Any other comments?
Just to reiterate that Sharnbrook, Bromham and Clapham have taken a hit this time round, and for all three there is no increased road infrastructure being put in place. In the case of Sharnbrook there has been a 50% increase in the size of the village, completly ruining the character of the village. The A421 corridor has far more infrastructure in place, so more building at Stewertby ( what happened to the Shift Living site that could provide 5000?) where I am sure more than 1000 can go on the old brickworks, and further building at Wixams.
I love living here. I think the best way forward is to develop the areas where infrastructure is being improved (the brown, yellow and pink options) and protect the less populated more rural parts of the area. The footpaths of north eastern beds have been an oasis for us all during Covid - let’s protect them.
This consultation document is very long and difficult to navigate. It’s not clear from the local plan review document that was sent out to local residents that completing the review would be this involved. From the leaflet, it seems like the council only wanted a response on the location/transport aspects of the growth development plan. If it were easy to respond to only that question, there’d probably be lots more responses. In future, I would suggest including a link directly to the question at hand, which allows selection of one preferred option, and a box for comments. With a further option to read the rest of the consultation.
Really, really important to consider green space and animal and plant needs. My own preference is for native species but others are important in providing variety and for people of different cultural backgrounds. It is also important to review plants and animals for biodiversity and medicinal purposes to ensure we are not encouraging the growth of harmful invasive species. I think the needs of animals in transit and in need of relocation is an under resourced area. Get it wrong and there are too many deaths. I think 30- 35 dwellings per hectare is too dense and doesn't give attractive, ready access to green space.
No thank you
Please note that these are my personal comments and are not necessarily those of the organisations of which I am a member.
This questionnaire is not very user friendly. Who was it tried out on before it went onto your website?
One questionnaire with all the responses being collated collectively would work better instead of seperately confirming each question and receiving a responding email to each one.
Please take the environment more seriously, it is the only one we have and we can't replace it once it is built on
I understand that the land owner (The Wingfield Estate) of the Great Denham Golf Course has failed to renew the lease with a view to ultimate filing in the area with houses. This is against the understanding of the village that the Golf Course would be retained to make for a proper separation between the Biddenham & Great Denham.
Objection to council long term plans and recommendations on way forward In your consultation of council local plan review I strongly object to any building on land that is currently used as sports for all private or public. As examples i object to change of use of any 1. Football and cricket grounds 2 golf clubs 3 school playing fields 4 children play facilities 5 outdoor public foot paths and or picnic play areas If the above are ring fenced i would support the plan . My view is that we have sufficient land to build housing and commercial buildings. The benefits for a healthy vibrant active community from adopting the above approach would in my view have majority support of all communities and rejection of my proposal would have serious health and other consequences At this moment my greatest concern is the current proposal of the Bedford golf course at Great Denham . This proposal is a callus Insensitive decision by land owners to attempt to in the future build on a golf course. On land they have previously profited from where they have built houses and sold them with a golf facility. My concern are 1 the deception of home owners who bought new houses on a new golf course In the last 25 years and more recently on new houses in Great Denham 2 the loss of a facility that is currently helping young old male female keep physical and mentally fit 3 the loss of meeting space used by many communities such as my Bedford asain business association Finally if the golf course is allowed to close the Council will be held to account by the public I am confident that this facility support not just sports but also health well being and community cohesion Happy to meet council members face to face
East-West Rail Central section – a consideration 1. The Bedford St John’s site: A housing development threatens to block this site and portal access to the rail corridor to the east of Bedford down to Cardington Road, Bedford. a. ERTA is not against social housing but believes this site and rail option being retained in this case outweighs the other pressure to deliver more urban housing. b. ERTA believes the Borough needs to look elsewhere to locate social housing and improve facilities to conjoin with it. c. The St John’s site would be poorly road accessed and cul-de-sacked in all probability. d. The land needs to be protected either by interim rail use like a washer plant or a park amenity area with a cycleway down to Cardington Road, utilising the corridor meaningfully until a railway is re-laid. e. If we block the site, it means trains cannot access it from the west (Bletchley direction) or north-east (from Bedford Midland direction). That locks in the current mooted East-West Rail Companies (EWRC) Northern Route, which in our view is unsatisfactory. 2. The Northern Route. This route rightly facilitates the running through Bedford Midland clearing platforms for other services in an intensively used railway station but is problematic because: a. No provision on A4280 Road Bridge for extra tracks to join the slows from north or south. b. mooted fields for the junction south of the Western Bypass Link Road have been built on and so that means junctioning north of the Girder Bridge. c. North of Girder Bridge conflicts with that same land for a Northampton-Bedford rail link flyover from the slows over the main lines going west. d. North of Girder Bridge has less than 10 metres to go to a height to clear juggernaut lorry height to cross the A6 Clapham Bypass, cross flood plains to cross the River Great Ouse and old Clapham Road before hitting a hillside. e. Tunnelling or cuttings from where to where as it is hilly and extra hills around North Brickhill, Cleat Hill, Ravensden plateauing to Wilden, avoiding built Renhold to Colesden. f. From Colesden area, avoiding Great Barford, you have to engage with A421, A1, Black Cat Roundabout reconfiguration, River Great Ouse/Ivel conjoined ascending to the Tempsford flood plain to intersect the ECML from a north-westerly direction to head off easterly, the exact formation lineage to yet be determined. 3. The alternative Southern Route: a. From an automatic points reinstated triangle and double-track railway, you head off to Cardington Road on the flat. b. Cardington Road needs the road bridging the railway and could be made single carriageway as a part of a traffic calming exercise. Level Crossings are controversial and difficult to secure, even though such would be visually less intrusive and cheaper in all probability. c. From Cardington Road, you head eastwards on a straight flat trajectory. 3 old railway bridges would need replacing with double-track specification bridges. The Sustrans Cycle Route would need redirecting either alongside on new embankment or re-routed via Barker’s Lane for example to Goldington Road and Castle Mill for example. d. A level crossing would be required for Priory Park entrance or a new bridge link to the roundabout north side of current Barker’s Lane if flood barriers were erected/metal girders put in to direct river flood overflow.
Hi I am little disappointed with the way our sayings matter. I have send the letter twice to our MP Yasin contact address regarding the issue we have in our community. I explained that the children park is completely spoiled with broken bench, rides and empty beer cans everywhere. However, Sorry to say but no action has been taken so far and it's been around 2 years. Leaving that matter , we definitely need Urban Based growth and development projects near Armstrong drive Elstow Road, MK429JW. Elstow road and Ampthill road needs repairing. We need better train network from Bedford South station with direct trains to London. Better developments, New shops, housing and restaurants with strict action on open drinking problem needs desperately near Mk42. Hope that's alright. Please don't hesitate to contact me for any queries.
I am not an expert on this subject please contact the English Regional Transport Association who seem to be.
Rural locations have an ageing demographic and are disproportionate in the types and values of houses available too but. There is a lack of 2-3 bed prosperities for younger families to move into. The rural schools are having to go outside of the catchment areas to fill their schools. Young families are unable to enjoy the benefits of a rural community due to not being able to afford the house prices. Retired couples cannot downsize and remain in their village due to a lack of smaller houses. Little Staughton is a commuter village with railway links being in close proximity. Younger families could benefit from better employment bey living here. Financial circumstances that may happen also results in not being able to stay in a rural location due to the availability of cheaper housing. Retired couples who do stay do not add to the school requirements and the turnover in villages is very low.
Much more effort needs to be made for those that want to self build and not just to developers & in particular large national building companies. The Borough could supply ‘ serviced plots’ for those wishing to self build. Housing built on such plots should be of Passivhaus design - which are environmentally friendly and energy effucient
It is a self-evident and immutable fact that landowners do not generally own land for purely altruistic reasons. Most will develop the land to give the best economic return, and that, is to be expected. Councils have been formed for over a thousand years and have become more sophisticated with each passing decade. Their primary focus is to provide services, security, a healthy environment, and safety for the inhabitants within the Councils boundary. Where landowners and Councils come together to create a mutual benefit, is in the supply of housing. In order to do this Council Planning Departments, create and administer a set of rules to ensure compliance to standards, and siting and placement of that housing. Most of these rules (policies) are National but some local. The National rules are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). The local policies are set out by councils in The Councils Local Plan. The Local Plan sets down rules using both National and Local guidelines. There are rules and policies that apply to Rural and Urban areas specifically. The Council have identified a Rural Boundary where the rules apply differently on either side of this boundary. Focusing on the Urban side of the boundary for now, we need to look at the policies in place that address some of the Councils primary focus. These are policies that speak to healthy environment and security. In order to bring light and some greening within the Urban housing spread, policies have been designed to protect these Urban Open Spaces and Urban Gaps. The Urban Gap’s are created to prevent coalescence between settlements and usually set within the Councils Local Plan. The Urban Open Space is designed to do just that by the creation of space within and between residential developments. Bedford Borough Local Plan has ensured some of these protections by including them in the plan. The Urban Gap and Open space are protected within the Local Plan 2030. After 2030 when the new Local Plan takes effect, Local Plan 2040, we need to ensure that these policies stay in and continue to be enforced to protect the Urban Gap and Space.
Whatever Housing Strategy the Borough adopts, it must take into account the emerging Wootton Neighbourhood Plan which resists large scale housing developments in the village for at least the next 10 years! Indeed, all completed and emerging Neighbourhood Plans within the Borough MUST be honoured as these are the wishes and desires of YOUR constituents and should not be ridden roughshod over as the Borough has in the past.
We need to get people in high density areas outdoors. When people develop a love for fresh air they'll use their cars less, they'll be exercising more, developing more skills, losing weight, eating more healthily and get a better sense of community by meeting local people and a mix of people. This will result in improved mental and physical health. Housing/business developments and roads etc. need to be camouflaged by trees to absorb noise and pollution. Rivers need to be protected from flooding. Housing/business developments need places where people can go, meet, bond by learning, experiencing something new. Whilst we need more housing currently we do have to share our urban areas with wildlife and opportunities for young and old to enjoy the outdoors. More creative thinking on how people might have changed their outlook on leisure since the start of the pandemic especially.
Lack of reference to the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway Park is extremely disappointing. It features in SEMLEPs Local Industrial Strategy and Economic Strategy and in EEH's draft Transport Strategy. The review of the Local Plan is a major opportunity to improve and strengthen existing policies, to develop a specific cross boundary SPD for the Waterway Park as proposed by the Environment Agency and ensure that the project is incorporated into regional water resource planning and the Oxford to Cambridge ARC.
While this may not be possible to include in a local plan review of planning policies, the Local Authority should have internal policies and guidance for contracts with developers, including what areas need to be covered and whether any conditions included in the contract should be permanent not temporary e.g. development of a country park, school, golf course etc. By way of example, the Great Denham Golf course is closing because the private landlord claims it is not making any sufficient money. While I understand private landlords are there to make money, the closure of this golf course may have been prevented if the contract which granted planning for houses specified that the land must be used for a golf course or other similar leisure and recreational activity in perpetuity. This would help protect the urban gap and urban green space which is now under threat and affected a number of parishes e.g. Biddenham, Kempston, Great Denham etc.