Question 4

Showing forms 91 to 120 of 280
Form ID: 1446

Pink – Rail growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1456

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

I do not want to suggest other locations but I do want to explain why I have chosen the above options. Brown - urban based growth - the best option to support services and facilities in Bedford town centre (desperately needed) while allowing the option of sustainable travel choices and the viability of public transport. Yellow - A421 based growth - already good road links and proposed improvements. Would appear to be potential for increased employment (all the proposed developments mentioned in section 3 above), allowing more sustainable housing provision close to employment opportunities. Pink - Rail Growth - combines benefits of Brown and Yellow options. Access to new Wixams rail station in addition to east-west road. The alternative Route B for the East-West rail should be reconsidered as this would be substantially less costly than the preferred Route E and have a less damaging impact on greenfield sites. I am strongly against the orange route. There are currently no plans for a railway station north of Bedford. The building of a station is completely outside the control of BBC and would seem unlikely to happen as the East-West rail Route E is already the most expensive option without the added expense of building a completely new station. Without the provision of a station any development north of Bedford would lead to completely unacceptable congestion on the already congested A6 approach to Bedford. I am also strongly against any additional development in villages which are already seeing huge increases in housing developments as required in the Local Plan 2030. The strain on local infrastructure - roads, sewerage, health centres, schools, shops and services is likely to be overpowering for small communities and that, coupled with lack of employment opportunities will lead to more dependence on car use. Red - new settlements - three of these sites are north of Bedford and would rely on the A6 for access to Bedford. As stated in my comments on the Orange option - the A6 could not cope with the extra traffic generated. There are no acceptable east-west roads and with the suggested station north of Bedford being unlikely, travel by rail means additional car traffic on the A6.

Form ID: 1465

Nothing chosen

Firstly I believe that any future plan should take due cognisance of the current and future plans of the regions road and rail infrastructure. Whilst the M1 is a major highway close to Bedford Borough, the A1, A421 and A6 are more significant to the Boroughs future housing developments due to their proximity. Looking forward, it is only a matter of time before the A1 is upgraded to handle traffic increases caused by the developments already occurring and planned along its route. Urban sprawl should be avoided at all cost. Preserving the identity of the Borough’s areas, villages and natural boundaries is important to the quality of life now and for generations to come. The appeal and identity of Bedfordshire life should be valued. We do not want to create areas of overpopulation and slums of the future. Future housing development should initially take advantage of the planned and existing road and rail infrastructure, developing it where necessary, and using it as the framework to develop future housing. Based on this premise, new settlements and small developments towards the Borough's north and northeast boundaries should be strongly considered. They should be sympathetic with the environment and existing housing in the area. Developments south of the A421 and off the A6 is almost inevitable but ribbon development along the length of the A6 should be avoided. Any future development along this route should be in consultation with other councils to avoid continuous housing into the northern outskirts of Luton. Brown field sites in and around Bedford should be a priority before development of the countryside is considered. Imagination together Joined up planning can be so beneficial to releasing brown field sites of opportunity The creation of the East West railway is one such opportunity. The current route of the existing Bedford/Bletchley line from the Retail Park into Bedford station, via St John’s Station, is a slow torturous route, typical of its age,that is wasteful of land. The one obvious alternative would be the East West Railway to join the Bedford / St Pancras line at a point south of Bedford and approach Bedford Station on the existing track. If necessary, additional track could be built on the east side of the existing track. If this idea was adopted the benefits gained would far outweigh the loss of small business sites which could be accommodated on some of the new industrial sites in the Borough. The gains are numerous including the release of lands (e.g. south of Prebend St; north of Britannia Rd. and south east of Ampthill Rd.) for development, improving the living environment for many and providing opportunities for road improvements (removal of bridges and new road layouts to ease congestion and pollution. The benefits to East West Rail would be reduced travel times, improved safety and revenue from land sales.

Form ID: 1466

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

ONLY In favour of pink option where it is associated with growth around Tempsford where East West Rail will cross the East Coast Main Line

Form ID: 1467

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

ONLY in favour of pink option which is associated with growth around Tempsford where East West Rail will cross the East Coast Main line

Form ID: 1483

Nothing chosen

The parish of Wootton over recent years has been the subject of significant development and whilst the current Local Plan 2030 does not allocate any additional dwellings in the Parish during the plan period, the settlement has been the subject of speculative and windfall developments. As officers will be aware, Wootton Parish Council is progressing with the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan which includes the provision of up to 145 homes which has been derived from the outcome of a Housing Needs Survey. The sites allocated within the Neighbourhood Plan (5 in total) have been derived from extensive community consultation reinforcing the aims of the Localism Act. Wootton Parish Council are opposed to any new development or planned allocation for both housing and employment within the parish. There is no suitable infrastructure in place to cope with the level of growth required and furthermore, this would be to the detriment to the parish. In light of the above, Wootton Parish Council would be opposed to any potential locations for growth which would look upon Wootton as a settlement for future growth.

Form ID: 1490

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

Anywhere along trunk roads with access to employment. Not in rural locations, spoiling the countryside.

Form ID: 1512

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

All these plans have significant issues. It should be clear that the regeneration of urban environments is the best option, followed by a measured and sensitive growth in areas of opportunity with respect to existing infrastructure. An emphasis must finally be placed on the quality and sustainability of developments. The quality of housing stock in Bedford is very poor especially when viewed as part of a wider infrastructure system. They are likely need much redevelopment for suitability of mid 21st century living before we even arrive at the new developments. Simply hoping for new train and road connectivity is not enough. The Council must act in a way to increase the standard of living in the county which will in turn invite strategic investment both from business and public bodies. At the moment Bedford is a low quality budget option, the race to the bottom is not one Bedford wishes to win by building another few thousand houses in crowded estates by property companies that are only invested for the short term.

Form ID: 1515

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

No answer given

Form ID: 1520

Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1525

Yellow – A421 based growth

The Yellow - A421 based growth model is preferred as a corridor to take advantage of the existing road network and planned improvements (e.g. Black Cat junction).

Form ID: 1542

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1557

Pink – Rail growth

My primary concern in responding to this review is to state my objection to major development of the Colworth site and, of lesser consequence but for the same reason, to that of the Thurleigh site (Red option). I consider that development of the Colworth site in particular will be of significant detriment to the village of Harrold, due to the constricted width of Harrold High Street. Unless a relief road round the back of Sharnbrook is built, the centre there will also be severely affected. The most direct route to Milton Keynes, and Olney, from Sharnbrook (Colworth) is through Harrold. Harrold High Street is severely narrowed in places and already badly congested at times with school buses, extra cars and huge Co-op delivery vans. The addition of many further vehicles from the new development would be unmanageable and significantly increase pollution levels. The route to Milton Keynes from Thurleigh through Harrold is a reasonable option. But other routes are also viable so, although development at Thurleigh would be undesirable, it wouldn’t be as much of a problem as that at Colworth. Of the 6 development options suggested I would favour primarily, the Pink, combined with elements from the others. My least favoured option would be development of the Colworth site from the Red option. Pink - Rail growth, would encourage growth having easy access to existing major north/south and east/west road and rail routes. Red - New settlement-based growth, not favoured for reasons given above.

Form ID: 1561

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

A combination of YELLOW (A421 based), PINK (Rail) and RED (New settlement), with growth focused on the A421 corridor to the west of Bedford provides an ideal opportunity to combine with road and rail infrastructure to support both housing development and new business/employment opportunities. The large brown field Stewartby site was not utilised in the current Local Plan 2030, so is a prime development area. Shared infrastructure with Bedford Southwest and Wixams would provide a long term growth zone that would also capitalise on the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and Expressway transport links. It would interface well with the East-West Rail scheme with a southern station. Rail and/or Bus shuttle could link a southern transport hub/park and ride scheme to support both town centre regeneration and Wixams.

Form ID: 1579

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Red – New settlement based growth

Clearly disadvantages with every option! Ultimately a pragmatic approach means a bit of everything, however: - grey dispersed growth sees damage to a much greater number of communities without the infrastructure to accommodate new housing - orange northern station is not in any external plan right now and very hard to see where the money and interest will come from, other than within the borough - pink rail growth highly desirable, but again needs support of external bodies (eg notable reluctance of Thameslink to do anything about Wixams) - red new settlement growth has merits of contained damage to the local environment and a greater likelihood of robust infrastructure being created; but huge and horrible impact on the local community in the chosen area

Form ID: 1588

Brown – Urban based growth, Grey– Dispersed growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1603

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

No answer given

Form ID: 1614

Grey– Dispersed growth

The proposed brown , would be in my area . We already have problems with poor sewage service , narrow roads , flooding . The infrastructure required to make this development possible would almost be impossible , it’s just not a suitable area for growth .

Form ID: 1615

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

No answer given

Form ID: 1631

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

The character of Sharnbrook and other north Bedfordshire villages will change irrevocably due to the current local plan; any further growth would completely destroy the surrounding countryside which is an integral part of the setting of each village

Form ID: 1643

Grey– Dispersed growth

Difficult to answer as they'll be different priorities depending on the size/speed of population increase, locations chosen, etc. However its important to learn from previous developments - eg, Wixams, Wootton, etc. Focus on expanding the community - not bricks & mortar.

Form ID: 1650

Grey– Dispersed growth

grey development Only as it would be in proportion to the size of the settlement and feel that most settlements can sustain some additional development without dramatically changing their nature.

Form ID: 1663

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth, Pink – Rail growth, Red – New settlement based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1669

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

It is in everyone's interests that new development is sustainable and thus any location must be well connected to Bedford using sustainable transport means (pink, orange and potentially red) as seen in the Garden City model. Dispersed (such as village growth; grey) and peripheral expansions (such as Great Denham; brown), do not work as they are too car reliant and do not attract loyalty to Bedford (it is just as easy to hop in the car and head to MK) which we must create to make the Borough stronger. Any new development must not be car based as it is not sustainable and will exacerbate existing traffic congestion. Fully support intensification around town centres and transport hubs. Rail based growth is a good idea so long as the rail line is put in at an early stage (to guarantee delivery and positive habit formation) and alternative, sustainable provisions, such as guided buses and cycle links are put in place. These settlements should also have their own facilities (such as local shops, parks and schools) delivered at an early stage.

Form ID: 1680

Brown – Urban based growth

No answer given

Form ID: 1696

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

If the east-west railway is actually going to happen, then the development should be around the railway stations. However, Wixams was planned over 20 years ago with a railway station and still hasnt got one. it was also planned to be 4 villages around a retail hub but actully only seems to have a garden centre, and this must be inhibiting the take up of Wixams extra care village, which is marvellous, but desperate to sell its properties - and is currently in the middle of nowhere. As mentioned in earlier Q2, the town centre should be reduced in size and new settlements based around retail parks become urban villages, this policy would also allow for new self sufficient settlements scattered around, and reduce need for new roads if less people need to travel because their communities are more selfsufficient.

Form ID: 1702

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

No answer given

Form ID: 1716

Brown – Urban based growth, Yellow – A421 based growth

It should be noted that the maps used to indicate the scope of these options are too low resolution for meaningful deeper study. This is a common fault with the presentation of mapping data by Bedford Borough and is unacceptable in today's digital environment. It is difficult to enlarge the maps to achieve a sensible match with features already in existence. Brown and Yellow are supported whilst Orange, Grey and Red are rejected. The remaining option Pink would be supported provided the rail route does not follow the northern option - which will not include a station to the East of Bedford so in itself could not support new housing along that corridor.

Form ID: 1722

Yellow – A421 based growth

Large developments should be built where they allow easy access to the main road network already in Bedfordshire such as the M1, A421 and A428. Constructing any development along the A6 corridor north of Bedford will significantly impact traffic on the A6, not to mention new traffic from developments between Rushden and Higham Ferrers where an additional 2500 homes are planned by East Northants Council. Bedford Borough Council Planning Department seems unable to recognise that large scale development is not sustainable in small rural villages. Or it just doesn't care eg. it even failed to decide the application, as regards 90 new houses at Odell Road in Harrold, within the required time scale, which has led to the land promoter Catesby Estates Ltd having a 'second bite of the cherry' which means there will now have to be a second Public Inquiry. Catesby have already produced plans showing that 90 houses in Odell are only the beginning of what they have in mind in this area. Property developers are only interested in making money. We would expect and should be able to rely on Bedford Borough Council to have higher aspirations for the residents of its county.

Form ID: 1726

Nothing chosen

Thurleigh