Question 5
5.1 As noted in relation to question 4, Bedford Borough has already seen significant investment in infrastructure with the upgraded A421 along with a commitment to East West Rail and enhancements to the Black Cat roundabout within the next plan period. There are also improvements in nearby authority areas with the new A428 link, improvements to the A1 and proposed new station in the Tempsford area. 5.2 It is therefore important that it is not just infrastructure enhancements in the Borough which are considered when looking at the strategy. Understanding the plans in adjoining authorities and the improvements that they will bring is also important, particularly in the area around Wyboston which is close to Central Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire and areas of potential development. 5.3 It should be recognised that Wyboston as a settlement has the existing benefit of a good infrastructure network with its strategic positioning. This is a key consideration in helping to realise the potential of the development and aiding early delivery of units. It also facilitates integration into the existing community from the start. 5.4 As noted earlier, it will be important that even if the duty to co-operate is removed by the Government, cross boundary working remains an integral part of the plan making process to ensure coordinated plans are prepared and any future investment in infrastructure is targeted where it can have maximum benefit for the wider area. 5.5 In this regard, it will be important to talk to neighbours and key stakeholders about (for example) enhancements to the A1, M1 junction 1 and potential railway stations north and east of Bedford, each of which could free up development potential in Bedford Borough and the wider area.
Ravensden already has limited footway connection despite busy lanes. Resources are needed to install recreational paths on the field edge, not using the remaining verges. ( Verges critical as wildlife corridors). Growth will also require enhanced water and electricity infrastructure- at present demands the systems can be poor. New schools also need more space allocated. Green infrastructure essential.
It is important that the Local Plan makes provision for healthcare infrastructure and good access to healthcare services. The Trust is keen to work with the Council to develop an integrated sustainable transport strategy, promoting walking, cycling and public transport modes. The Hospital South Wing benefits from an accessible edge-of-centre location close to St Johns Railway Station. However, there is also a need to ensure safe and adequate car parking provision for those who need to use a private vehicle (and for emergency vehicles). Proposals for the future development of the Station area and the delivery of East-West Rail should include engagement with all local stakeholders, including the Hospital Trust. As noted in our response to Question 1, the Trust will support dedicated stakeholder engagement to patients, visitors and staff regarding public transport strategies.
Public services and sustainable transport infrastructure will remain the most significant required that will enable the Borough to achieve the requisite levels of growth. In dispersing growth across the Borough, facilities and services as schools, doctors, etc., are more readily secured incrementally in locations that can sustain them via developer contributions in a manner that does not overwhelm the communities that need such infrastructure. As aforementioned, the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper notes several rural settlements as containing an already appreciable level of sustainability in this context, and as such it would not be remiss to continue to expand on and improve existing provisions in areas capable of supporting them further. One key way to enhancing sustainable transport connectivity would be improve links to the major transport hubs within the Borough – at present, and in the future to thereby including the East-Wail Rail, such that the benefits of greater connectivity to places such as Oxford and Cambridge are better captured across the Borough instead of being centralized to strictly where the East-West Rail station will be. Doing so would present people and communities with the opportunity of living in vibrant, rural communities with exceptional employment opportunities not only limited to the Bedford and Kempston Urban area but to also include the wider, regional destinations. The major rural settlements of the Borough contain a reasonably integrated transport network across the Borough with the urban area, and as such reduces the need for strategic level new or improved infrastructure. It therefore makes sound planning sense to look towards further significant development in locations such as Clapham, particularly given that our client’s site is one of many located within the area of the village that is capable of supporting appropriate and proportional expansion, aligns with the predefined strategy of the draft Neighbourhood Plan and is well-placed to take advantage of the existing public transport network within the village and across the Borough – thus largely negating the need for further significant infrastructure prior to facilitating for the much needed housing growth.
6.1 The Council’s recognition of differences associated with the requirements for infrastructure arising from the different spatial options and implications for the delivery of growth is welcomed. The Council is already aware that options exist to deliver identified requirements as part of equally sustainable options to distribute growth within the rural area, particularly across Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres. This is especially relevant for Roxton, albeit the current Local Plan is silent on the settlement’s ability to support A421-based growth. 6.2 While the early delivery of infrastructure is supported as a key component for achieving sustainable growth, as set out in the Council’s consultation document, it is apparent that the current Local Plan 2030 is not founded on these principles. Specifically, this relates to the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans and the arbitrary totals for the apportionment of requirements adopted in Policy 4S. 6.3 The early delivery of local infrastructure requirements should be supported. This should be clearly set out through the policies and allocations of the Local Plan Review. Meeting the Plan’s additional requirement for housing growth should therefore be aligned with specific additional allocations that would secure local opportunities for sustainable development, in the event that these have not been secured via Neighbourhood Plans given the constraints imposed through the Local Plan 2030. As illustrated below, additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests at Roxton. 6.4 The Council has recognised opportunities for A421-based growth to reflect planned infrastructure improvements. This further reinforces the opportunity meet the requirements for growth in a sustainable manner at the Rural Service Centre of Roxton. Given the context outlined above it is clear that as part of this spatial option the delivery of contributions towards the increased housing requirement together with the other needs of development can be achieved in a co-ordinated and sustainable manner. 6.5 In terms of the Council’s advantages identified as part of the A421 option, including delivery of phased growth and recognising the role of existing and future planned improvements, it is essential that these opportunities are specifically supported via the policies and allocations of the Plan.
7.1 The Council’s recognition of differences associated with the requirements for infrastructure arising from the different spatial options and implications for the delivery of growth is welcomed. In previously testing options that identified that increased levels of development in the rural area that would be as sustainable the Council has acknowledged that opportunities exist to deliver these requirements as part of the ‘Dispersed’ growth strategy. 7.2 While the early delivery of infrastructure is supported as a key component for achieving sustainable growth, as set out in the Council’s consultation document, it is apparent that the current Local Plan 2030 is not founded on these principles. Specifically, this relates to the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans and the arbitrary totals for the apportionment of requirements adopted in Policy 4S. 7.3 Given this context it is clear that as part of the Dispersed spatial option the Council should not impose arbitrary limits to delivering further contributions towards the increased housing requirement together with the other needs of development where this can be achieved in a co-ordinated and sustainable manner. This is consistent with the advantages for this option identified by the Council, in terms of ensuring a greater number of communities observing the benefits of growth, in a manner not currently secured due to the limits of the Local Plan 2030.
Public services and sustainable transport infrastructure will remain the most significant required that will enable the Borough to achieve the requisite levels of growth. In dispersing growth across the Borough, facilities and services as schools, doctors, etc., are more readily secured incrementally in locations that can sustain them via developer contributions in a manner that does not overwhelm the communities that need such infrastructure. As aforementioned, the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper notes several rural settlements as containing an already appreciable level of sustainability in this context, and as such it would not be remiss to continue to expand on and improve existing provisions in areas capable of supporting them further. One key way to enhancing sustainable transport connectivity would be improve links to the major transport hubs within the Borough – at present, and in the future to thereby including the East-Wail Rail, such that the benefits of greater connectivity to places such as Oxford and Cambridge are better captured across the Borough instead of being centralised to strictly where the East-West Rail station will be. Doing so would present people and communities with the opportunity of living in vibrant, rural communities with exceptional employment opportunities not only limited to the Bedford and Kempston Urban area but to also include the wider, regional destinations. The major rural settlements of the Borough contain a reasonably integrated transport network across the Borough with the urban area, and as such reduces the need for strategic level new or improved infrastructure. It therefore makes sound planning sense to look towards further significant development in locations such as Oakley.
Roads, cycle ways, foot paths, access to the rail hubs, and adequate parking Green space within the Garden Cities Safe leisure facilities, community halls, swimming pools, gymnasiums, allotments Local schools, especially for below 11 years of age Medical facilities, clinics, GP surgeries, dental practices Local shops, banking facilities,
The current infrastructure supporting the rural communities is generally poor. Roads are often in need of repair and the service provided by public transport is unattractive. For example, the bus route from into Bedford is long and the timetable and the early finishing all still make driving into Bedford the preferred option for those who can and thus adding to traffic problems. Unless these severe shortcomings are addressed in a sustainable manner, any new development in the rural areas will make the current situation worse. Our experience leaves us with little hope that a solution will be found. New development, especially in the numbers required, cannot be based on increased car usage. Access routes into Bedford and traffic in the centre is already too congested. New developments either need to connect into a high-frequency existing, or, if not existing, feasible public transport network, or alternatively permit journeys by bike or on foot to access, work, school or leisure.
Infrastructure including high speed broadband and connectivity by road and rail are considered key considerations in the delivery of employment growth in Bedford Borough.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough. The allocation of larger sites can make a more substantial contribution towards much needed infrastructure.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough.
Infrastructure including education, health, transport, community facilities and open space are considered key considerations in the delivery of growth in Bedford Borough.
The Respondent considers that Green Infrastructure is key to the delivery of sustainable growth in Bedford Borough. Development at BRVP, and specifically the water sports lake, offers an opportunity deliver a substantial and high-quality area of Green Infrastructure that will benefit local people as well as those from further afield. The range of activities the water sports lake could offers would provide a monumental bolstering to the range of amenity opportunities available around Bedford and would be a resource that could serve to support other development throughout the area. The benefits and importance of delivering Green Infrastructure is arguably more pronounced than ever by virtue of the continuing trend towards home working. As this trend continues to gather pace, accessible Green Infrastructure within walking distance of people’s homes will be critical to meeting their day-to-day amenity requirements. The water sports lake at BRVP will provide an attractive and enjoyable amenity provision within walking distance of Bedford and which will greatly enhance activity choices for local people.
Please see our previous comments regarding infrastructure and different types of infrastructure.
As identified in the NPPF, larger residential developments including extensions to existing towns can support a sustainable community either with the development itself or in nearby larger towns to which there is good access. Whilst not exhaustive it is suggested the following infrastructure for new residential development is key to ensure new development is supported in a sustainable manner: • High quality public open space within and adjacent to new residential developments. • New highways infrastructure, including footpath and cycle connections in order to encourage genuinely sustainable growth which reduces the need to travel. • Opportunities for new public transport infrastructure. • Green infrastructure in the form of extensive planting and enhancements to existing landscape features in order to provide biodiversity and environmental net gain. It is considered site allocations should be carefully consider access to existing/committed infrastructure in the vicinity. This will provide the opportunity to increase viability of existing infrastructure and the potential to enhance facilities where there is a requirement.
This is dependent on need, consideration of environmental impacts, and a suitable evidence base. With respect to transport, we would expect to see appropriate modelling taking place to test scenarios. Access into Bedford from the north is currently near impossible at peak times and without an EWR station to the North to relieve pressure, the existing road system will likely grind to a halt. Infrastructure plans also need to consider changes in travel and work practices post-Covid 19.
The A428 Black Cat roundabout to Caxton Gibbet road improvement (A428 expressway) and East West Rail scheme serve as development enabling schemes for the land around Little Barford. However, development of a site requires more than just enabling development, there will be further infrastructure requirements in order to deliver development. Once the A428 expressway is complete, the likelihood is that the existing A428 will be de-trunked. As a result, the responsibility for the current A428 is likely to transfer to the local highway authority. When this occurs, there is a possibility that the hierarchy of highway will reduce, and this brings the possibility of development/highway improvements being introduced as it will not be part of the Strategic Highway Network. The benefits this could bring to the local community may be better access from St Neots to the A428 travelling east if improvements were introduced. The proposed new rail station between Sandy and St Neots as part of the East West Rail scheme enables future development. In order to maximise the opportunity for growth around the station further infrastructure will be required. The scale of growth required within Bedford Borough and across the Oxford Cambridge Arc is such that the following should inter alia accompany the review of the local plan, updated Bedford Borough Local Transport Plan, Infrastructure Delivery Plan and CIL Charging Schedule. Additionally, to unlock sustainable sites in order to maximise growth potential, BBC should consider what mix of mechanism eg developer delivery, compulsory purchase, BBC fulfilling a brokerage role, will be needed. CODE would also encourage BBC not to shy away from, infrastructure schemes that would require compulsory purchase. Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process and The Crichel Down Rules (July 2019) states that a compulsory purchase order should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest. With the proposed levels of housing growth contained in the Issues and Options consultation document coupled with the government’s ambition to deliver one million across the Oxford Cambridge arc by 2050 there is justified cause in the public interest to consider compulsory purchase in order to ensure these targets are met.
New large settlements (avoiding existing villages) with shops, doctors, schools, leisure facilities, open spaces etc. out of town with plentiful out of town parking, good road links and easy access to efficient, affordable and reliable public transport Highway improvement as heavy traffic is still using the High Street and many of the roads are in very poor condition potholes, broken surfaces etc… Emphasis on sustainable transport alternatives e.g. electric charge points, safe cycle and walking network Improvement to Broadband so that more people can work from home with a ‘virtual’ office, improvement to health, education and recreation facilities Reduce environmental damage and avoid affecting quality of life in rural villages.
5.1 A significant amount of infrastructure investment is planned for BBC, including the A428 improvements and the East West Rail, both within the next plan period. These are however cross boundary infrastructure provisions, and as such it will be vital that BBC liaises with the neighbouring authorities such as Central Bedfordshire Council, Huntingdonshire Council, Milton Keynes Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to ensure that a coherent and effective infrastructure strategy is developed. This will ensure that the benefits of the significant investment are maximised for all of the authorities. 5.2 At a more local level, it will be vital that the existing and proposed services and facilities are sufficient to meet the local requirements. Larger developments, such as the one proposed at Cotton End will enable a greater level of infrastructure to be provided as part of the development which would benefit new and existing residents.
6.1 A significant amount of infrastructure investment is planned for BBC, including the A428 improvements and the East West Rail, both within the next plan period. These are however cross boundary infrastructure provisions, and as such it will be vital that BBC liaises with the neighbouring authorities such as Central Bedfordshire Council, Huntingdonshire Council, Milton Keynes Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to ensure that a coherent and effective infrastructure strategy is developed. This will ensure that the benefits of the significant investment are maximised for all of the authorities. 6.2 It is essential that development proposed within the Local Plan does not prohibit the planned infrastructure coming forward. There is however sufficient comfort of the proposed locations for the infrastructure to ensure that they can come forward alongside the development proposed within the Local Plan. 6.3 At a more local level, it will be vital that the existing and proposed services and facilities are sufficient to meet the local requirements.
An adequate bus service, a new railway station if near a line – MML or EW and, if near the urban conurbation, a high quality segregated cycleway. These facilities must be delivered before significant housing growth is delivered.
More buses
6.0 QUESTION 5 – INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR GROWTH 6.1 The Council’s recognition of differences associated with the requirements for infrastructure arising from the different spatial options and implications for the delivery of growth is welcomed. In previously testing options that identified that increased levels of development in the rural area (principally Rural Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) that would be as sustainable the Council has acknowledged that opportunities exist to deliver these requirements as part of the ‘Dispersed’ growth strategy. 6.2 While the early delivery of infrastructure is supported as a key component for achieving sustainable growth, as set out in the Council’s consultation document, it is apparent that the current Local Plan 2030 is not founded on these principles. Specifically, this relates to the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans and the arbitrary totals for the apportionment of requirements adopted in Policy 4S. 6.3 The early delivery of local infrastructure requirements should be supported. This should be clearly set out through the policies and allocations of the Local Plan Review. Meeting the Plan’s additional requirement for housing growth should therefore be aligned with specific additional allocations that would secure local opportunities for sustainable development, in the event that these have not been secured via Neighbourhood Plans given the constraints imposed through the Local Plan 2030. As illustrated below, additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests Oakley and Sharnbrook. 6.4 In the case of Oakley, for example, the classification of the settlement as a Rural Service Centre also contributes to the strategy failing to address the future requirements of Lincroft Academy. Furthermore, the approach towards determining levels of growth in the current Local Plan does not identify specific constraints to further levels of growth in settlements including Oakley or Sharnbrook. 6.5 Given this context it is clear that as part of the Dispersed spatial option the Council should not impose arbitrary limits to delivering further contributions towards the increased housing requirement together with the other needs of development where this can be achieved in a co-ordinated and sustainable manner. This is consistent with the advantages for this option identified by the Council, in terms of ensuring a greater number of communities observing the benefits of growth, in a manner not currently secured due to the limits of the Local Plan 2030.
6.1 The Council’s recognition of differences associated with the requirements for infrastructure arising from the different spatial options and implications for the delivery of growth is welcomed. In previously testing options that identified that increased levels of development in the rural area (principally Rural Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) that would be as sustainable the Council has acknowledged that opportunities exist to deliver these requirements as part of the ‘Dispersed’ growth strategy. 6.2 While the early delivery of infrastructure is supported as a key component for achieving sustainable growth, as set out in the Council’s consultation document, it is apparent that the current Local Plan 2030 is not founded on these principles. Specifically, this relates to the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans and the arbitrary totals for the apportionment of requirements adopted in Policy 4S. 6.3 The early delivery of local infrastructure requirements should be supported. This should be clearly set out through the policies and allocations of the Local Plan Review. Meeting the Plan’s additional requirement for housing growth should therefore be aligned with specific additional allocations that would secure local opportunities for sustainable development, in the event that these have not been secured via Neighbourhood Plans given the constraints imposed through the Local Plan 2030. As illustrated below, additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests Oakley and Sharnbrook. 6.4 In the case of Oakley, for example, the classification of the settlement as a Rural Service Centre also contributes to the strategy failing to address the future requirements of Lincroft Academy. Furthermore, the approach towards determining levels of growth in the current Local Plan does not identify specific constraints to further levels of growth in settlements including Oakley or Sharnbrook. 6.5 Given this context it is clear that as part of the Dispersed spatial option the Council should not impose arbitrary limits to delivering further contributions towards the increased housing requirement together with the other needs of development where this can be achieved in a co-ordinated and sustainable manner. This is consistent with the advantages for this option identified by the Council, in terms of ensuring a greater number of communities observing the benefits of growth, in a manner not currently secured due to the limits of the Local Plan 2030.
6.1 The Council’s recognition of differences associated with the requirements for infrastructure arising from the different spatial options and implications for the delivery of growth is welcomed. The Council is already aware that options exist to deliver identified requirements as part of equally sustainable options to distribute growth within the rural area, particularly across Key Service Centres. This is especially relevant for Great Barford, albeit the current Local Plan is silent on the settlement’s ability to support A421-based growth. 6.2 While the early delivery of infrastructure is supported as a key component for achieving sustainable growth, as set out in the Council’s consultation document, it is apparent that the current Local Plan 2030 is not founded on these principles. Specifically, this relates to the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans and the arbitrary totals for the apportionment of requirements adopted in Policy 4S. 6.3 In the case of the Key Service Centre at Great Barford this is apparent in the context that neither the capacity for Primary School places, nor any other stated infrastructure requirement, is a constraint on levels of growth exceeding 500 units. Moreover, the Local Plan 2030 makes no provision for the delivery of upgrades that are identified as requirements, such as a new Medical Facility, which can be provided as part of development of our client’s Land at Willoughby Park. 6.4 The early delivery of local infrastructure requirements should be supported. This should be clearly set out through the policies and allocations of the Local Plan Review. Meeting the Plan’s additional requirement for housing growth should therefore be aligned with specific additional allocations that would secure local opportunities for sustainable development, in the event that these have not been secured via Neighbourhood Plans given the constraints imposed through the Local Plan 2030. As illustrated below, additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests at Great Barford that comprise land within a single ownership with a firm commitment to provide for components identified within a comprehensive Masterplan. 6.5 The Council has recognised opportunities for A421-based growth to reflect planned infrastructure improvements. This further reinforces the opportunity meet the requirements for growth in a sustainable manner at the Key Service Centre of Great Barford. Given the context outlined above it is clear that as part of this spatial option the delivery of contributions towards the increased housing requirement together with the other needs of development can be achieved in a co-ordinated and sustainable manner. 6.6 In terms of the Council’s advantages identified as part of the A421 option, including delivery of phased growth and recognising the role of existing and future planned improvements, it is essential that these opportunities are specifically supported via the policies and allocations of the Plan.
6.1 Committed infrastructure projects in Bedford Borough, such as East West Rail and upgrades to A421, will be delivered within the next plan period and will enable growth to be sustainably focused in these locations. 6.2 However, neighbouring authorities and key stakeholders should be consulted about potential enhancements to the A1, M1 junction 13, and railway stations north and east of Bedford. This will ensure that a cross-boundary approach is taken, and that available funding is targeted on those areas and projects which deliver maximum benefit for the wider area. Enhancements at the locations could enable growth in both Bedford Borough and the wider area. 6.3 However, it will also be important that the availability of services and facilities in individual settlements is properly assessed as part of developing the spatial strategy. Bedford and Kempston are highly sustainable locations in their own right due to the level of existing infrastructure, e.g. shops, employment and leisure provision. As a result, consideration should be given as to how existing infrastructure can be utilised when identifying sites for development as part of the growth strategy thereby ensuring that growth is focused on sustainable locations.