Question 13
Healthy communities should have a mix of age ranges, income levels and cultural difference, all able to work, shop and socialise within a limited village context, removing the need for private motorised transport. Older peoples sheltered accomodation is very important in this, so that all ages can respect each other by knowing each other, and that older people can move into suitable accomodation within their own community; this also provides employment opportunities in a locality. Very important to keep streets clean and free of beggars and harrassment so people feel safe and see a pleasant environment surrounding them.
‘Healthy food environments’ . Constant snacking by the young promoted by the supermarkets and television is a big problem. No wonder the population is becoming fatter and fatter with all the inevitable consequences.
Keep building playing fields and youth centres . Get young children outside playing games . Invest in youth programs and oppurtuinites for young people. Build Skate parks, bikes parks, bicylce routes . Healthy chilrden should be a prioirty they are the future.
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.
No
Safe off road walk and cycleways which are not seclude but remain visible would encourage people to exercise more and leave their vehicle behind.
Again we welcome the importance placed upon the natural environment, in particular the importance of access to green/open spaces. The current Natural Capital mapping project the LNP is working on with the Borough Council includes an assessment of the natural capital value of accessible greenspace and where deficiencies currently exist. The approach can also be used to predict deficiencies in proposed growth, and therefore the LNP is keen to continue to work with the Borough Council and others to develop this approach, including the need to highlight the links to health and wellbeing and the role played in helping reduce social inequalities. Local food production also needs greater consideration, particularly in terms of reducing food miles and creating more local supply chains.
Additional grants should be available to enable enhance, develop and improve playing fields in rural villages as the upkeep is expensive.
Hallam considers that the Local Plan will need to be cognisant of the wider changes to the planning system that are emerging, including the Standard Methodology for housing growth.
Tranquility – the NPPF allows for the Borough to assess and protect tranquil areas. Greater protection required for veteran and orchard trees.
BDW welcome the opportunity to engage with Bedford Borough Council at an early stage in the plan making process. It is BDW’s view that further consideration should be given to the Local Housing Needs Assessment, the Borough’s location within the heart of the Oxford- Cambridge Arc and implications that the Government’s growth ambitions will have on the Borough. Should the Council require any input from Developers in respect of delivery of homes and viability, BDW would be willing to participate. If you have any questions, or require any clarification on the content of this letter please do not hesitate to contact me on the below email address.
The Local Plan Review fails to adequately consider this Borough’s Local Housing Need as derived from the Standard Method, which in any event is undergoing consultation for proposed changes to its methodology in line with increased levels of planned growth by central Government, in addition to the full implications of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. This is prior to accounting in any way for the Government objective of significantly boosting the supply homes as per paragraph 59 of the NPPF. Presently, the standard method falls short of meeting the 300,000dpa which the Government has said should be the national annual housing target. The target of building 300,000 homes a year on average in the UK was and remains the founding principle of the Government’s ‘Standard Method’ which was implemented as part of the revised National Planning Policy Framework. This was an effort to standardise house-building targets across the country in an effort to genuinely address the housing needs of real people in real need now. This is now being addressed by the government going forward as evidenced in the White Paper “Planning for the Future” and “Changes to the Current Planning System” which expressly sets out that the government will review the formula for calculating Local Housing Need such that it corresponds to instead to a 337,000 dpa figure (twice the average level of growth in this country). No doubt this Authority is fully considering the implications of the White Paper and revisions to the SM, and as a matter of course will duly consider whether there will be a need to transfer over toward a new form of development plan that considers the predefined “growth, renewal and protection” areas envisaged for new Local Plans in future. Nonetheless, and question that is relevant here and now is that the SM revisions invariably means LPAs across the country will need to deliver more housing against future LHN than what it is identified as at present, including Bedford Borough. This is against the context that Bedford currently faces increasing house prices and increasing monthly rents all set against a backdrop where rates of development has fallen below planned levels. In respect of house prices, the average house price paid in Bedford is £300,477. When compared to an average income of £29,411, an average priced home in Bedford costs 10 times more than an average household earns, meaning affordability is a significant barrier to many people wishing to acquire a suitable home. The lower quartile house price ratio stands at a similarly staggering 10.61 times household income and means that many people at the lower end of the market are pushed into the private rented sector, often with poorer living conditions and insecure tenancies. This situation is fundamentally against Government ambitions to make housing more affordable for everyone, which is why affordability remains a key adjustment factor in the Standard Method, and against ever increasing house prices (despite even the consequences of the current pandemic) it is only reasonably expected that the Council’s LHN will continue to increase in future years due to this factor alone. Coupled with the need to accommodate for future growth as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, which itself aspires to up to a million homes are delivered in the Arc by 2050. Most of the arc is free from constraints like Green Belt, AONB or European protected habitats. Housing delivery on a much larger scale will be planned for in this area. The delivery of new homes in this area is a matter to which significant weight should be attached given this vision for growth by Government and it is unacceptable to this Council to be seeking to meet need as low as potentially “800” homes per year on the basis that the Ox-Cam Arc-wide spatial strategy not being agreed. The East-Wail Rail is progressing in a timely fashion – such that this Council must consider how to best capture the economic benefits of it – is evidence enough that despite there being no clear guidance at present on what is intended for the Arc in terms of housing, these are expected in the very near future and most certainly within the proposed plan period. Current housing targets are at 970 dwellings per annum, shooting to well above 1,000 dpa benchmark due to the Standard Method alone. The supposition that this Council need not plan for a housing figure over and above its own requirement is nonsensical against the above context, and when viewed in the additional context of paragraph 59 of the NPPF. Para 59 sets out ambition for the significant boosting of the supply of homes in this country – an objective which can only be achieved once the minimum levels of growth has been accommodated for. It is an ambition that is further reflected in a recent appeal decision taken by the Secretary of State relating to Land Off Audlem Road / Broadley Lane, Stapeley, Nantwitch (ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2197532), and Land off Peter De Stapeleigh Way, Nantwich (ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2197529). Within the decision letter (DL) at DL28, the SoS accords significant weight to the benefit of delivering new market housing thereby significantly boosting the supply of homes as per paragraph 59 of the NPPF. This is notably in the context of the relevant LPA being able to demonstrate a deliverable five-year supply of housing land. This local authority is also once such authority that claims to have a five-year housing supply of land. Yet, it will flounder and fail to secure even the minimum levels of housing growth over the proposed plan period until 2040 unless it duly accounts for the increasing unaffordability of housing that is explicitly due to such low planned levels of growth, the Ox-Cam Arc, the objective of boosting the supply of homes, and the overall incoming revision to national policy which revises national housebuilding targets to double the average housebuilding rate in the country. Plainly, these are all matters that relevant now and must be accounted for as part of this review.
It is a good start, keep the population involved.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
There are not considered to be any matters addressed in new Government guidance which is not adequately covered by existing policies or referenced within the Issues and Options Consultation document. Further matters may come to light upon publication of the first detailed draft of the Local Plan Review.
Further large scale development within or adjacent to Renhold should not be considered because the 2030 plan identified no need or allocation for extra housing in the village. We must be fully protected from urban sprawl and coalescence. Local health facilities are already overstretched and there is limited sheltered accommodation for elderly and vulnerable. There are no continuous footpaths or cycle ways in the old part of the village and speeding and volume of traffic, in spite of VAS, speed cameras and TRO, continue to endanger lives and undermine tranquility and amenity.
13.1 We support the work being undertaken in relation to the proximity of food outlets and schools and other locations for example where young people congregate. As stated in the consultation paper, any policy must be fully justified to ensure it is relevant and beneficial to Bedford Borough.
14.1 We support the work being undertaken in relation to the proximity of food outlets and schools and other locations for example where young people congregate. As stated in the consultation paper, any policy must be fully justified to ensure it is relevant and beneficial to Bedford Borough.
No
Bedford will benefit from a new town centre transport interchange What does this mean? Where will it be? If by the existing railway station, then this is not town centre. The Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Park This MK canal can only be funded by immense development along it as has been admitted for many years. How green and blue will this be? In effect the whole area between Bedford and MK will become one, to the detriment of the rural area in between.
Don't know.
13.1 The Council’s stated intention to update its evidence base in relation to environmental sustainability, open space and Green Infrastructure is supported. It was noted during the Examination of the Local Plan 2030 that neither the Council’s evidence base nor the strategy to defer site allocations to Neighbourhood Plans would ensure that these objectives would be met in full. There are various examples of sites previously assessed as part of the plan-making process that were identified as preferred allocation options and would contribute towards the Plan’s objectives for the natural environment but have not since been supported as allocations through the development plan (i.e. through the Local Plan 2030 or subsequent Neighbourhood Plans). 13.2 In updating its evidence base the Council should seek to ensure that the development plan brings forward allocations that satisfy future requirements for growth e.g. additional opportunities for sport and recreation. This is not achieved through the Local Plan 2030 where requirements are identified but meeting these is deferred to Neighbourhood Plans. There is a strong prospect that some Neighbourhood Plans will not deliver the type and location of sites that would secure optimum Green Infrastructure enhancements. 13.3 Where any requirements remain unmet, solutions should be clearly set out via the policies and allocations of the Local Plan Review. Specific allocations should be supported, particularly where this align with the Council’s spatial strategy and objectives for sustainable development and would provide for the additional requirement for housing growth in the period to 2030 and beyond. In this context, allocations to meet housing needs in full and deliver other priorities (such as Green Infrastructure) should not be deferred to the review of Neighbourhood Plans. 13.4 It is essential that the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (most recent version dated December 2018) is updated to reflect the requirements of further evidence, once available. This would address issues with the evidence for the Local Plan 2030 where the range of projects identified are typically non-specific with uncertainty over future funding to be provided by CIL/S106, given that allocations are not yet provided through the development plan. The lack of specific projects in rural areas does not reflect the overall priorities for development in the spatial strategy and demonstrates that aspects of the evidence base in relation to Green Infrastructure do not fully reflect the contents of the submission Local Plan. i) Land South of Odell Road, Sharnbrook and Land at Station Road, Oakley 13.5 Updates to the Council’s evidence base, including that relating to open space and playing pitches, would be welcomed as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030. It was noted during the Examination of the Local Plan 2030 that the 2007 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Study (2007) was substantially dated and insufficient to fully assess requirements to be met as a result of future growth. 13.6 In relation to our client’s interests on Land East of Station Road, Oakley, the settlement is noted as being located in the ‘North Rural West’ parishes. The Lovell Road Sports Pitches are recorded as site ‘Oak8’ and acknowledged as ‘education playing fields’. Figure 4.19 records the surplus/deficit of supply and demand for pitches excluding school pitches and shows a substantial shortfall for the North Rural West parishes. However, one recommendation of the study is the future development and S106 obligations secure community use for facilities, citing Lincroft School as one example of this. 13.7 The existing use and management of the sports pitches available to specific groups and local teams on request therefore makes an important contribution to the deficit in supply identified in the OSSRS. However, this must be interpreted within the overall requirements of the BE5542P (Bedfordia Developments Ltd) Review of the Bedford Local Plan 2030 Issues and Options Consultation Questions - Response Report 35 08.23.JG.BE5542P LP 2030 Review Consultation Response Document obo Bedfordia Developments Submission school itself, including increased pupil numbers and demand for the facilities. 13.8 Our client would therefore support a review of the current position to reassess the ongoing deficit in provision and seek to address this as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030. This can be achieved as part of allocation of the Land East of Station Road for development to facilitate the relocation and enhancement of the existing Lincroft Academy Sports Pitches in order to support opportunities to deliver wide community benefits. 13.9 The Council has been provided with further evidence of our client’s land at Sharnbrook (School Approach / east of Odell Road), supported by a Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy. This demonstrates the availability of a suitable opportunity for delivery of relevant policy objectives through provision of a minimum 25ha of land to be managed for ecology and riverside park as well as opportunities to provide formal open space and playing pitch facilities. The proposed approach provides the ability to secure net gains in biodiversity and management of the relationship with the Felmersham Gravel Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest and areas of Flood Risk to the south of the site.
14.1 Policy provision to encourage new sports and leisure facilities and community facilities is welcomed in principle and is central to the Plan’s objectives for healthy and safe communities. We urge the Council to address these objectives as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 through provision for development opportunities not supported within the existing development plan. 14.2 National Planning Practice Guidance states that to ensure health and well-being necessitates taking account of the current and projected health status and needs of the local population, including the quality and quantity of, and accessibility to, healthcare and the effect any planned growth may have on this (ID: 61-046-20190315). Responses in terms of policy may including making provision to improve the quality and quantity of existing services and addressing barriers to health and well-being, as well as supporting the use of Health Impact Assessments to consider application proposals. 14.3 It is fundamentally unsound for the Council to state that its existing policies including those dealing the provision of Green Infrastructure are up-to-date. This conclusion is undermined by the Council’s acknowledgement of needing to plan for significant increases in the housing requirement as well as reviewing spatial strategy options. Further, currently there is no certainty that sites will be identified through Neighbourhood Plans to provide relevant facilities. 14.4 As illustrated below, specific additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests at Oakley. i) Land East of Station Road, Oakley 14.5 Our clients’ interests East of Station Road, Oakley demonstrate that accommodating flexibility in levels of growth is essential for the soundness of the Plan and securing sustainable development in Oakley. This site offers a clear opportunity for the delivery of sport and community infrastructure for the wider benefit of local residents. 14.6 This demonstrates that the Local Plan should support the allocation of sites that would ensure the policy’s objectives are achieved. The findings of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal and consideration of options for the current Local Plan supported conclusions that this site, and Oakley as a Rural Service Centre, is a sustainable location and would satisfy relevant criteria in Policy 101 and Policy 102. Furthermore, the opportunity is supported by Sport England and would address an identified local need. In order to be effective, the Local Plan should actively look to secure opportunities that would secure delivery of policy objectives. 14.7 It should be reiterated that the overall site is both contained and physically and visually well related to the built-up area of Oakley and is not perceived as open countryside. Its development would not thus intrude into open countryside nor extend beyond the already existing confines of the development form of the village (See masterplan). 14.8 The development, in addition to facilitating the provision of new sports/recreation facilities and an integrated campus for Lincroft Academy (and for wider community use), would provide for circa 200 dwellings and also offers a unique opportunity to resolve existing congestion and parking issues arising from the school and through traffic along Station Road. The scheme proposed by Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Sharnbrook Academy Federation will deliver a new purpose-built distributor road running north-south through Oakley with reconfiguration of Station Road to prevent through-traffic and ease current parking and traffic issues predominantly associated with the Lincroft Academy. 14.9 Bedfordia Developments Ltd have already set out an approach for a more strategic scale of BE5542P (Bedfordia Developments Ltd) Review of the Bedford Local Plan 2030 Issues and Options Consultation Questions - Response Report 37 08.23.JG.BE5542P LP 2030 Review Consultation Response Document obo Bedfordia Developments Submission development that would see the delivery of a self-contained campus (both primary and secondary on the same site) and with scope to accommodate the expansion that is required of the Academy under planned growth, as well as securing land and third party funding to properly relocate and upgrade existing facilities. 14.10 This proposed approach is consistent with the Council’s objectives for healthy communities and can be facilitated as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 in terms of reconsidering Oakley’s role as that of a Key Rural Service Centres and reviewing the distribution of the housing requirement in the period to 2030 and beyond.
14.1 Policy provision to encourage new sports and leisure facilities and community facilities is welcomed in principle and is central to the Plan’s objectives for healthy and safe communities. We urge the Council to address these objectives as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 through provision for development opportunities not supported within the existing development plan. 14.2 National Planning Practice Guidance states that to ensure health and well-being necessitates taking account of the current and projected health status and needs of the local population, including the quality and quantity of, and accessibility to, healthcare and the effect any planned growth may have on this (ID: 61-046-20190315). Responses in terms of policy may including making provision to improve the quality and quantity of existing services and addressing barriers to health and well-being, as well as supporting the use of Health Impact Assessments to consider application proposals. 14.3 It is fundamentally unsound for the Council to state that its existing policies including those dealing the provision of Green Infrastructure are up-to-date. This conclusion is undermined by the Council’s acknowledgement of needing to plan for significant increases in the housing requirement as well as reviewing spatial strategy options. Further, currently there is no certainty that sites will be identified through Neighbourhood Plans to provide relevant facilities. 14.4 As illustrated below, specific additional allocations should be specifically supported on the basis of their deliverability – for example land such as our client’s interests at Oakley. i) Land East of Station Road, Oakley 14.5 Our clients’ interests East of Station Road, Oakley demonstrate that accommodating flexibility in levels of growth is essential for the soundness of the Plan and securing sustainable development in Oakley. This site offers a clear opportunity for the delivery of sport and community infrastructure for the wider benefit of local residents. 14.6 This demonstrates that the Local Plan should support the allocation of sites that would ensure the policy’s objectives are achieved. The findings of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal and consideration of options for the current Local Plan supported conclusions that this site, and Oakley as a Rural Service Centre, is a sustainable location and would satisfy relevant criteria in Policy 101 and Policy 102. Furthermore, the opportunity is supported by Sport England and would address an identified local need. In order to be effective, the Local Plan should actively look to secure opportunities that would secure delivery of policy objectives. 14.7 It should be reiterated that the overall site is both contained and physically and visually well related to the built-up area of Oakley and is not perceived as open countryside. Its development would not thus intrude into open countryside nor extend beyond the already existing confines of the development form of the village (See masterplan). 14.8 The development, in addition to facilitating the provision of new sports/recreation facilities and an integrated campus for Lincroft Academy (and for wider community use), would provide for circa 200 dwellings and also offers a unique opportunity to resolve existing congestion and parking issues arising from the school and through traffic along Station Road. The scheme proposed by Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Sharnbrook Academy Federation will deliver a new purpose-built distributor road running north-south through Oakley with reconfiguration of Station Road to prevent through-traffic and ease current parking and traffic issues predominantly associated with the Lincroft Academy. 14.9 Bedfordia Developments Ltd have already set out an approach for a more strategic scale of BE5542P (Bedfordia Developments Ltd) Review of the Bedford Local Plan 2030 Issues and Options Consultation Questions - Response Report 37 08.23.JG.BE5542P LP 2030 Review Consultation Response Document obo Bedfordia Developments Submission development that would see the delivery of a self-contained campus (both primary and secondary on the same site) and with scope to accommodate the expansion that is required of the Academy under planned growth, as well as securing land and third party funding to properly relocate and upgrade existing facilities. 14.10 This proposed approach is consistent with the Council’s objectives for healthy communities and can be facilitated as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 in terms of reconsidering Oakley’s role as that of a Key Rural Service Centres and reviewing the distribution of the housing requirement in the period to 2030 and beyond.
14.1 Policy provision to encourage new sports and leisure facilities and community facilities is welcomed in principle and is central to the Plan’s objectives for healthy and safe communities. We urge the Council to address these objectives as part of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 through provision for development opportunities not supported within the existing development plan. 14.2 National Planning Practice Guidance states that to ensure health and well-being necessitates taking account of the current and projected health status and needs of the local population, including the quality and quantity of, and accessibility to, healthcare and the effect any planned growth may have on this (ID: 61-046-20190315). Responses in terms of policy may including making provision to improve the quality and quantity of existing services and addressing barriers to health and well-being, as well as supporting the use of Health Impact Assessments to consider application proposals. 14.3 It is fundamentally unsound for the Council to state that its existing policies including those dealing the provision of Green Infrastructure are up-to-date. This conclusion is undermined by the Council’s acknowledgement of needing to plan for significant increases in the housing requirement as well as reviewing spatial strategy options. Further, currently there is no certainty that sites will be identified through Neighbourhood Plans to provide relevant facilities. 14.4 As illustrated below, specific 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. i) Land at Willoughby Park, Great Barford 14.5 The Council’s current evidence base for the Local Plan 2030 is inconsistent in how it anticipates certain needs will be met. For example, with respect of Great Barford, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2030 (December 2018) identifies the essential need for a GP surgery in Great Barford. In the first instance the Council must update its Infrastructure Delivery Plan to demonstrate that these priorities remain essential and outstanding. 14.6 The need for a new medical facility is recognised by our clients (Old Road Securities (ORS)) who are committed to funding the building of the new surgery as part of a first phase of development of Willoughby Park (500 Houses) and are in the process of discussing this with the commissioning bodies. 14.7 The current Infrastructure Delivery Plan notes that a site was previously secured as part of S106 planning obligations for a site delivered at Bedford Road adjacent the Alban CofE Academy. It must be noted that notwithstanding this background there is no prospect of the land in question being taken up and obtaining the additional investment required to deliver GP services. Critically, the IDP also notes: “Further housing development allocated in this village may provide alternative locations.” 14.8 Great Barford is correctly identified as a Key Service Centre and delivering improved GP facilities is a key aspect of its role in the settlement hierarchy. The Council’s IDP suggests an awareness of suitable land capable of meeting this need. To ensure that relevant policies in the plan are effective (e.g. Policy 2S Healthy Communities) it is inappropriate to defer the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that will not necessarily provide for these objectives. 14.9 Critically, in terms of this issue, as part of the Willoughby Park proposal for 500 houses, the BE1719/4P (Old Road Securities PLC) Review of the Bedford Local Plan 2030 Issues and Options Consultation Questions - Response Report 34 08.31.JG .JG LP 2030 Review Consultation Response Document obo ORS vf Submission promoters have committed to either the provision of funding for the delivery of a medical centre earmarked for development on land at Bedford Road in Great Barford, under planning permission 16/00873/MAF, or at Willoughby Park as a central part of the proposed community development area, and in the first phase of development. 14.10 Land for a medical centre has been reserved under a S106 Agreement, ancillary to the ongoing development at Bedford Road, undertaken by Linden Homes (16/00873/MAF). The National Health Service (NHS) has the right to acquire the reserved land within four years of the land being serviced. If the NHS does not take up the reserved land within four years their right to acquire the land ceases. If the NHS does not acquire the reserved land within the four year period or the medical centre is not built and opened within three years of the acquisition, the land must be offered back to the original owners and may be used for residential development. There is therefore a significant risk that the identified need of additional medical facilities in Great Barford will not be met. 14.11 The NHS Clinical Commissioning Group have stated that funding has not yet been allocated by the NHS for building the medical centre. Whilst the land has been made available, physical development cannot commence until funding is committed. 14.12 The Linden Homes site is comparably smaller than that offered on the Willoughby Park site, and the parcel of land allocated for the medical centre would not offer the possibility of expansion if needed in the future. 14.13 We therefore submit that in order to ensure an effective approach to supporting Healthy Communities in terms of implementation and delivery, as sought through Policy 2S, it is essential that the Review of the Local Plan is informed by and supports delivery of the most appropriate locations. This should be based on a full understanding of the capacity for growth and knowledge of available sites and enabled through the allocation of sites in the Local Plan. The ability to secure these requirements on our client’s land at Willoughby Park emphasises the opportunity to deliver the requirements for sustainable development as part of spatial options within the A421 corridor. This supports a review of the housing requirement for Great Barford as set out in Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 both in the period to 2030 and beyond along with setting out strategic policies and allocations to achieve the Plan’s objectives.
Further large scale development within or adjacent to Renhold should not be considered because the 2030 plan identified no need or allocation for extra housing in the village. We must be fully protected from urban sprawl and coalescence. Local health facilities are already overstretched and there is limited sheltered accommodation for elderly and vulnerable. There are no continuous footpaths or cycle ways in the old part of the village and speeding and volume of traffic, in spite of VAS, speed cameras and TRO, continue to endanger lives and undermine tranquility and amenity. Q8 Do you have any further views to add to those listed in the Town Centre Plan (see Consultation Responses above)? Q9 Do you agree that the Council should produce further guidance for developers on how to respond to climate change? If so, what should be included in it? Q10 The Government is developing new house-building standards to be implemented through building regulations. Is there any local evidence or need to go beyond national standards? Q11 What do you think would encourage people in Bedford borough to make greater use of sustainable modes of transport? Q12 If you think that our existing planning policies to protect and enhance the natural environment fail to cover important national or local issues, please give details. Q13 Is there anything else that is addressed in the new Government guidance that is not adequately covered by existing policies? Reduce Town Centre rent to encourage business enterprise-independent shops, etc. Reduce rough sleeping Extend free parking to more than just 2 hours on Saturdays See response above for additional ideas. We feel that North Bedford has already seen huge expansion. There is a danger that the identity of rural communities and environments will be massively and detrimentally damaged by the plans. As there have been so many new developments and there has been scant regard to design, we would urge you to consider what your new houses look like so that they are more suitable to modern day living. Older, existing villages with character developed over 100 years must be protected, and their overall character must be enhanced – rather than submerging them within new builds. We feel that the colour coding for option 1 is very misleading as the colour brown would suggest that this is a brownfield option whereas in reality much of our cherished green space is located here. STOP the E-W Rail Northern route proposal. The housing target for Bedford may well come down so you should NOT proceed with the higher target.