Question 12
More tree planting, including community orchards. Using brown field sites for most new buildings. Schools should have playing fields.
A considerable amount of development within the Borough has involved the loss of the most versatile agricultural land. Wootton Parish Council considers 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. In addition to the above, Wootton Parish Council considers the new Local Plan should also look to highlight the importance of access to green space and the open countryside contributing positively to the health and wellbeing of residents.
The River Great Ouse must be protected, not just from flooding issues, but also the views that could be lost. Although already in the policies, just wanted to highlight this.
No comment.
It seems clear that the current regulations can be circumvented by unscrupulous developers. With habitats being compromised before the start of development so there is nothing to be protected. The current fit as many houses into as small a space as possible trend also has a damaging effect on wildlife such as deer, foxes, hedgehogs etc as there are no spaces to allow for movement of many species. Likewise hedges should not, under almost any circumstances be destroyed as happens frequently in current developments as they are key to many species. Over intensive farming in the region and potentially harmful practices such as the use of human waste as fertiliser is also at odds with both the environment and the wellbeing of inhabitants. It is also clear that the planting of small trees offset the damage done to existing large trees is done in a very tokenistic manner. Wildlife corridors should be designated across the county (possibly in line with cycle routes?). Looking at almost every recent development in and around Bedford the standard of ecological welfare and wildlife provision is very poor indeed.
The existing environment policies are fairly comprehensive, but unlike new build house/employment development policies, do not seem to have the “teeth” to enforce them. Developers always skimp and err on the bare minimum they can get away with because catering for environmental impact eats into their profit margins. If you have regulatory policies, then they must be enforced with vigour, and not just pay lip service to an ideal. Developers must be held to account, no matter how difficult and time consuming it may be.
A significant challenge is how to deliver the required levels of housing without losing open space - farmland, existing low density housing etc. We should be protecting open space and the mental wellbeing which comes from living in low density housing - but national targets make this impossible. We must make protection of the natural environment a key part of any push back against further increases in housing targets.
People choose to live in rural areas for a specific reason, they are rural, lack artificial light and are naturally quiet with out the general noise of urban settings. The planning policies need to protect rural areas and not urbanise them by stealth
No comment
Any expansion to the existing St Neots or Rushden developments would be disastrous for each area; both can barely support their existing populations, and the infrastructure is, at best, inadequate in its current in desperate need of investment. Any development in these locations will lead to more use of personal vehicular transport, overwhelming the existing road network, which is already under strain. It also threatens ruining the countryside for the current residents in each location, and opens the floodgates to further development in the future, leading to urban sprawl and in-fill, eventually eroding what precious countryside the county had to spare anyway.
How does Bedford deal with all the waste & pollution generated, do we send waste to be processed/stored elsewhere, do we take waste from other parts of the country. We need far more aggressive targets to significantly reduce landfill waste, stop pollution of rivers/waterways/land & clean up/redevelop derelict/under used brown field sites. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, pollution is a even bigger danger than climate change - scientists gave us fossil fuels/plastic/agricultural pesticides & so their advice/guidance has be thoroughly questioned.
Air quality is very poor in Bedford, particularly around traffic congestion points at peak times. Diesel engines must be banned from the town centre. Speed limits need to be imposed and rigorously enforced. Noise pollution also needs addressing. Green spaces need to be expanded, especially planting more trees.
You have not yet incorporated protection for the River Great Ouse environmental qualities in this draft. Similarly no particular consideration has been incorporated into this draft of the need to promote access to quality Open Green Space and Countryside improve opportunities to develop Health and Well-being. It is an abdication of local responsibility to say that these issue are adequately covered in government guidelines. The Local Plan should build out from national guidelines - that is one of it's fundamental purposes.
Access to open green space for physical and mental well being
How can building enormous new developments in local villages possibly enhance the ‘natural environment’. Build a new Milton Keynes with the proper infrastructure not ruin village life.
Dont build on flood plains ! Keep areas of open spaces in and around new develpoments . Plan to use trees for screening and wildlife
It is important that in addition to Local Nature Recovery Strategies and the biodiversity net gain, there is promotion of ecological networks, since isolated islands of biodiversity tend to lose that biodiversity with populations of particular species insufficiently varied to adapt to challenges. The council needs to be very clear as to the specific, measurable improvement targets developers are expected to achieve. Water resources must now be central too, particularly water quality of the river Great Ouse, with regard to drainage and sewage , especially if housing and local population is to increase as stated.
It is important that in addition to Local Nature Recovery Strategies and the biodiversity net gain, there is promotion of ecological networks, since isolated islands of biodiversity tend to lose that biodiversity with populations of particular species insufficiently varied to adapt to challenges. The council needs to be very clear as to the specific, measurable improvement targets developers are expected to achieve. Water resources must now be central too, particularly water quality of the river Great Ouse, with regard to drainage and sewage , especially if housing and local population is to increase as stated. In addition Health and Wellbeing needs to be explicit as a goal, especially in terms of air quality, and there is a need for all to have practical access to high quality open green spaces and countryside, regardless of whether they have a car.
More assessment of the borough is required to ensure that the full impacts of potential developments are understood prior to their approval.
Wixams being built without health facilities unlike Wotton and Great Denham. Absence of the promised railway station in Wixams
there does not appear to be sufficient emphasis on the protection of the localised natural environment by which I mean -- eg despite existing guidance to developers and builders gardens are paved over, driveways are concreted without suds ,thus encouraging water run off. there needs to be a policy that would lead to the creation of strategic natural planted corridors for flora and fauna.
Air quality is a real issue and must be addressed. More street tree planting in new developments would help.
The policies will need to change to keep up with the principles identified within the Government’s 25 year Environment Plan and the Environment Act, such as Local Nature Recovery Strategies, Natural Capital and Net Environment Gain. It will be important to begin preparatory work as soon as possible to ensure this can be achieved. The current work on Natural Capital mapping across Bedfordshire will be useful in helping demonstrate its value in supporting the Local Plan process, and the LNP is keen to work with the Borough Council in ensuring the Local Plan effectively takes the understanding and lessons from this work and develops them further to create effective policy. It is possible that an SPD will need to be created to effectively take this forward. Such an SPD could also incorporate GI/access standards linked to health benefits. Again, the LNP would like to be involved in the development of such guidance. A higher status for the most important parts of the natural environment would also be welcomed, for example the Ouse Valley.
no comment
I am really concerned that it is the lack of specialist staff – an ecologist, landscape architect and urban designers – which results in insufficient protection of the natural environment, rather than the policies. The surveys produced by Applicant’s cannot always be relied on. Bat surveys are not undertaken – even though species are protected and highly vulnerable. The Borough is not ambitious enough with regard to the need for extensive tree planting – for climate change and to compensate for losses to disease. Some good street tree planting in the town – but no contact with parishes to support rural enhancement.
Currently, policy inhibits any housing growth beyond in the rural area which is not planned for as part of Neighbourhood Plans. Together, the implementation of a Settlement Policy Area which restricts rural growth and the increasingly limited options for growth within the Bedford and Kempston urban area lead to situation wherein currently adopted policies, unintentionally or otherwise, fail to sufficiently accommodate growth in a manner that is commensurate with Paragraph 170 of the NPPF. Paragraph 170(a) states that Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils. Paragraph 170(b) requires that those policies and decisions recognize the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland. The terminology used above is very clear in that non-valued landscapes should not be protected and instead be recognized. A number of policies across the country which have come into conflict with the NPPF for blanket protection of the countryside have been ruled inconsistent with Paragraph 170(b) for this reason. Whilst this many not be the case here, it is evident nonetheless, that the scope within which one can bring forward development to enhance the vitality and wellbeing of local communities is extremely limited despite the sustainability credential of some of the more major rural settlements in the Borough. Certainly, windfall sites should they come forward never intend to compete with allocated / Neighbourhood Plan sites. They provide housing growth in addition the minimum levels of growth that the Borough must deliver and, where they constitute sustainable development, they often fall foul of very technical considerations such as Settlement Policy Area. Whilst relevant for considering when specific policies (such as Policy 7S) may come in to play for applications and proposals, it has had the inadvertent consequence of severely restricting levels of growth that may be in line with Paragraph 170(b), but will fail to completely account for other policies, to include that of Paragraphs 77 and 78 on rural growth which do not specify that an identified need (as set out in Policy 7S0 is required to ensure rural vitality. This is particularly so when this Council must duly take account the planned levels of growth for the Borough due to revisions in Standard Methodology; issues with affordability; the Ox-Cam Arc; and even the specific context within with this Government views proposals that boost the supply of housing even when authorities demonstrate a 5YHLS. These are all matters expanded on below.
Currently, policy inhibits any housing growth beyond in the rural area which is not planned for as part of Neighbourhood Plans. Together, the implementation of a Settlement Policy Area which restricts rural growth and the increasingly limited options for growth within the Bedford and Kempston urban area lead to situation wherein currently adopted policies, unintentionally or otherwise, fail to sufficiently accommodate growth in a manner that is commensurate with Paragraph 170 of the NPPF. Paragraph 170(a) states that Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils. Paragraph 170(b) requires that those policies and decisions recognize the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland. The terminology used above is very clear in that non-valued landscapes should not be protected and instead be recognized. A number of policies across the country which have come into conflict with the NPPF for blanket protection of the countryside have been ruled inconsistent with Paragraph 170(b) for this reason. Whilst this may not be the case here, it is evident nonetheless, that the scope within which one can bring forward development to enhance the vitality and wellbeing of local communities is extremely limited despite the sustainability credential of some of the more major rural settlements in the Borough. Certainly, windfall sites should they come forward never intend to compete with allocated / Neighbourhood Plan sites. They provide housing growth in addition the minimum levels of growth that the Borough must deliver and, where they constitute sustainable development, they often fall foul of very technical considerations such as Settlement Policy Area. Whilst relevant for considering when specific policies (such as Policy 7S) may come in to play for applications and proposals, it has had the inadvertent consequence of severely restricting levels of growth that may be in line with Paragraph 170(b), but will fail to completely account for other policies, to include that of Paragraphs 77 and 78 on rural growth which do not specify that an identified need (as set out in Policy 7S0 is required to ensure rural vitality. This is particularly so when this Council must duly take account the planned levels of growth for the Borough due to revisions in Standard Methodology; issues with affordability; the Ox-Cam Arc; and even the specific context within with this Government views proposals that boost the supply of housing even when authorities demonstrate a 5YHLS. These are all matters expanded on below.
Two aspect of access to the countryside need attention; 1, litter, town folk seem to think it is acceptable to dump litter in the countryside. Educate children and increase maintenance of litter bins. 2, motorcyclists have no regard for pedestrians or horses on foot paths and bridleways. Ban motor driven traffic from footpaths and bridleways
It is not considered that existing planning polices fail to cover important national or local issues on the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.
It is not considered that existing planning polices fail to cover important national or local issues on the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.