Question 12
No comment.
The real issue is not whether or not the existing policies protect and enhance the natural environment, but how they are applied and weighed against other considerations in specific planning proposals.
• Wildlife protection sites to be truly effective need to be surrounded by open fields or woodland and therefore need to be protected from adjacent development. The area surrounding them classified as Protection under government classifications. Also there should be search for more areas to classify as wildlife protection areas.
Current policies do not protect or enhance the natural environment. All the current proposals in this consultation document point to growth at all costs, particularly in the countryside. This is completely wrong: stop developing in the villages and on greenfield sites until all the brownfield land has been re-developed. Regenerating brownfield land in a sustainable manner should be the entire focus of the plan.
no view
• Current policies do nothing to protect and enhance the River Great Ouse and valley area – the “jewel in Bedford Borough’s crown” • Health & Wellbeing - The importance of access to quality Open Green Space and Countryside in terms of Health & Wellbeing has not been considered
Keep building close to town and leave countyside as Bedford's lung.
More areas should be given designations that preclude housing development.
It is my opinion that the existing planning policies should be strengthened to discourage developers from considering open spaces which make a valuable contribution to the local area from being suitable for any form of development. Some developers will see Urban Open Gaps as an ideal location to promote residential development on the basis that it is sustainable to provide additional housing on areas abutting existing built development. It is my opinion that the existing policies in the Plan do not afford sufficient protection to these areas and that the Council should consider upgrading some of these areas and strengthening the policies to prohibit development on these areas. The natural environment is important for local wildlife as well as providing both formal and informal health and wellbeing opportunities for local residents. The natural environment should not be seen as an easy target for developers nor an easy way to provide additional housing.
I support all measures to protect and enhance the environment and biodiversity (especially Policies 42S and 43). I would expect BBC to enhance these and all other environmental policies to at least meet, if not exceed, any new duties set out by Government to improve nature, including a 10% biodiversity net gain requirement on new development. The Brown proposal for a new urban settlement west of St. Neots would cause major environmental and biodiversity destruction on a huge scale and would be in contravention of your policies to protect the natural environment. In terms of the new Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to update the flood zones across the borough, it should be recognised that the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway will have a major part to play in flood relief and risk management along it’s route between Bedford and Milton Keynes.
You can only protect what you know about and the MAGIC maps provided by the environment agency show that 90% of the countys land are has not been surveyed. A county wide environmental survey is needed.
Once again, Staploe, Duloe, Honeydon under the Brown option are not urban areas as stated in your docunmentation. They are small hamlets and NOT underused urban areas. In these areas are no mains sewers or gas supplies and very rural! There a number of protected species including rousting bats, owls, grass snakes and the star of bethlehelm that will lose their habitat. Its abundantly clear, no one from the council has visited this area, beacuse if they had, they certainly would not of referred to it as "urban"
Brown - Urban based growth Commenting on the extension to St. Neots: • The area shown on the map appears to cover the parish of Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon. This is an area of fertile farmland interspersed with small rural villages. • This is not an urban or brownfield area at all. • The A1 provides a physical barrier between the town of St. Neots and rural Bedfordshire. 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. • There is no infrastructure in the area: o 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. o Public Transport. There is no public transport in the area, other than one bus each Thursday allowing a 2 hour visit the St. Neots on market day. o 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 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. o Some children use schools in St. Neots. Given the significant developments already taking place in St. Neots, where additional schools are being, and are planned to be, built, there is no capacity for any additional children from any development in Bedfordshire. o 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) o Post Offices. There are no post offices in the area. The nearest is in Eaton Socon. o Shops, pubs and other facilities. There are no shops, pubs and other facilities in the area. The nearest are in Eaton Socon/St. Neots. o Any new development in this part of Bedfordshire would either have to rely on existing facilities in St. Neots, which are wholly insufficient to cater for the increased demand, or would have to include complete new infrastructure, services and facilities in the development. 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. This is not an 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). This is not an advantage. • As there is effectively no public transport in the area, any development would require a significant investment for public transport to become viable. This is not an 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. This is not an advantage. • Growth in this area would require significant investment in infrastructure and services, far in excess of making use of, or expanding those in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas. This is not an 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. This is not an advantage. Other identified Pros – advantages: • None Bedford Borough Council stated Cons – disadvantages: • Growth in the area would be adjacent to St. Neots and beside the A1. Properties would be blighted by the noise and pollution from the road, especially if capacity increases in the future. Fertile farming land would be lost and growth would impinge on existing villages. This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. • Growth would totally overstretch existing services and facilities in adjacent St. Neots and the existing local infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed. This is a disadvantage. • It is not known if St. Neots would support expansion in Bedford Borough adjacent to St. Neots, but given the existing total lack of infrastructure, services and facilities and the reliance that would be placed on St. Neots for these, 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! This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. Other locally identified Cons – disadvantages: • A high pressure gas line runs through the area that will limit development potential. This is a disadvantage. • Without significant investment in infrastructure, development in this area will encourage car use and create resulting levels of pollution. This is a disadvantage. • Development would require improved connections into existing urban areas in order to access facilities. This is a disadvantage. • Strategic-scale growth would have a huge visual impact on local landscapes. This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. • Development would lead to an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside. This is a disadvantage. • Significant new infrastructure would be required to accommodate growth. This is a 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 area 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. This is a 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. This is a 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 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. This is a disadvantage.
Commenting on the extension to St. Neots: • The area shown on the map appears to cover the parish of Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon. This is an area of fertile farmland interspersed with small rural villages. • This is not an urban or brownfield area at all. • The A1 provides a physical barrier between the town of St. Neots and rural Bedfordshire. 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. • There is no infrastructure in the area: o 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. o Public Transport. There is no public transport in the area, other than one bus each Thursday allowing a 2 hour visit the St. Neots on market day. o 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 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. o Some children use schools in St. Neots. Given the significant developments already taking place in St. Neots, where additional schools are being, and are planned to be, built, there is no capacity for any additional children from any development in Bedfordshire. o 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) o Post Offices. There are no post offices in the area. The nearest is in Eaton Socon. o Shops, pubs and other facilities. There are no shops, pubs and other facilities in the area. The nearest are in Eaton Socon/St. Neots. o Any new development in this part of Bedfordshire would either have to rely on existing facilities in St. Neots, which are wholly insufficient to cater for the increased demand, or would have to include complete new infrastructure, services and facilities in the development. 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. This is not an 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). This is not an advantage. • As there is effectively no public transport in the area, any development would require a significant investment for public transport to become viable. This is not an 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. This is not an advantage. • Growth in this area would require significant investment in infrastructure and services, far in excess of making use of, or expanding those in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas. This is not an 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. This is not an advantage. Other identified Pros – advantages: • None Bedford Borough Council stated Cons – disadvantages: • Growth in the area would be adjacent to St. Neots and beside the A1. Properties would be blighted by the noise and pollution from the road, especially if capacity increases in the future. Fertile farming land would be lost and growth would impinge on existing villages. This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. • Growth would totally overstretch existing services and facilities in adjacent St. Neots and the existing local infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed. This is a disadvantage. • It is not known if St. Neots would support expansion in Bedford Borough adjacent to St. Neots, but given the existing total lack of infrastructure, services and facilities and the reliance that would be placed on St. Neots for these, 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! This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. Other locally identified Cons – disadvantages: • A high pressure gas line runs through the area that will limit development potential. This is a disadvantage. • Without significant investment in infrastructure, development in this area will encourage car use and create resulting levels of pollution. This is a disadvantage. • Development would require improved connections into existing urban areas in order to access facilities. This is a disadvantage. • Strategic-scale growth would have a huge visual impact on local landscapes. This is a 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. This is a disadvantage. • Development would lead to an adverse impact on local landscapes, loss of agricultural land and countryside. This is a disadvantage. • Significant new infrastructure would be required to accommodate growth. This is a 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 area 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. This is a 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. This is a 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 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. This is a disadvantage.
Building houses does not enhance or protect the natural environment so I'd like to see treelined streets, parks at regular intervals and sustainable travel between settlements.
It is my opinion that the existing planning policies should be strengthened to discourage developers from considering open spaces which make a valuable contribution to the local area from being suitable for any form of development. Some developers will see Urban Open Gaps as an ideal location to promote residential development on the basis that it is sustainable to provide additional housing on areas abutting existing built development. It is my opinion that the existing policies in the Plan do not afford sufficient protection to these areas and that the Council should consider upgrading some of these areas and strengthening the policies to prohibit development on these areas. The natural environment is important for local wildlife as well as providing both formal and informal health and wellbeing opportunities for local residents. The natural environment should not be seen as an easy target for developers nor an easy way to provide additional housing.
I support all measures to protect and enhance the environment and biodiversity (especially Policies 42S and 43). I would expect BBC to enhance these and all other environmental policies to at least meet, if not exceed, any new duties set out by Government to improve nature, including a 10% biodiversity net gain requirement on new development. The Brown proposal for a new urban settlement west of St. Neots would cause major environmental and biodiversity destruction on a huge scale and would be in contravention of your policies to protect the natural environment. In terms of the new Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to update the flood zones across the borough, it should be recognised that the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway will have a major part to play in flood relief and risk management along it’s route between Bedford and Milton Keynes.
The policies could do more to facilitate the recreational benefits and opportunities of the River Ouse, particularly the Upper Ouse to the west of Bedford.
The East-West rail link is completely at odds with the environmental agenda; it will not only destroy green-field countryside, both whilst being built and beyond, but also promotes a mode of transport that doesn't actually take people to where they need to go. There is no longer a need to move the vast numbers of people back and forth across the countryside. Much better to make use of the A428 improvements with Electric Vehicles, including EV buses and coaches, and to improve the Borough's broadband infrastructure as both will have a minimal impact on the environment.
The Draft Vision mentions the importance of sustainable food production. Class 1 agricultural land, close to the River Great Ouse, is being reclassified to Class 3 for gravel extraction and development. Planned development to the north of Bedford, along the Preferred Route E of the East West Rail Line, will cut through Class 2 Agricultural Land dividing farms and making farm businesses less sustainable. The best way to encourage sustainable food production is to reduce food miles by using locally produced food.
Existing protection for the countryside is inadequate and should be at the forefront of the local plan. The worst thing is to build on more greenfield sites when there is brownfield land available.
Close engagement and working with the relevant stakeholders (Natural England, Environment Agency and the Wildlife Trust) is critical to maximise opportunities for securing net biodiversity gain and/ or the protection of sensitive natural environmental assets in association with new developments. In particular understanding the future impact of development in the north of the Borough in relation to the Upper Nene Gravel Pits Special Protection Area/ Ramsar site will be critical.
We have vast sterile 1000 acre farm's out towards the west of Bedford, why not allow village's less than 400 homes if we are stuck with traditional housing. This word SUSTAINABLE is destroying Bedfordshire. Everything being crammed in and around train line's, no one in planning envisioned the advent of the electric car, or has anyone in planning heard of Air Fuel Synthesis where Co2 is pulled from the atmosphere and reacted with Hydrogen to make Ethanol from wind generation. To me the quality of life is at stake, why are the most expensive homes in the smaller villages.
We refer you to Cardington Parish Council’s response to planning application 20/00901 where we cite 7 existing planning policies that we believe the application contravenes. This is in addition to planning permission already having been given to the site area extending into the Rural Area, contrary to existing planning policy.
A considerable amount of development within the Borough has involved the loss of the most versatile agricultural land. The National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, protecting and enhancing soils. We consider that this is an issue that has not been adequately addressed within the existing Local Plan (Policy 46S) and should be strengthened to avoid the further loss of higher quality agricultural land in the Borough.
There are no policies which state a target for tree planting. Policy 36S: Forest of Marston Vale Forest Plan and the preceding section, starting 8.19 refer to a 40-year vision and ‘extensive tree planting’ to transform the landscape. I applaud this vision, but the policy is does not have any yearly targets for tree planting. We need yearly targets on tree planting to ensure this vision becomes a reality and also we need to act urgently in respect of climate change. We should also have targets or guidance for developers on tree planting for new sites allocations and redevelopment of sites. Policy 4S, 5S, 6 and 7 do not take into account the following clauses from the National Planning Policy framework, which I regard that they should:- 180. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. 181. Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas
I support all measures to protect and enhance the environment and biodiversity (especially Policies 42S and 43). I would expect BBC to enhance these and all other environmental policies to at least meet, if not exceed, any new duties set out by Government to improve nature, including a 10% biodiversity net gain requirement on new development. The Brown proposal for a new urban settlement west of St. Neots would cause major environmental and biodiversity destruction on a huge scale and would be in contravention of your policies to protect the natural environment. In terms of the new Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to update the flood zones across the borough, it should be recognised that the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway will have a major part to play in flood relief and risk management along it’s route between Bedford and Milton Keynes.
More weight should be given to neighbourhood plans when it come to important local issues. The people who live there know best.
The protection of historic buildings, landscapes and environments The protection of agricultural land The provision of beautiful new buildings
Since we have a river running through the town that captures water from a large area outside, as well as within BBC, what are the possibilities of working with communities up and down stream to have a holistic approach to reducing the risk of flooding? Seems pointless to have communities in a race to build higher flood defences, just to push the risk further downstream. Is there any joined up planning to address this?