and the Great Ouse, creating inevitable bottlenecks. New housing near to the A1 would be subject to the noise and air pollution of that road. There are no facilities here at present, and so a new settlement would require the provision of schools, doctors, shops, post office, broadband and community amenities. The only logic I can see in building here is that a new settlement would benefit from services available in St Neots, but there appears to have been no consultation with that town or with Huntingdonshire District Council. Since St Neots is being expanded by large housing developments on its eastern side, near to the railway station, its services are already under strain. Schools and doctors' surgeries are already full. The residents of a new settlement would want to use facilities like the recycling centre and the leisure centre in St Neots, but without being Council Tax payers in Huntingdonshire, they could be denied access. There are already problems about policing and fire services across the county border. I find it extraordinary that an idea like this has been put forward without thinking through the implications for Bedford's neighbours, when a new settlement would depend so heavily on the services which those neighbours provide.

Form ID: 543

Red – New settlement based growth

No

Form ID: 555

Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 570

Yellow – A421 based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 589

Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

Pink is my preference, for all the reasons you state. It allows Bedford to benefit from central government investment, while also supporting/improving their business case. It supports modal shift, relieving pressure on the local roads (and helping allow Bedford to use lower parking space assumptions in developments) and helping the borough / country achieve its climate goals. Orange is good, but I think the feasibility of getting another station added to the route is low (because of journey time impact and capital cost), unless a developer pays for it and only some stopping services call there. I don't think BBC has the political capital to strongarm DfT (under this government) into agreeing to a new station, and if BBC does, then that would be better spent elsewhere. If the current Conservative MP was a big proponent of it then maybe, but I sincerely doubt that will happen. Red would be good, based on the Wixams and Wootton models (which seem somewhat successful), but these are car-centric settlements and take forever to realize, and would need local roads links investment to make successful. Far better to piggyback off the rail investment.

Form ID: 614

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

No answer given

Form ID: 615

Nothing chosen

I believe the roads feeding the A421 are clogged so any new communication links that shares the load of traffic - be it rail (hopefully public transport will become popular again) or other arteries out to the A1, M1, A6 would be good. I would support brown, yellow and pink if I had to choose but if it weren't for the environmental impact then red sounds the most exciting and forward thinking. Bedford town centre must not become a ghost town. It needs to become a desirable place for people to live, work, shop and be at leisure. Affordable housing should not just be for the poorer members of society but for the young people who want to spend and embrace life (there are also the older and sometimes wealthier ones with disposable income amongst us who would love to go into town if there was more for us). In that regard, I feel we should focus in and move gradually out, but improve links (which could be cycleways, river paths, bridges over rivers, as well as new roads around which houses could be built and infrastructure required for a sense of community. And as well as schooling etc. that needs to include open spaces.

Form ID: 656

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No .... but I would like to make a point about any future development not having a disproportionate impact on rural villages. For example, the 2030 plan required Sharnbrook to increase the number of houses by a staggering 50%. Any developments proposed for villages should consider the ability of the villages to accommodate additional houses and take into account appropriate constraints, e.g increased traffic flows through narrow High Streets.

Form ID: 667

Yellow – A421 based growth, Red – New settlement based growth

Yellow has the infrastructure in place which we do not have in my area of the Borough (North). And growth at Wixams and Wyboston supports the Housing Planning document - re homes for the elderly and those with wellbeing needs.

Form ID: 717

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

No answer given

Form ID: 730

Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

I would support the pink-rail growth and the orange – east-west rail norther station options since they both include further development of railway connectivity together with new housing, while at the same time minimising growth for villages and urban based growth which is at its limit in terms of infrastructure, green space and leisure facilities. One option to consider is repurposing the town centre buildings from commercial to residential use, which will enable residents to make sustainable travel choices while at the same time attracting businesses such as restaurants and small shops for residents living in the area.

Form ID: 781

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth, Red – New settlement based growth

The Biddenham Society does not support the developments Brown and Grey. The Grey Development would have a significant negative society-related with the building of a large number of houses across the region rather than focusing this on impacting a smaller number of areas but to a greater extent. The Brown Development suggests expansion of the Town area, the likely outcome of which will be continued eroding of the green space between Bedford and Biddenham and similar villages such as Wootton, Salph End, Renold, Cardington and Elstow thus diminishing the village look and feel of these locations. There should be no further large-scale housing developments within a reasonable radius of Biddenham (see development sites listed below). This should be enforced through new or amended policies. Recent developments have reduced significantly the amount of green space in the surrounding area. These developments in the last 25 years include: Deep Spinney – 350 houses built in the mid-90s Great Denham – 1,600 houses built since the late 1990s North of Bromham Road (West) – 500 houses built from 2017 North of Bromham Road (East) – 200 houses built from 2017 Gold Lane – 249 houses due to be built from 2021 North of Bromham Road Old Golf Course – 700 planned to start in the coming years

Form ID: 795

Nothing chosen

Several potential locations for growth individually or in combination with other options will require discussions with HDC under the duty to cooperate to understand any potential issues and to minimise any negative impacts that may arise from substantial housing and or employment developments and additional travel demand whichever of these options or combination of options are pursued. This is particularly important as the Strategic Expansion Location to the east of St Neots (St Neots East including Wintringham Park) within Huntingdonshire is underway. Potential further strategic development within Bedford Borough which will impact capacity on the A1 and A428 will need to be investigated in combination with proposed transport infrastructure projects and existing commitments and allocations in surrounding local authorities. HDC will be pleased to work with Bedford Borough to explore the potential for developments which would support the greater viability of public transport corridors linking into Huntingdonshire. As well as HDC, other adjoining local authorities will need to be included. Other cross boundary issues that HDC will be pleased to work with Bedford Borough on include the protection, conservation and enhancement of nature designations, particularly in response to any site allocations made for housing, employment, recreation or conservation. Page 16 of the Bedford Borough Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (July 2020) identifies that there are no Natura 2000 (European) protected sites within the Borough, however there are some within 15km of the Borough located within Huntingdonshire District. Additionally, Green Infrastructure Opportunity Zones no. 1 (Milton Keynes to Grafham – wooded wolds) and no.3 (Lower Great Ouse River Valley) identified on page 18 of the Scoping Report border with Huntingdonshire. No.3 adjoins the border with Huntingdonshire’s Great Ouse Valley Green Infrastructure Priority Area designation under LP3 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036. Other sites which should be considered are the County Wildlife Sites of Tilbrook Bushes and Sandy Lane and Honeyhill Wood near Kimbolton which adjoin the northern border between Bedford Borough and Huntingdonshire.

Form ID: 825

Brown – Urban based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

No answer given

Form ID: 831

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

No answer given

Form ID: 860

Nothing chosen

There is still a significant shortfall of homes at Wixams and opportunity at the brownfield Stewartby brickworks site. There are also many other extant planning permissions that have not been built-out. Developers should be forced to complete their current developments before any new proposals are considered. All brownfield land within current SPAs should be developed before any more greenfields are lost. The east-west railway station should be south of Bedford and link up with the new Wixams station.

Form ID: 916

Brown – Urban based growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 956

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 958

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

No answer given

Form ID: 984

Grey– Dispersed growth

Staploe Parish Council object in the strongest terms to the suggestion in the brown option that our parish is a brownfield site or under utilised land. Our whole parish is classed as open countryside for planning purposes. Our three tiny hamlets are not even classed as a small settlement in the Local Plan 2030 definition (6.21) and we are therefore defined as open countryside. We feel that describing the brown option which would see the majority of our parish covered in a large scale, high density, urban development as using brownfield or under utilised land is very misleading. We believe this could compromise the validity of the consultation as those responding would logically propose development on brownfield or under-utilised land over greenfield sites. We believe the pros and cons list for the brown option is very inaccurate for our parish. A large development in Staploe parish would not support services etc in Bedford – we are 13 miles away and people would use services in St. Neots which are already under pressure due to large scale development on the eastern side of the town. There would be very little potential for residents here to make sustainable travel choices – we have one bus on Thursday and it would require huge investment to improve public transport. This would not reduce the need for growth in rural areas – we are a rural area and it proposes building all over our parish. Development in our parish would not improve viability of retail and leisure in Bedford Borough. People would go to St. Neots. We object to the brown, the yellow and the red options because they all propose large scale development in the countryside which will dramatically alter the character of the countryside with no new provision of sustainable transport. We would support the grey, dispersed option as development would be in proportion to the size of the settlement and we feel that most settlements can sustain some additional development without dramatically changing their nature. Staploe Parish Council would support a small amount of development in our parish in response to locally identified needs under the direction of a neighbourhood plan. We propose to prepare a neighbourhood plan which will include a housing needs survey. We feel that there is too much uncertainty about where the East West rail stations will be to deliver the houses needed in time and the orange option may not be possible as the northern parkway station is certainly not confirmed and little more than a “nice to have” on Bedford Borough Council’s wish list at the moment. We are particularly concerned about any proposals for large scale development in our parish for the following reasons: 1. We are open countryside. Development here is against policy guidelines. Our parish is classed as open countryside. According to the Local Plan 2030 the following policies apply to development in the countryside. Policy 65 - Reuse of rural buildings in the countryside ii. Policy 66 - The replacement and extension of dwellings in the countryside. iii. Policy 67 - Affordable housing to meet local needs in the rural area. iv. Policy 68 - Accommodation for rural workers. v. Neighbourhood Development Plans which have been ‘made’ by Bedford Borough Council. None of these would permit a large scale urban development in the countryside such as that proposed in the brown option. The Local Plan 2030 states: “6.18 In considering the location of development in rural areas, the distinction between settlements and areas of countryside is established by defining Settlement Policy Areas. The aim of the local plan is to direct development to within the defined Settlement Policy Area boundaries and specific site allocations. Within the countryside it is the intention to maintain the existing open nature, prevent the coalescence of settlements and resist the encroachment of development into the countryside.” The brown option would mean that development would not be within a Settlement Policy Area, it would not maintain the existing open nature of the countryside and it would deliberately cause the coalescence of settlements (St. Neots, Eaton Socon, Duloe and Staploe) and encourage the encroachment of development into the countryside. The land in our parish is fertile farm land. The draft vision of your Issues and Options Paper on p13 states that “Tackling climate change and adapting to and mitigating against its effects will be at the heart of new development throughout the borough including facilitating sustainable food production.” Building on fertile farm land will not facilitate sustainable food production. The A1 has been a clear line delimiting the higher density development in Huntingdonshire from the rural nature of our parish in north Bedfordshire for 50 years. 2. We have no infrastructure and development would not be sustainable Our three tiny hamlets of Duloe (approx. 40 houses), Staploe (approx. 60 houses), Honeydon (approx. 30 houses) have no village hall (it is about to be demolished), pavements, schools, doctors surgeries, shops, or post office. There are no sustainable travel options. There are no pavements into St Neots, the roads are not safe enough for cyclists – they are narrow and the edges are often in poor repair. We have one bus per week which goes to St Neots for two hours on a Thursday. Everyone is dependent on car use and the roads are narrow and often single track with sharp bends. Children have to travel for around 45 minutes to get to secondary schools in Bedfordshire and there are very few places in the schools in St. Neots. Broadband is extremely poor in parts of the parish – along the Bushmead Road, in Upper Staploe and in Honeydon and it is not particularly fast in much of Staploe. 3. St. Neots does not have capacity to serve a large scale development in Bedfordshire Any large scale development would inevitably add pressure to existing services in St. Neots. St. Neots already has large scale development to the east in the form of Loves Farm and Wintringham Park which amount to around 4000 houses. We would be very surprised if St Neots Town Council supported a large scale development in our parish. It can take weeks to get an appointment at the local surgery in Eaton Socon and there is fierce competition for school places in St Neots and Eaton Socon. Those from out of county are naturally bottom of the list. We believe any large scale development would require the construction of primary and secondary schools which would be expensive. Residents would inevitably use St Neots station. As there is no public transport and the station is on the opposite side of the town residents would drive and the station car park is already full. There are already restrictions to accessing St Neots from the west in the form of the A1 and the river with limited access points creating serious bottlenecks. Traffic accessing the town from our parish would have to travel through residential areas leading to increased congestion and pollution. 4. There are specific issues which make development unsuitable in our parish There is a high pressure gas main running through the parish and a large network of pylons and overhead high voltage power cables. There is a flood risk from Duloe Brook – particularly west of the A1 near the junction with the B645. Our ecology: • We have a nationally rare wildflower called Ornithogalum pyrenaicum throughout much of the parish which is recognised in our extensive roadside nature reserves but which is also distributed on footpaths and field boundaries throughout the parish. It is only found in one other area in the UK near Bath. • Also present are the rare plants Crested Cow Wheat (Melampyrum cristatum) and Sulphur Clover (Trifolium ochroleucon). • Water voles – one of the 10 rarest mammals in the UK • An exceptionally large population of skylarks • Barn owls and little owls • Kingfishers, buzzards and red tailed kites • Many roosting bats • Great crested newts Grass snakes - particularly in Honeydon 5. Development near the A1 will lead to noise, air quality issues and may reduce options to upgrade the A1 in situ. Houses built close to the A1 will be subjected to noise from the road and poor air quality. Staploe Parish Council feel it is important to retain the option to upgrade the A1 in situ – without having to build a whole new road further to the west. If houses are built close to the A1 this option will no longer be available. 6. We value our tranquil hamlets, clean air and historic buildings People choose to live in our parish because it is a tranquil place. Almost every house backs onto fields and looks out onto rolling fields. Residents feel that major development would completely destroy the rural nature of our parish and our local landscapes. We have 16 grade II listed buildings in the parish and three scheduled monuments: • Duloe: The Anchor (5, Duloe Lane), The Thatched Cottage (39, Duloe Lane), the Dovecote (49, Woodhouse Lane), Maye Cottage (53, Woodhouse Lane). • Staploe: Walnut Cottage (35, Staploe Lane), Old Farm Cottage • Bassmead (Upper Staploe): moated enclosure (scheduled monument) and Basmead Manor Farmhouse • Honeydon: Dairy Farmhouse (Begwary Lane), Chestnuts Farmhouse (Lower Honeydon Lane) • Staploe Road on the way to Wyboston: Eaton Tithe Farmhouse • Bushmead Road: The Camps and Fishponds (scheduled monument), The Grotto, Cottage East of Bushmead Cross, • Bushmead: Bushmead Priory (scheduled monument and the Priory building is also listed), The Coach House, Bushmead Priory House, Blaysworth Manor Large scale development would damage the setting of these historic buildings which are valued by the local community and as a national historic asset. 7. Large scale development in our parish could not be delivered quickly Due to the level of infrastructure required and negotiations needed across county boundaries, and with Highways England regarding the A1 and with East West Rail (due to go just south of our parish) any large scale develpment would require careful planning and take a long time. This could lead to short to medium term housing shortages. 8. Lack of employment There are no employment opportunities in the area. Residents of any new development would have to travel for work and this would likely be by car leading to increased car use. As previously mentioned St. Neots rail station car park is already at capacity at busy times.   9. Cross border concerns In addition to concerns about schools and transport already mentioned there are further concerns about how a large development adjacent to St Neots would be managed. Our parishioners already experience issues accessing services such as police. Cambridgeshire police will not attend and Bedfordshire police take a long time to arrive, argue that we are not in Bedfordshire, don’t know where we are, and we have very few patrols because we are on the edge of the Borough. Much of the antisocial behaviour and suspected drug dealing we see in our parish is suspected to be cross border, probably from St. Neots but we see little evidence of cooperation between Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire police to tackle the issue. This would be exacerbated if there was major development in the area. We are served by Sandy fire service rather than St. Neots with the inevitable delays that this causes. We are not supposed to use the local recycling centre in St Neots as it is in Huntingdonshire, we are expected to drive to Bedford 13 miles away. The swimming pool in St Neots is at capacity and experiences frequent long queues at popular times. It is funded by local council taxpayers in Huntingdonshire. A large development in our parish would put additional pressure on such services funded by Huntingdonshire taxpayers. Any Community Infrastructure Levy funds from the development would go to Bedford Borough Council but services in St Neots would be put under pressure with no additional money for infrastructure, We believe the cross border nature of our area could make administration of a large scale settlement very difficult and lead to delays in its delivery.

Form ID: 1017

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1031

Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1057

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Grey– Dispersed growth

No answer given