Question 4
Catesby Estates support more dispersed development throughout the borough, including the expansion of villages, as the principle growth strategy for allocating future development. This strategy would reflect the requirements of the NPPF (in particular Paragraph 78) which states that planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. It is therefore essential that the spatial strategy established for the Local Plan Review explores the full growth potential of the rural villages. The benefit of this growth strategy is that facilities and services (such as local bus services, retail and schools) and the overall sustainability of these settlements will be maintained and enhanced. Catesby Estates consider that a strategy focused primarily on new settlements would not be justified on account of the potential delays to housing delivery. For example the previously proposed Colworth New Settlement is constrained, particularly in terms of the multiple land ownerships required to provide access to the site and the A6. The previous desire for an operational parkway station before the first dwelling is occupied is also likely to significantly lengthen delivery timescales for the site. Other new settlement proposals are also likely to have similar infrastructure, delivery and viability challenges meaning they are unlikely to deliver new housing particularly quickly. In contrast, the Borough benefits from existing sustainable rural centres with operating services and facilities which are capable of delivering new housing much faster. A greater proportion of future housing growth should therefore be directed to the rural centres. In summary, more dispersed development throughout the borough, including the expansion of villages is considered the most appropriate strategy to ensure the needs of the Borough are sustainably met over the plan period.
The issue about where to allocation new housing development is never easy. It is my opinion that relying on just one of the suggested options is not feasible and that a combination of the strategies would need to be adopted. Of course any new development must be sustainable. In an ideal world, housing would be located in existing urban areas and use would be made of existing buildings in town centres etc brought back into use (including change of use) for residential development. Locating dwellings in existing areas reduces the need for people to travel by car which is of course important. In urban areas, the infrastructure needed to support a growth in housing numbers is already physically there (ie shops, schools and health facilities) however I would argue that these facilities are probably already stretched to capacity and with land being limited to extend these existing facilities, it is my opinion that providing too many additional houses within urban areas will lead to an unacceptable increase in demand on school and medical facilities and whereas this could potentially be alleviated through S106 monies, there is no point in collecting money to extent school facilities where there is physically no room to do so. The end result could be people travelling by car to schools and other facilities further away which of course defeats the purpose of developing in urban areas in the first place. The costs to developers to develop on previous developed land can also be prohibited. Therefore I consider that whereas some residential development should occur in existing urban areas, the Borough Council should seek to identify other areas where new sustainable settlements could be created which, like Wixams, Land to the North of Bromham Road and Great Denham, included the provision of education, shopping and health facilities. The Plan states that growth should be directed in firstly the Bedford and Kempston urban areas and secondly in larger villages EXCEPT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY LARGE SCALE COMMITMENTS (my highlighting). I would like the Borough Council add to this and to state that where significant housing growth has already taken place, additional development will not be permitted or will not be consider acceptable and to specify which villages/areas it considers this criteria to cover and as part of this I would suggest including the village of Great Denham. There has been a significant amount of development around Great Denham including the formation of the village itself. It is imperative that the vitally important open space around Great Denham is now protected from any further development, not only to protect the wildlife in these areas and to enable the public (not just from the village but the whole of the Borough and beyond) to enjoy the local open space in the area but also to prevent any further pressure on the Primary School and Doctors Surgery in the village. The School has recently expanded to take additional numbers of pupils and the Doctors Surgery is struggling and has done for a number of years. It cannot presently provide a good services to existing residents many of whom have already gone elsewhere and therefore I consider that any additional significant housing development in this area would be unacceptable for the reasons mentioned above and that any adverse impacts could not be mitigated by S106 contributions.
Development should be located close to good infrastructure, facilities, services and employment. This will encourage sustainable transport and healthy living. None of the solutions are ideal but all contain good elements, which I expect can be combined to find a suitable solution. My view on each of the potential proposed locations (given the major unknowns listed in my answer to Question 1) is as follows: Brown: This proposal has to be considered in the three distinct areas highlighted: 1. Bedford; 2. Adjacent to Rushden; 3. Adjacent to St Neots: 1. Bedford. It makes sense as highlighted in the Pros, to continue development around Bedford and Kempston to maximise the use of existing services, facilities, employment and sustainable transport. It will also support the maintenance and development of the Town Centre as people will naturally gravitate there. Use of brownfield land is a positive proposal, that avoids destruction of green spaces and countryside. 2. Adjacent to Rushden. I am unable to comment on this as I do not know the local area, other than it is so far from Bedford that people will naturally gravitate to Rushden and use their facilities and services. It is surprising that BBC do not know if Rushden would support this proposal! 3. Adjacent to St. Neots. This shows an area of urban development located to the west of St Neots. The area shown on the map appears to cover our parish of Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon. The area is open countryside with fertile arable farming interspersed with small rural hamlets. It is not brownfield or under-utilised land as indicated by BBC. I totally object in the strongest terms to this element of this proposal, for the following reasons; a. There is no infrastructure, no services and no facilities in the parish to support any new development. Reliance would have to be put on existing facilities in St. Neots, which are wholly insufficient to cater for the increased demand, or would have to include completely new infrastructure, services and facilities in the development. i. Roads. The roads are narrow, minor and rural. They are unsuitable even for the current low level of heavy goods vehicles (mostly farming related) and are dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. They receive little, if any, investment for maintenance and upgrade to modern standards. There are no roads suitable for any developments in the area. ii. Public Transport. There is no public transport in the area, other than one bus each Thursday allowing a 2 hour visit to St. Neots on market day. iii. Schools. There are no schools in the area. Children are transported by bus or private transport to other Bedfordshire villages and towns, e.g. secondary schools at Mark Rutherford, Sandy and Sharnbrook, so children experience up to a 45 minute journey to school, twice a day. There is insufficient capacity in the existing Bedfordshire schools at all levels to support even limited development in the area. iv. Some children use schools in St. Neots. Given the significant developments already taking place in St. Neots, even where additional schools are being, and are planned to be, built, there will be no capacity for any additional children from any development in Bedfordshire. v. Medical facilities. There are no doctors surgeries or pharmacies in the area. The nearest in Eaton Socon is already totally overwhelmed with a 3 week wait for appointments, so many people travel to use acceptable facilities further afield (e.g. Great Staughton, Kimbolton). vi. Post Offices. There are no post offices in the area. The nearest is in Eaton Socon. vii. Shops, pubs and other facilities. There are no shops, pubs and other facilities in the area. The nearest are in Eaton Socon/St. Neots. b. I have reviewed the BBC “Pros – advantages” and “Cons – disadvantages” for this proposal in relation to an urban development west of St. Neots and conclude that there are NO advantages with at least 18 major disadvantages, as follows: Bedford Borough Council stated “Pros – advantages”: • The area is situated 13 miles from Bedford and will receive no support from services, facilities and businesses in Bedford town centre. No advantage. • This is not an urban area – it is totally rural and has no infrastructure to support development. Residents almost exclusively use private transport. There is therefore no potential for residents to make sustainable travel choices (walking, cycling and public transport). No advantage. • As there is effectively no public transport in the area, any development would require a significant investment for public transport to become viable. No advantage. • The land in the area is not brownfield, nor is it underused. It is fertile farming land that supports a broad environmental diversity including some of the rarest species in the UK. No advantage. • Growth in this area would require major investment in infrastructure and services. far in excess of making use of, or expanding those in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas. No advantage. • There are very limited employment uses in the area and there would have to be significant investment in infrastructure, direct business creation and associated retail and leisure to create viable opportunities. No advantage. Bedford Borough Council stated “Cons – disadvantages”: • Growth in the area would be adjacent to St. Neots and beside the A1. Any development in Bedfordshire close to the A1 would be blighted by the significant noise and air pollution that the traffic on the road causes, especially if capacity increases in the future. Fertile farming land would be lost and growth would impinge on existing villages. Disadvantage. • Very high density schemes would be totally out of character and would negatively affect local distinctiveness. They would create noise and air pollution in an area of peace and clean environment. Disadvantage. • Growth would totally overstretch existing services and facilities in adjacent St. Neots and the existing local infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed. Disadvantage. • It is not known if St. Neots would support expansion in Bedford Borough adjacent to St. Neots. However given the following issues: o With the total lack of existing Bedfordshire infrastructure, services and facilities, reliance would have to be placed on St. Neots for these. o There are already serious bottlenecks to get into St Neots which would be significantly worsened by this proposed development. o Traffic into St. Neots would have to go through existing residential areas, creating congestion, pollution and traffic dangers within the town. o While Bedford would receive Infrastructure grants, Community Infrastructure Levy funds, s.106 payments, council tax income, Huntingdonshire would have to provide the amenities even though it is subject to its own pressures to produce more housing within its own area. Given these issues, it is unlikely that St. Neots would support this proposal. In fact it is absolutely surprising that such a proposal even be made without Bedford Borough Council apparently having the knowledge of St. Neots’ view on this! Disadvantage. • As noted under “Pros-advantages” above, there are no advantages to this proposal, so this rural location would not miss out on any perceived benefits associated with growth. • There are no details provided in terms of site sizes, so it is not possible to comment on whether restricted site sizes can restrict scheme options and opportunities to mitigate risk for investors. • Any development in this area will cause poor quality air issues. Disadvantage. I have identified further local “Cons – disadvantages”: • A high pressure gas pipeline runs through the area that will sterilise a broad swath of land and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • The parish is crisscrossed by multiple lines of pylons carrying High Voltage power cables. The health issues of living close to these powerlines is well known, so large swathes of land will be sterilised and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • Without significant investment in infrastructure, development in this area will encourage car use and create high levels of pollution. Disadvantage. • Development would require improved connections into existing urban areas in order to access facilities. These could be significant in having to cross the two physical barriers into St Neots – the A1 and the River Great Ouse. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside. Disadvantage. • Strategic-scale growth would have a huge visual impact on local landscapes, ruining its intrinsic character, valued walks, byways and tranquil retreats. Many people from the parish and St. Neots use this area for healthy pursuits such as walking and cycling. Disadvantage. • It would take a long time to plan and build a new settlement in this area, leading to short to medium-term housing supply shortages. Disadvantage. • Significant new infrastructure, facilities and services would be required to accommodate growth. This would include roads, schools, medical facilities, and shops. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to a loss of green environment and biodiversity. As examples, the area currently supports the following: o The extremely rare Bath Asparagus, found only in two locations in the UK - this parish and Bath. o Water voles, one of the 10 rarest mammals in the UK. o A large population of sky larks. o Barn owls and Little owls o Kingfishers o Large populations of buzzards and red tailed kites. o Roosting bats o Great crested newts. Development in this area would destroy many of the habitats enjoyed by these species. Disadvantage. • Due to the prevailing South Westerly winds and open countryside, the area enjoys clean fresh air. Development would lead to pollution of this clean air. Disadvantage. • There are no opportunities for employment in the area. Residents of a new settlement would have to travel for employment, which without a major investment in public transport, would be by car, increasing car use. Should residents work in London or Cambridge, they would have to travel to either St Neots station or a new East-West rail station, wherever that may be situated. The station carpark at St Neots is already full at 9am and has no capacity for residents from a new development in Bedfordshire adjacent to St Neots. Travel to these stations would again be by car, again increasing car use and leading to bottlenecks in access to St Neots via the town river bridge. Disadvantage. • Flood Risk. There is a flood risk from Duloe Brook – particularly west of the A1 near the junction with the B645. Disadvantage. • There are 16 grade II listed buildings and 3 scheduled monuments in the parish and large scale development would damage the setting of these historic buildings which are valued by the local community and as a national historic asset. Disadvantage. • Local Plan 2030, Policy 3S – Spatial Strategy. This strategic policy sets out the hierarchy for development, namely: Bedford; Wixams and Stewartby; key service centres; rural service centres. Any development in the countryside should be for local needs only and such development should “safeguard the intrinsic character of the countryside and the environment and biodiversity within it”. In Local Plan 2030, the parish of Staploe is not classed as a key service centre, nor a rural service centre, nor a Small Settlement. It does not have Settlement Policy Area. Staploe is therefore classed as Countryside. Policy 7S – Development in the countryside allows development only for rural needs and states that: “All development in the countryside must: xi. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and xii. Not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others;” Therefore the proposal for a major urban development in this parish is in contravention of the Council’s own strategic policies 3S and 7S. Yellow: This proposal has strong advantages in terms of • Existing and proposed road infrastructure improvements. • Close to existing employment areas with good connections. • Opportunity to extend Wixams with access to the new railway station. • It would be relatively easy to improve connections into urban areas which would encourage sustainable transport. There would be opportunity to expand developments planned at Stewartby and to the south of Kempston. • The BMK Waterway Park closely follows this route. The BMK Waterway would provide blue-green environmental benefits for developments in this area to compliment and add to the benefits of the Forest of Marston Vale. The Waterway would also bring business and tourism directly into the heart of Bedford Town Centre. • The BMK Waterway would also provide a route (along the tow path) for pipework from the Rookery South Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) to feed district heating systems in developments along the route and into Wootton/Kempston. This would significantly improve the efficiency of the ERF and deliver cheap, green energy to housing developments. For the reasons stated under the Brown option I would not support incorporation of a western expansion to St. Neots as there are no advantages and many, many disadvantages. Pink: This proposal has many of the advantages of the Yellow option as it largely follows a very similar route. Until the location of the East West railway stations are decided it is difficult to plan for development, but it has been a key feature and success of the eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that they are so close to St. Neots station. This encourages walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Development close to new East West rail stations could provide similar benefits. If the new station is located near to Tempsford, then consideration of the land where Kier have just closed their Head Office at Tempsford should be made. The area could provide business and development opportunities. Orange: This proposal depends entirely on whether an additional East West Rail station will be built north of Bedford, and if so, it’s location. If close to Bedford then it might combine will with the Brown option to expand around the Bedford area. Development close to the station would bring similar benefits to the successful eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that are so close to St. Neots station. They encourage walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Grey: While this option might appear to be the “fairest” in terms of distributing development proportionately across the Borough, it will limit opportunities for employment, sustainable travel and development of strategic infrastructure. Red: It is clear from this proposal that these opportunities have been considered previously and that the issues with previous proposals have yet to be resolved. I do not know what these were but I expect that if these new settlements are located in the countryside then they will have many of the disadvantages that I have highlighted in the Brown option above for expansion west of St. Neots. Without doubt there would be a destruction of the countryside in direct contravention of the Councils strategic policies 3S and 7S.
What was the reason for locating the east west railway station in the north, why wasn't the new wixams station selected? To satisfy the goverment sustainability targets work and residential locations need to be within cycling distance. None of these choices satisfy the governments policy objective of sustainability
Developments should avoid countryside areas surrounding Eaton Socon as this would destroy local wildlife
This is the only sensible option. Would be much better to develop inner urban areas in the centre of Bedford and not further ruin our green spaces
I made the mistake of scrolling down filling in each section. Now I discover, none of it was saved and I am NOT doing it all again!
Not other locations, but a comment on options Brown, Pink and Red. Proposed locations for these are very close to the boundaries of the borough and rely on their adjacency to St Neots. The transport/infrastructure burden would be born by a location that would not benefit from the CIL raised by the proposed development. In the case of the Brown option, the roads connecting the Duloe are to St Neots are narrow (in sone cases single track) roads with no pavements. This would require close consultation with and transfer of funds to Cambridgeshire to ensure that the existing poor infrastructure did not become overloaded. Closer in, access into St Neots from the West is restricted due to there being only a single bridge across the Great Ouse. This bridge is already dangerously overloaded during the peak periods. Traffic already backs up along Crosshall Road, St Neots Road and Mill Hill Road and the roundabout is blocked. Any additional traffic from new developments could have a severe impact on an already perilous situation.
No answer given
no
No-one wants to see greenfield sites built on i.e. new settlements. The A421 is already very busy and I'd actually like to see expansion of this road rather than limiting it by building more houses. The station seems to be the best bet, where people can walk to the station to commute. With retail on the decline it makes sense to change the use case to houses in the city centre (Brown field growth).
No answer given
I favour public transport based growth. For example growing around any new railway station, and existing towns.
I also support the provision of as much housing as possible in Bedford town centre for reasons of sustainable transport and to support a thriving town centre, but I do not support growth around the periphery of the town.
I also support the provision of as much housing as possible in Bedford town centre for reasons of sustainable transport and to support a thriving town centre, but I do not support growth around the periphery of the town.
Development should be located close to good infrastructure, facilities, services and employment. This will encourage sustainable transport and healthy living. None of the solutions are ideal but all contain good elements, which I expect can be combined to find a suitable solution. My view on each of the potential proposed locations (given the major unknowns listed in my answer to Question 1) is as follows: Brown: This proposal has to be considered in the three distinct areas highlighted: 1. Bedford; 2. Adjacent to Rushden; 3. Adjacent to St Neots: 1. Bedford. It makes sense as highlighted in the Pros, to continue development around Bedford and Kempston to maximise the use of existing services, facilities, employment and sustainable transport. It will also support the maintenance and development of the Town Centre as people will naturally gravitate there. Use of brownfield land is a positive proposal, that avoids destruction of green spaces and countryside. 2. Adjacent to Rushden. I am unable to comment on this as I do not know the local area, other than it is so far from Bedford that people will naturally gravitate to Rushden and use their facilities and services. It is surprising that BBC do not know if Rushden would support this proposal! 3. Adjacent to St. Neots. This shows an area of urban development located to the west of St Neots. The area shown on the map appears to cover our parish of Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon. The area is open countryside with fertile arable farming interspersed with small rural hamlets. It is not brownfield or under-utilised land as indicated by BBC. I totally object in the strongest terms to this element of this proposal, for the following reasons; a. There is no infrastructure, no services and no facilities in the parish to support any new development. Reliance would have to be put on existing facilities in St. Neots, which are wholly insufficient to cater for the increased demand, or would have to include completely new infrastructure, services and facilities in the development. i. Roads. The roads are narrow, minor and rural. They are unsuitable even for the current low level of heavy goods vehicles (mostly farming related) and are dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. They receive little, if any, investment for maintenance and upgrade to modern standards. There are no roads suitable for any developments in the area. ii. Public Transport. There is no public transport in the area, other than one bus each Thursday allowing a 2 hour visit to St. Neots on market day. iii. Schools. There are no schools in the area. Children are transported by bus or private transport to other Bedfordshire villages and towns, e.g. secondary schools at Mark Rutherford, Sandy and Sharnbrook, so children experience up to a 45 minute journey to school, twice a day. There is insufficient capacity in the existing Bedfordshire schools at all levels to support even limited development in the area. iv. Some children use schools in St. Neots. Given the significant developments already taking place in St. Neots, even where additional schools are being, and are planned to be, built, there will be no capacity for any additional children from any development in Bedfordshire. v. Medical facilities. There are no doctors surgeries or pharmacies in the area. The nearest in Eaton Socon is already totally overwhelmed with a 3 week wait for appointments, so many people travel to use acceptable facilities further afield (e.g. Great Staughton, Kimbolton). vi. Post Offices. There are no post offices in the area. The nearest is in Eaton Socon. vii. Shops, pubs and other facilities. There are no shops, pubs and other facilities in the area. The nearest are in Eaton Socon/St. Neots. b. I have reviewed the BBC “Pros – advantages” and “Cons – disadvantages” for this proposal in relation to an urban development west of St. Neots and conclude that there are NO advantages with at least 18 major disadvantages, as follows: Bedford Borough Council stated “Pros – advantages”: • The area is situated 13 miles from Bedford and will receive no support from services, facilities and businesses in Bedford town centre. No advantage. • This is not an urban area – it is totally rural and has no infrastructure to support development. Residents almost exclusively use private transport. There is therefore no potential for residents to make sustainable travel choices (walking, cycling and public transport). No advantage. • As there is effectively no public transport in the area, any development would require a significant investment for public transport to become viable. No advantage. • The land in the area is not brownfield, nor is it underused. It is fertile farming land that supports a broad environmental diversity including some of the rarest species in the UK. No advantage. • Growth in this area would require major investment in infrastructure and services. far in excess of making use of, or expanding those in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas. No advantage. • There are very limited employment uses in the area and there would have to be significant investment in infrastructure, direct business creation and associated retail and leisure to create viable opportunities. No advantage. Bedford Borough Council stated “Cons – disadvantages”: • Growth in the area would be adjacent to St. Neots and beside the A1. Any development in Bedfordshire close to the A1 would be blighted by the significant noise and air pollution that the traffic on the road causes, especially if capacity increases in the future. Fertile farming land would be lost and growth would impinge on existing villages. Disadvantage. • Very high density schemes would be totally out of character and would negatively affect local distinctiveness. They would create noise and air pollution in an area of peace and clean environment. Disadvantage. • Growth would totally overstretch existing services and facilities in adjacent St. Neots and the existing local infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed. Disadvantage. • It is not known if St. Neots would support expansion in Bedford Borough adjacent to St. Neots. However given the following issues: o With the total lack of existing Bedfordshire infrastructure, services and facilities, reliance would have to be placed on St. Neots for these. o There are already serious bottlenecks to get into St Neots which would be significantly worsened by this proposed development. o Traffic into St. Neots would have to go through existing residential areas, creating congestion, pollution and traffic dangers within the town. o While Bedford would receive Infrastructure grants, Community Infrastructure Levy funds, s.106 payments, council tax income, Huntingdonshire would have to provide the amenities even though it is subject to its own pressures to produce more housing within its own area. Given these issues, it is unlikely that St. Neots would support this proposal. In fact it is absolutely surprising that such a proposal even be made without Bedford Borough Council apparently having the knowledge of St. Neots’ view on this! Disadvantage. • As noted under “Pros-advantages” above, there are no advantages to this proposal, so this rural location would not miss out on any perceived benefits associated with growth. • There are no details provided in terms of site sizes, so it is not possible to comment on whether restricted site sizes can restrict scheme options and opportunities to mitigate risk for investors. • Any development in this area will cause poor quality air issues. Disadvantage. I have identified further local “Cons – disadvantages”: • A high pressure gas pipeline runs through the area that will sterilise a broad swath of land and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • The parish is crisscrossed by multiple lines of pylons carrying High Voltage power cables. The health issues of living close to these powerlines is well known, so large swathes of land will be sterilised and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • Without significant investment in infrastructure, development in this area will encourage car use and create high levels of pollution. Disadvantage. • Development would require improved connections into existing urban areas in order to access facilities. These could be significant in having to cross the two physical barriers into St Neots – the A1 and the River Great Ouse. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside. Disadvantage. • Strategic-scale growth would have a huge visual impact on local landscapes, ruining its intrinsic character, valued walks, byways and tranquil retreats. Many people from the parish and St. Neots use this area for healthy pursuits such as walking and cycling. Disadvantage. • It would take a long time to plan and build a new settlement in this area, leading to short to medium-term housing supply shortages. Disadvantage. • Significant new infrastructure, facilities and services would be required to accommodate growth. This would include roads, schools, medical facilities, and shops. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to a loss of green environment and biodiversity. As examples, the area currently supports the following: o The extremely rare Bath Asparagus, found only in two locations in the UK - this parish and Bath. o Water voles, one of the 10 rarest mammals in the UK. o A large population of sky larks. o Barn owls and Little owls o Kingfishers o Large populations of buzzards and red tailed kites. o Roosting bats o Great crested newts. Development in this area would destroy many of the habitats enjoyed by these species. Disadvantage. • Due to the prevailing South Westerly winds and open countryside, the area enjoys clean fresh air. Development would lead to pollution of this clean air. Disadvantage. • There are no opportunities for employment in the area. Residents of a new settlement would have to travel for employment, which without a major investment in public transport, would be by car, increasing car use. Should residents work in London or Cambridge, they would have to travel to either St Neots station or a new East-West rail station, wherever that may be situated. The station carpark at St Neots is already full at 9am and has no capacity for residents from a new development in Bedfordshire adjacent to St Neots. Travel to these stations would again be by car, again increasing car use and leading to bottlenecks in access to St Neots via the town river bridge. Disadvantage. • Flood Risk. There is a flood risk from Duloe Brook – particularly west of the A1 near the junction with the B645. Disadvantage. • There are 16 grade II listed buildings and 3 scheduled monuments in the parish and large scale development would damage the setting of these historic buildings which are valued by the local community and as a national historic asset. Disadvantage. • Local Plan 2030, Policy 3S – Spatial Strategy. This strategic policy sets out the hierarchy for development, namely: Bedford; Wixams and Stewartby; key service centres; rural service centres. Any development in the countryside should be for local needs only and such development should “safeguard the intrinsic character of the countryside and the environment and biodiversity within it”. In Local Plan 2030, the parish of Staploe is not classed as a key service centre, nor a rural service centre, nor a Small Settlement. It does not have Settlement Policy Area. Staploe is therefore classed as Countryside. Policy 7S – Development in the countryside allows development only for rural needs and states that: “All development in the countryside must: xi. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and xii. Not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others;” Therefore the proposal for a major urban development in this parish is in contravention of the Council’s own strategic policies 3S and 7S. Yellow: This proposal has strong advantages in terms of • Existing and proposed road infrastructure improvements. • Close to existing employment areas with good connections. • Opportunity to extend Wixams with access to the new railway station. • It would be relatively easy to improve connections into urban areas which would encourage sustainable transport. There would be opportunity to expand developments planned at Stewartby and to the south of Kempston. • The BMK Waterway Park closely follows this route. The BMK Waterway would provide blue-green environmental benefits for developments in this area to compliment and add to the benefits of the Forest of Marston Vale. The Waterway would also bring business and tourism directly into the heart of Bedford Town Centre. • The BMK Waterway would also provide a route (along the tow path) for pipework from the Rookery South Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) to feed district heating systems in developments along the route and into Wootton/Kempston. This would significantly improve the efficiency of the ERF and deliver cheap, green energy to housing developments. For the reasons stated under the Brown option I would not support incorporation of a western expansion to St. Neots as there are no advantages and many, many disadvantages. Pink: This proposal has many of the advantages of the Yellow option as it largely follows a very similar route. Until the location of the East West railway stations are decided it is difficult to plan for development, but it has been a key feature and success of the eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that they are so close to St. Neots station. This encourages walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Development close to new East West rail stations could provide similar benefits. If the new station is located near to Tempsford, then consideration of the land where Kier have just closed their Head Office at Tempsford should be made. The area could provide business and development opportunities. Orange: This proposal depends entirely on whether an additional East West Rail station will be built north of Bedford, and if so, it’s location. If close to Bedford then it might combine will with the Brown option to expand around the Bedford area. Development close to the station would bring similar benefits to the successful eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that are so close to St. Neots station. They encourage walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Grey: While this option might appear to be the “fairest” in terms of distributing development proportionately across the Borough, it will limit opportunities for employment, sustainable travel and development of strategic infrastructure. Red: It is clear from this proposal that these opportunities have been considered previously and that the issues with previous proposals have yet to be resolved. I do not know what these were but I expect that if these new settlements are located in the countryside then they will have many of the disadvantages that I have highlighted in the Brown option above for expansion west of St. Neots. Without doubt there would be a destruction of the countryside in direct contravention of the Councils strategic policies 3S and 7S.
Any settlements and developments to the North of Bedford would necessitate significant improvements in road and rail links, as the current transport links are already under severe strain. These infrastructure improvements, which would also include schools, doctors shopping and sporting and recreational facilities, would require substantial investment , and would lead to the creeping urbanisation of what is currently open rural countryside, and loss of agricultural land and countryside. Additional primary road networks, together with a train station, would need to be a prerequisite of a new settlement based growth; road access to Bedford from the A6 north of Bedford is already under significant strain, with rush hour traffic causing long queues and delays, despite the introduction of the new roundabout (which I believe has safety issues). Any upgrading of the road network would need to include safe cycle and walking lanes/access as a separate and more sustainable option than vehicle travel. High density housing running into many thousands in rural areas would be out of character and potentially create a small "town" outside Bedford Town.
The priorities should be to focus development on areas with brownfield sites, good transport infrastructure and links, close to employment centres and with adequate support services (schools, doctors etc). The Yellow and Pink options meet these criteria - the brown does too, but has some disadvantages in relation to urban density and sprawl compared to the others. The red and orange options have the potential to be good choices, but are more risky as they rely on others producing major infrastructure. The grey option should not be pursued - Local Plan 2030 has already allocated significant growth around the borough, and many villages have had to absorb significant increases in housing, which can only be accommodated outside their current boundaries. The additional development will put additional strain on the rural road network, and fragmented development will not provide the impetus and capability to deliver the upgrades that would be needed. These villages need time to deliver the change they have already agreed to.
I would support either the Brown or Yello option, on the basis that: * The East-West Rail development should be scrapped given the huge increase in working from home which will continue post-pandemic and the huge environmental impact on the countryside. * The A421 development will take advantage of the A428 improvements. * I would always develop brown-field ahead of green-field sites. * These two options are most in keeping with protecting the Bedfordshire countryside and preventing urban creep.
No answer given
No answer given
It makes sense to concentrate on this area and build the east-west rail link at Wixams. All other development should be on brownfield sites so that, in a town like Bedford residents can lead truly healthy and sustainable lives walking and cycling to most destinations without having to rely on the car.
Seriously England's farmland is being concreated over and sterilized indefinitely. The solution has to be building underground in disused sand and gravel pits left after HANSON has made His whack of cash and stashed it in the Cayman Islands. Its 15degC all year round 2 foot below ground so would also solve the emission's problem from housing. The only problem with this idea is road transport as it cannot be integrated with underground homes. A new form of "Rail Car" has to be developed for which I have the perfect invention, which only needs the injection of government tax revenue (PS there's currently no UK gov help for traditional engineering development it only takes the form of IT start up's).
The cursory analysis in Table 1 of the pros and cons of the potential locations for growth does not provide a sufficient basis for choosing a preferred option. First, the analysis as it stands is inconsistent. One example is the con comment for the Red option, “New settlement based growth”, that “There could be an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside”. This exact comment could equally apply to the Grey, Orange, Pink and Yellow options. More fundamentally however is the need to subject all location strategies to an analysis of how they could achieve the objectives of new policies along the lines of those we propose in answer to Question 1, namely; • Include new policies to ensure that the totality of new allocated development, when fully completed, would be sustainable in terms of natural resources, in particular water supply and treatment of waste and surface water, would maintain, and if possible improve, the level of natural capital, and would maintain, and if possible improve, the agricultural and food production assets of the borough. • Include policies to ensure that new allocated development is at least neutral, and if possible negative, in terms of its contribution to climate change. • Include policies to ensure that new allocated development is built to explicit standards that mitigate the potential impacts of future climate change.
Having reviewed the potential locations for growth, the Parish Council consider that the most appropriate way forward is to combine the following:- • Yellow – A421 based growth; and • Red – New settlement based growth at Wixams and Wyboston. The reasoning for the above preferred approach was due to the commitments in place for transport improvements together with the East/West Rail route, we consider that this presents the most suitable location for growth which can be facilitated with the appropriate infrastructure. To confirm, the Parish Council are opposed to any new settlements or indeed any increase in numbers and expansion of villages including Carlton in the north of the Borough. To reaffirm, there is no suitable infrastructure in place to cope with the level of growth required and furthermore, this would be to the detriment to existing communities and is unlikely to be achieved given the dispersed approach.
As per my response to question 3, there are a number of key strategic decisions 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. These decision 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. I think the plan needs to look holistically across the borough and apply green belts around some settlements; I am not aware that there are any green belts for Bedford Borough. Green belts would help protect urban sprawl and help to keep the characteristics of existing settlements to some degree. Policies 5, 6 and 7S in the adopted Local Plan 2020 should be upheld. Based on the information provided, I would favour combination of five development options as below:- 1. A new settlement – in terms of location, this needs to consider the Arc-wide spatial strategy for Oxford to Cambridge and the route for the East-West Railway route. I would recommend selecting a site with good transport connections as businesses tend to choose locations where there are good transport connections so it makes sense to have work and homes connected. I think a new settlement is important due to the potential number of homes required and as this is plan for up to 2040, a new settlement which takes longer to develop can take advantage of this long-term plan. The size of the settlement needs to be considered depending on its particular location and impact on nearby locations, but I would think that the settlement will need to be at least the size of Wixams to maximise benefits of this and so that it can absorb a good percentage of the planned need for new homes. 2 – 4 below:- All of the following to have a caveat on green belts and Policy 5,6 and 7S in the Local Plan 2020. If we spread out the houses required across these areas, it could achieve the advantages for each growth strategy and minimise the disadvantages for each of the growth strategy. 2. Pink – Rail Growth 3. Orange – Rail Growth 4. Yellow – A421 based growth 5. Brown – urban based growth – but I only support growth on brownfield cites and this need to be considered alongside repurposing the town-centre. Policies 10,11, 12 and 14 in the adopted Local Plan 2020 state that development will be for a mixture including both residential and retail. In light of COVID-19 and the large number of shops and restaurants closing in town centres, any development plans that include allocating retail space, need to consider the actual need for retail space, whether the amount of space allocated for retail should be reduce and whether it is needed at all. I do not support extending growth as far out as Rushden and St Neots. A green belt around Bedford and Kempston needs to be decided. Kempston has already merged in Wootton and sprawling towards Bromham. I do not support ‘Grey – dispersed growth’ as even if we only need the lower end of the estimated additional 5,000 dwellings this is too many to tag onto urban areas and villages without having a disproportionate weighting of the disadvantages as cited in the consultation information.
Development should be located close to good infrastructure, facilities, services and employment. This will encourage sustainable transport and healthy living. None of the solutions are ideal but all contain good elements, which I expect can be combined to find a suitable solution. My view on each of the potential proposed locations (given the major unknowns listed in my answer to Question 1) is as follows: Brown: This proposal has to be considered in the three distinct areas highlighted: 1. Bedford; 2. Adjacent to Rushden; 3. Adjacent to St Neots: 1. Bedford. It makes sense as highlighted in the Pros, to continue development around Bedford and Kempston to maximise the use of existing services, facilities, employment and sustainable transport. It will also support the maintenance and development of the Town Centre as people will naturally gravitate there. Use of brownfield land is a positive proposal, that avoids destruction of green spaces and countryside. 2. Adjacent to Rushden. I am unable to comment on this as I do not know the local area, other than it is so far from Bedford that people will naturally gravitate to Rushden and use their facilities and services. It is surprising that BBC do not know if Rushden would support this proposal! 3. Adjacent to St. Neots. This shows an area of urban development located to the west of St Neots. The area shown on the map appears to cover our parish of Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon. The area is open countryside with fertile arable farming interspersed with small rural hamlets. It is not brownfield or under-utilised land as indicated by BBC. I totally object in the strongest terms to this element of this proposal, for the following reasons; a. There is no infrastructure, no services and no facilities in the parish to support any new development. Reliance would have to be put on existing facilities in St. Neots, which are wholly insufficient to cater for the increased demand, or would have to include completely new infrastructure, services and facilities in the development. i. Roads. The roads are narrow, minor and rural. They are unsuitable even for the current low level of heavy goods vehicles (mostly farming related) and are dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. They receive little, if any, investment for maintenance and upgrade to modern standards. There are no roads suitable for any developments in the area. ii. Public Transport. There is no public transport in the area, other than one bus each Thursday allowing a 2 hour visit to St. Neots on market day. iii. Schools. There are no schools in the area. Children are transported by bus or private transport to other Bedfordshire villages and towns, e.g. secondary schools at Mark Rutherford, Sandy and Sharnbrook, so children experience up to a 45 minute journey to school, twice a day. There is insufficient capacity in the existing Bedfordshire schools at all levels to support even limited development in the area. iv. Some children use schools in St. Neots. Given the significant developments already taking place in St. Neots, even where additional schools are being, and are planned to be, built, there will be no capacity for any additional children from any development in Bedfordshire. v. Medical facilities. There are no doctors surgeries or pharmacies in the area. The nearest in Eaton Socon is already totally overwhelmed with a 3 week wait for appointments, so many people travel to use acceptable facilities further afield (e.g. Great Staughton, Kimbolton). vi. Post Offices. There are no post offices in the area. The nearest is in Eaton Socon. vii. Shops, pubs and other facilities. There are no shops, pubs and other facilities in the area. The nearest are in Eaton Socon/St. Neots. b. I have reviewed the BBC “Pros – advantages” and “Cons – disadvantages” for this proposal in relation to an urban development west of St. Neots and conclude that there are NO advantages with at least 18 major disadvantages, as follows: Bedford Borough Council stated “Pros – advantages”: • The area is situated 13 miles from Bedford and will receive no support from services, facilities and businesses in Bedford town centre. No advantage. • This is not an urban area – it is totally rural and has no infrastructure to support development. Residents almost exclusively use private transport. There is therefore no potential for residents to make sustainable travel choices (walking, cycling and public transport). No advantage. • As there is effectively no public transport in the area, any development would require a significant investment for public transport to become viable. No advantage. • The land in the area is not brownfield, nor is it underused. It is fertile farming land that supports a broad environmental diversity including some of the rarest species in the UK. No advantage. • Growth in this area would require major investment in infrastructure and services. far in excess of making use of, or expanding those in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas. No advantage. • There are very limited employment uses in the area and there would have to be significant investment in infrastructure, direct business creation and associated retail and leisure to create viable opportunities. No advantage. Bedford Borough Council stated “Cons – disadvantages”: • Growth in the area would be adjacent to St. Neots and beside the A1. Any development in Bedfordshire close to the A1 would be blighted by the significant noise and air pollution that the traffic on the road causes, especially if capacity increases in the future. Fertile farming land would be lost and growth would impinge on existing villages. Disadvantage. • Very high density schemes would be totally out of character and would negatively affect local distinctiveness. They would create noise and air pollution in an area of peace and clean environment. Disadvantage. • Growth would totally overstretch existing services and facilities in adjacent St. Neots and the existing local infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed. Disadvantage. • It is not known if St. Neots would support expansion in Bedford Borough adjacent to St. Neots. However given the following issues: o With the total lack of existing Bedfordshire infrastructure, services and facilities, reliance would have to be placed on St. Neots for these. o There are already serious bottlenecks to get into St Neots which would be significantly worsened by this proposed development. o Traffic into St. Neots would have to go through existing residential areas, creating congestion, pollution and traffic dangers within the town. o While Bedford would receive Infrastructure grants, Community Infrastructure Levy funds, s.106 payments, council tax income, Huntingdonshire would have to provide the amenities even though it is subject to its own pressures to produce more housing within its own area. Given these issues, it is unlikely that St. Neots would support this proposal. In fact it is absolutely surprising that such a proposal even be made without Bedford Borough Council apparently having the knowledge of St. Neots’ view on this! Disadvantage. • As noted under “Pros-advantages” above, there are no advantages to this proposal, so this rural location would not miss out on any perceived benefits associated with growth. • There are no details provided in terms of site sizes, so it is not possible to comment on whether restricted site sizes can restrict scheme options and opportunities to mitigate risk for investors. • Any development in this area will cause poor quality air issues. Disadvantage. I have identified further local “Cons – disadvantages”: • A high pressure gas pipeline runs through the area that will sterilise a broad swath of land and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • The parish is crisscrossed by multiple lines of pylons carrying High Voltage power cables. The health issues of living close to these powerlines is well known, so large swathes of land will be sterilised and limit development potential. Disadvantage. • Without significant investment in infrastructure, development in this area will encourage car use and create high levels of pollution. Disadvantage. • Development would require improved connections into existing urban areas in order to access facilities. These could be significant in having to cross the two physical barriers into St Neots – the A1 and the River Great Ouse. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside. Disadvantage. • Strategic-scale growth would have a huge visual impact on local landscapes, ruining its intrinsic character, valued walks, byways and tranquil retreats. Many people from the parish and St. Neots use this area for healthy pursuits such as walking and cycling. Disadvantage. • It would take a long time to plan and build a new settlement in this area, leading to short to medium-term housing supply shortages. Disadvantage. • Significant new infrastructure, facilities and services would be required to accommodate growth. This would include roads, schools, medical facilities, and shops. Disadvantage. • Development would lead to a loss of green environment and biodiversity. As examples, the area currently supports the following: o The extremely rare Bath Asparagus, found only in two locations in the UK - this parish and Bath. o Water voles, one of the 10 rarest mammals in the UK. o A large population of sky larks. o Barn owls and Little owls o Kingfishers o Large populations of buzzards and red tailed kites. o Roosting bats o Great crested newts. Development in this area would destroy many of the habitats enjoyed by these species. Disadvantage. • Due to the prevailing South Westerly winds and open countryside, the area enjoys clean fresh air. Development would lead to pollution of this clean air. Disadvantage. • There are no opportunities for employment in the area. Residents of a new settlement would have to travel for employment, which without a major investment in public transport, would be by car, increasing car use. Should residents work in London or Cambridge, they would have to travel to either St Neots station or a new East-West rail station, wherever that may be situated. The station carpark at St Neots is already full at 9am and has no capacity for residents from a new development in Bedfordshire adjacent to St Neots. Travel to these stations would again be by car, again increasing car use and leading to bottlenecks in access to St Neots via the town river bridge. Disadvantage. • Flood Risk. There is a flood risk from Duloe Brook – particularly west of the A1 near the junction with the B645. Disadvantage. • There are 16 grade II listed buildings and 3 scheduled monuments in the parish and large scale development would damage the setting of these historic buildings which are valued by the local community and as a national historic asset. Disadvantage. • Local Plan 2030, Policy 3S – Spatial Strategy. This strategic policy sets out the hierarchy for development, namely: Bedford; Wixams and Stewartby; key service centres; rural service centres. Any development in the countryside should be for local needs only and such development should “safeguard the intrinsic character of the countryside and the environment and biodiversity within it”. In Local Plan 2030, the parish of Staploe is not classed as a key service centre, nor a rural service centre, nor a Small Settlement. It does not have Settlement Policy Area. Staploe is therefore classed as Countryside. Policy 7S – Development in the countryside allows development only for rural needs and states that: “All development in the countryside must: xi. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and xii. Not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others;” Therefore the proposal for a major urban development in this parish is in contravention of the Council’s own strategic policies 3S and 7S. Yellow: This proposal has strong advantages in terms of • Existing and proposed road infrastructure improvements. • Close to existing employment areas with good connections. • Opportunity to extend Wixams with access to the new railway station. • It would be relatively easy to improve connections into urban areas which would encourage sustainable transport. There would be opportunity to expand developments planned at Stewartby and to the south of Kempston. • The BMK Waterway Park closely follows this route. The BMK Waterway would provide blue-green environmental benefits for developments in this area to compliment and add to the benefits of the Forest of Marston Vale. The Waterway would also bring business and tourism directly into the heart of Bedford Town Centre. • The BMK Waterway would also provide a route (along the tow path) for pipework from the Rookery South Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) to feed district heating systems in developments along the route and into Wootton/Kempston. This would significantly improve the efficiency of the ERF and deliver cheap, green energy to housing developments. For the reasons stated under the Brown option I would not support incorporation of a western expansion to St. Neots as there are no advantages and many, many disadvantages. Pink: This proposal has many of the advantages of the Yellow option as it largely follows a very similar route. Until the location of the East West railway stations are decided it is difficult to plan for development, but it has been a key feature and success of the eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that they are so close to St. Neots station. This encourages walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Development close to new East West rail stations could provide similar benefits. If the new station is located near to Tempsford, then consideration of the land where Kier have just closed their Head Office at Tempsford should be made. The area could provide business and development opportunities. Orange: This proposal depends entirely on whether an additional East West Rail station will be built north of Bedford, and if so, it’s location. If close to Bedford then it might combine will with the Brown option to expand around the Bedford area. Development close to the station would bring similar benefits to the successful eastern developments in St. Neots (Loves Farm and Wintringham) that are so close to St. Neots station. They encourage walking and cycling and reduction in car use for those travelling to work by train. Grey: While this option might appear to be the “fairest” in terms of distributing development proportionately across the Borough, it will limit opportunities for employment, sustainable travel and development of strategic infrastructure. Red: It is clear from this proposal that these opportunities have been considered previously and that the issues with previous proposals have yet to be resolved. I do not know what these were but I expect that if these new settlements are located in the countryside then they will have many of the disadvantages that I have highlighted in the Brown option above for expansion west of St. Neots. Without doubt there would be a destruction of the countryside in direct contravention of the Councils strategic policies 3S and 7S.
Urban based growth - due to Covid 19 there must now be offices in Bedford that could be converted into housing along with the very many empty retail sites. This would be much greener than building outside the town as it would minimise the need to travel. It would also enhance the vibrancy of the town by having people actually living there. A421 growth - this is to be supported because it combines the new housing with the road network and the new employment from the warehouses etc. East-West rail northern station growth with "significant potential for growth north of Bedford". At the consultation with East-West Rail I asked about a station north of Bedford and was told one wasn't planned. Bedford Borough has already given permission for the large development on Graze Hill with the lighted roundabout. The road system is already inadequate for the amount of traffic that uses the surrounding roads as a rat run from the A6. Any more development north of Bedford would mean even more people commuting by car. The electricity supply can be haphazard. There were 14 power cuts in 2019. The water supply can be a problem too with cuts or low pressure.
I am strongly opposed to Grey and Red, as they would disrupt the rural nature and landscape of North Bedfordshire and the Great Ouse Valley. I slightly oppose Orange as it would slow down journey times on the East-West rail line. Brown is my preferred option, but Yellow and Pink are also good.
The next best would be the yellow plan. Grey is a nightmare and red is not much better. Orange is very speculative and would surely be better to optimise pink rather than have two different rail based offerings? Building the number of dwellings mentioned would require upgrading existing facilities