Any other comments?
No further comments to add.
Scattered development must not happen. Whilst we can see that smaller developments have merit, the government's proposal to have 2 hectare sites will mean scattergun approach to development without adequate infrastructure. Their proposal to remove the S106 process will only exacerbate this, meaning developments with no facilities, and will end up with lots of small sink estates, or no go areas. Only joining up planning processes can stop this happening, and we must fight the government on this one. (I am about to submit response to govt consultation as well). With regard to Bedford Borough, the best way to progress development will be with large settlements, along trunk roads, that incorporate employment sites and integrated living. And if you wish to retain high earning people, ensure that the employment sites are high end, looking for people with qualifications, not more warehousing and storage, which, while needed, will not add to the area.
Fundamental to the plan seems to me to be which figures of additional new housing is actually required the difference between 5,000 and 15,000 is huge, therefore I would appreciate clarification on how the Government formula is calculated and which figure it actually the one Bedford Borough would be aiming for 2040.
Lockdown showed how important it is to have local places to walk, so I am keen for the surrounding countryside (in particular Ravensden area) to be unspoiled and not built upon.
At present there is considerable uncertainty in proposed planning legislation and guidance (e.g. the White paper - Planning for the future). When the legislation is passed and guidance issued, Bedford Local Plan will need further public consultation and review to ensure compliance.
Thank you for consulting Northamptonshire County Council Highways on the Bedford Local Plan Review Issues and Options consultation paper. Northamptonshire County Council Highways engaged positively with Bedford Borough Council (BBC) throughout the preparation of the Bedford Borough Local Plan which was adopted in January 2020. A number of Duty to Cooperate meetings were held between the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Delivery Unit, BBC, East Northamptonshire Council, Borough Council of Wellingborough and Northamptonshire County Council Highways to discuss cross-boundary issues. There continues to be positive engagement. The Issues and Options paper identifies and discusses potential locations for growth on pages 17-25 of the document. The potential locations for housing and employment growth include: • Further regeneration within the Bedford / Kempston urban area, particularly of any available brownfield sites; • Expansion of the Bedford / Kempston urban area; • Expansion within the borough boundary, of neighbouring urban areas, such as Rushden and St. Neots; • Development along the A421 corridor; • Development around an East West Rail northern station; • New settlements in locations with good accessibility; and • More dispersed development throughout the borough including the expansion of villages. Of particular interest to Northamptonshire are the two potential growth options illustrated and described on page 18-20 of the document as being: • Brown – Urban based growth: Growth in and around the Bedford / Kempston urban area, together with extensions to Rushden and St. Neots. Building at higher densities in and around urban areas could deliver a significant number of homes. • Red – New settlement based growth: In addition to expansion of Wixams (new settlement) a number of new settlements could be developed. During the course of the preparation of the Local Plan 2030 four potential new settlement options were discussed but were not taken forward at that time. These and other new settlement options that have yet to be put forward could be considered as part of this plan. Brown – Urban based growth This option proposes extensions within Bedford borough that would functionally act as an extension to Rushden. As part of the assessment process, a key consideration needs to be the impact of additional growth on the local road network in this area, including, but not limited to the A6 and the A509. This needs to be assessed in the context of the emerging scale and location of growth proposed at Rushden as part of the update of the Joint Core Strategy through the North Northamptonshire Strategic Plan. Assessment work also needs to carefully consider the infrastructure required to sustainably connect any proposed development through high quality walking, cycling and public transport links, in particular the latest cycling design guidance. We understand from previous discussions that BBC has undertaken preliminary investigations into the potential for a new railway station on the Wymington Loop. A new railway station is not identified in the consultation document so at this stage there is no detail on specific locations and whether this may be deliverable. A railway station at Wymington could provide significant benefits and enhanced rail connections for those living within the Irchester, Higham Ferrers and Rushden areas and would be a key consideration in assessing the sustainability of potential growth options to the south/south west of Rushden. Any benefits will need to be understood in the context of any wider impacts on service stopping patterns and journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough and the impact on travel patterns in the wider area. Red – New settlement based growth We previously made representations objecting to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2035: Plan for Submission. These representations related to the proposed Colworth Garden Village (Policy 27 of the Local Plan 2035) and raised concerns around the transport modelling and the implications of the proposed Garden Village on the highway network in Northamptonshire, in particular, but not limited to, the A6 corridor. It is considered that the issues raised in the representation remain relevant to any consideration of the Colworth Garden Village site through the Local Plan Review. We welcome that the summary table recognises that ‘Issues with new settlement proposals previously put forward would need to be resolved before they could be allocated’ and it is noted that the Issues Paper states that: ‘New settlements remain an option for this plan but only where there is a clear case that they would be developable in the plan period’. We welcome that the consultants who are undertaking the transport modelling for Bedford Borough Council have already sought feedback from us on the extent of the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model (NSTM) and the growth assumptions to be incorporated in the development of the transport model covering Bedford borough. We welcome further discussions with Bedford Borough Council and their consultants to understand the scale of growth proposed as part of each growth option, and the impacts on the highway network within Northamptonshire, to ensure that there is a joined-up approach as the growth options for the Plan progress.
Thank you for consulting Northamptonshire County Council Highways on the Bedford Local Plan Review Issues and Options consultation paper. Northamptonshire County Council Highways engaged positively with Bedford Borough Council (BBC) throughout the preparation of the Bedford Borough Local Plan which was adopted in January 2020. A number of Duty to Cooperate meetings were held between the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Delivery Unit, BBC, East Northamptonshire Council, Borough Council of Wellingborough and Northamptonshire County Council Highways to discuss cross-boundary issues. There continues to be positive engagement. The Issues and Options paper identifies and discusses potential locations for growth on pages 17-25 of the document. The potential locations for housing and employment growth include: • Further regeneration within the Bedford / Kempston urban area, particularly of any available brownfield sites; • Expansion of the Bedford / Kempston urban area; • Expansion within the borough boundary, of neighbouring urban areas, such as Rushden and St. Neots; • Development along the A421 corridor; • Development around an East West Rail northern station; • New settlements in locations with good accessibility; and • More dispersed development throughout the borough including the expansion of villages. Of particular interest to Northamptonshire are the two potential growth options illustrated and described on page 18-20 of the document as being: • Brown – Urban based growth: Growth in and around the Bedford / Kempston urban area, together with extensions to Rushden and St. Neots. Building at higher densities in and around urban areas could deliver a significant number of homes. • Red – New settlement based growth: In addition to expansion of Wixams (new settlement) a number of new settlements could be developed. During the course of the preparation of the Local Plan 2030 four potential new settlement options were discussed but were not taken forward at that time. These and other new settlement options that have yet to be put forward could be considered as part of this plan. Brown – Urban based growth This option proposes extensions within Bedford borough that would functionally act as an extension to Rushden. As part of the assessment process, a key consideration needs to be the impact of additional growth on the local road network in this area, including, but not limited to the A6 and the A509. This needs to be assessed in the context of the emerging scale and location of growth proposed at Rushden as part of the update of the Joint Core Strategy through the North Northamptonshire Strategic Plan. Assessment work also needs to carefully consider the infrastructure required to sustainably connect any proposed development through high quality walking, cycling and public transport links, in particular the latest cycling design guidance. We understand from previous discussions that BBC has undertaken preliminary investigations into the potential for a new railway station on the Wymington Loop. A new railway station is not identified in the consultation document so at this stage there is no detail on specific locations and whether this may be deliverable. A railway station at Wymington could provide significant benefits and enhanced rail connections for those living within the Irchester, Higham Ferrers and Rushden areas and would be a key consideration in assessing the sustainability of potential growth options to the south/south west of Rushden. Any benefits will need to be understood in the context of any wider impacts on service stopping patterns and journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough and the impact on travel patterns in the wider area. Red – New settlement based growth We previously made representations objecting to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2035: Plan for Submission. These representations related to the proposed Colworth Garden Village (Policy 27 of the Local Plan 2035) and raised concerns around the transport modelling and the implications of the proposed Garden Village on the highway network in Northamptonshire, in particular, but not limited to, the A6 corridor. It is considered that the issues raised in the representation remain relevant to any consideration of the Colworth Garden Village site through the Local Plan Review. We welcome that the summary table recognises that ‘Issues with new settlement proposals previously put forward would need to be resolved before they could be allocated’ and it is noted that the Issues Paper states that: ‘New settlements remain an option for this plan but only where there is a clear case that they would be developable in the plan period’. We welcome that the consultants who are undertaking the transport modelling for Bedford Borough Council have already sought feedback from us on the extent of the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model (NSTM) and the growth assumptions to be incorporated in the development of the transport model covering Bedford borough. We welcome further discussions with Bedford Borough Council and their consultants to understand the scale of growth proposed as part of each growth option, and the impacts on the highway network within Northamptonshire, to ensure that there is a joined-up approach as the growth options for the Plan progress.
Bedford Borough Council has a long and illustrious history of self interest and short sightedness. This has led to many of the issues we live with today. From traffic Jams, inappropriate developments, lack of affordable housing of reasonable quality, high business rates, lack of good business premises, poor town centre etc. Compared to competing towns near and far Bedford is already at a disadvantage in many metrics. Many of the skilled and affluent residents work outside the area. Bedford is, at best, a dormitory town. The opportunities are great but only if the council stops aiming for mediocrity and doing the bare minimum. Vested interests are plain to see and make the town unattractive. There needs to be a better plan to utilise and integrate the benefits of the region. Make the most of the transport links without compromising life for residents. Integrate housing with employment and entertainment facilities. Prevent overdevelopment of already crowded villages by prioritising the right type of development, high quality, considered, improving on what is there. London is likely to change in nature over the next few years. It is the elephant in the room as far as development in Bedford. Many of those that move to Bedford do so from London with a view to schooling and space. London is changing and much of the businesses there are decentralising. The need to commute in to town is decreasing especially in a post CV19 world. London itself is becoming a far nicer place to live and actually more affordable. So we need to consider how will Bedford fit into this system. More home working could and should be a boon for Bedford based businesses. Those that used to get their lunch in the city will now look to do so in Bedford but only if it is high quality and accessible, these will not be essential visits, so the town centre has to be positive and aspirational with a broad variety of shops and restaurants. Connections from satellite villages have to be quick, safe, easy and eco friendly.
Regarding integrating East-West Rail into the Local Plan, I believe the announced preferred route is seriously flawed. The use of Bedford Midland Road Station may support foot access to the town centre, but requires a northern passage between Bedford and Clapham, which demands traversing the most steep and undulating terrain in the Borough. This would be a massive civil engineering undertaking when there is a far better option. Route A may be the simplest and closely follows the original varsity line alignment that fell to the Beeching cuts. Routes B & E give a northern passage via Camborne. Routes C & D give a “swan neck” mixture through Bassingbourn. At consultation, Route E was said to be the most expensive. From a topology aspect, Routes D & E are the most challenging as there is only a very narrow window from which to leave Bedford. From the “broad brush” consultation maps, this has to squeeze between NW Bedford (Brickhill) and Clapham. It would traverse probably the steepest slopes in this borough, opposite the old Water Works and through Clapham Park, to swing round between Cleat Hill and Sunderland Hill, heading for south Ravensden/Wilden area before clipping the north of Great Barford Parish. Then likely drop between Great Barford and Roxton, or cross the A1 near the Black Cat junction, and on towards a station between Tempsford and Little Barford. The passage between Bedford and Clapham has a vertical difference of around 30m in less than 1km. A gradient approaching 1 in 30, even with a significant deep cutting. The contour heights between the old A6 Clapham Road, Ravensden Cross Roads and south of Wilden vary between a low of 30m and high of 65m several times, making this a very undulating route that would require significant cut and fill over 5 to 6km – a major civil engineering undertaking. It should be noted that the steepest gradient on mainline UK rail is the 1 in 37.7 grade over 3km at Lickey Incline, south of Birmingham. The problem with steep gradients is that if the rain should stop, traction would be difficult starting on an up incline. The design guides would suggest a maximum grade of 1 in 80 for passenger trains, and a shallower 1 in 125 for heavier freight trains. I doubt either design maximum grades would be achievable realistically on a route north out of Bedford. Bedford Midland Road Station site is very constrained with little or no room for expansion. Car Parking facilities are also very restricted, making any commuter passenger increase problematic for vehicle access. Pedestrian movement between the Midland Road Station and town centre shopping / work is not appealing. A Bedford South Station to serve the EW Rail would be less constrained. It could have a train shuttle service for passengers wanting onward travel to the Midland Road Station, or a bus link in to town that could be incorporated with a Park and Ride facility to support visitor / worker access to the town centre. A Bedford South rail / transport hub could support growth of both housing and business development along the A421 corridor towards Stewartby and Milton Keynes. The St Johns Station could provide pedestrian access to Bedford Town Centre, in an area that is already earmarked for redevelopment. Traditionally, railway alignment has preferred the route of least resistance, and often follows contours associated with the side of valleys. There is a good reason why Watford Gap has RAIL, ROAD and CANAL passing through it. Reduce the civil engineering challenge and inherent cost, and go for a flatter route that can be achieved. I believe Route B is the only realistic compromise, allowing a southern Bedford station / transport hub and feeding on to Cambourne without encroaching on Bassingbourn and Wimpole Hall sensitive areas. And it would still allow the Tempsford / North Sandy Station. In the current (post) Covid-19 economic climate, it is hard to see government funding being available for this project. It would need significant private investment, or should be deferred pending UK financial recovery. With improvements already agreed and underway for A421 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements and expressway, the big question has to be “is there still an economic / logistic / business demand for the EWR ?”
As respects young people and unhealthy eating - as a resident of a small community it is apparent that many young people drive to drive-in food outlets, consume goods in the car or in a congregation point, and then drive home throwing the food containers into our village grass verges. So whilst it is laudable to discourage fast food from being next to schools, it is a sad fact of life today that young people will find a way to get their junk food fix.
No
None
The best way to maintain the natural environment and improve air quality is not to spoil it in the first place. Any future housing plan should focus on building in brown field areas or derelict sites, avoiding green field sites at all costs. I think we should be introducing greenery to brownfield sites through carefully thought housing plans, rather than laying concrete over what precious greenery we have.
The best way to maintain the natural environment and improve air quality is not to spoil it in the first place. Any future housing plan should focus on building in brown field areas or derelict sites, avoiding green field sites at all costs. I think we should be introducing greenery to brownfield sites through carefully considered housing plans, rather than laying concrete over what precious greenery we have.
Quality not quantity, learn from past mistakes (Wixams, Wootton - housing but no community), create frequent green spaces, focus on communities not bricks/mortar, improve self sustainability & resilience to outside influences
It is very difficult to read large documents online (especially for older people). All consultation documents should be downloadable and printable as word documents or pdfs, unlike the strange format used for the main consultation document which can only be viewed online.
This is a great opportunity for Bedford: the current health situation has revealed the town's weaknesses, but more so its strengths and its fantastic potential. Through the Local Plan review, the Council is in a brilliant position to exploit the opportunities available to it (for example the national house standards, emphasis on biodiversity, the Cambridge-Oxford arc) to create a really strong borough. The Council must be ambitious and visionary to promote good design and sustainability but is in a good position to do so (a lot of the infrastructure, such as buildings and parks, are already there).
None
I feel the area north of Bedford is by far the best option (Orange) this give the opportunity to add more housing and services close to Bedford and therefore enhancing Bedford. I like the idea of a new train station serving and joining the new settlement with Bedford in an environmentally friendly way.
Keep publicising and maintaining the good things about Bedford: the parks, the Embankment, Priory Marina. Stop the decline of Bedford town centre, otherwise no-one will want to live here. Ensure Bedford Station is on the direct East West Rail route.
Keep publicising and maintaining the good things about Bedford: the parks, the Embankment, Priory Marina. Stop the decline of Bedford town centre, otherwise no-one will want to live here. Ensure Bedford Station is on the direct East West Rail route.
Reference is made within the consultation paper to the housing requirement, and views being sought on a housing figure in the range of 800 – 1305 dwellings per annum. The figure of 800 dwellings per annum is not based on the current or proposed standard methodology, and therefore should not be taken forward as a basis for calculating the housing requirement. The proposed standard methodology has a figure of 1,153 dwellings per annum, and it would be prudent for the Council going forward to test levels of growth between 1,153 and 1,305 dwellings per annum. The Council will need to continuously engage with other strategic policy making authorities through the Local Plan Review to ensure any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas are considered. The Council will also need to ensure that its assumptions regarding the anticipated rate of delivery of existing commitments are realistic, and that an appropriate buffer is included to ensure delivery in accordance with the Framework. Further analysis and evidence will therefore be required to support the figures referenced in page 16 of the consultation paper.
We desperately need as a town to have a modernised and fit for purpose large concert type venue such as the Corn Exchange....which currently requires extensive safety and modernisation updates to function properly. Contributions to community facilities such as this should be required of developers, so that local community interaction is enabled, and that larger more national types of event can be accomodated, such as orchestras and choirs as well as national bands, comedians and festivals. The Philharmonia contribute enormously to the town and people of Bedford, but we cant expect them to continue to have a residency here when the facilites are so much below standard. We also need this facility for development of community amateur music making, or the nation will lose a lot of cultural and musical education.
Bedfordshire is a nice county in many ways. Do NOT mess it up. Listen to the public.
Reference is made within the consultation paper to the housing requirement, and views being sought on a housing figure in the range of 800 – 1305 dwellings per annum. The figure of 800 dwellings per annum is not based on the current or proposed standard methodology, and therefore should not be taken forward as a basis for calculating the housing requirement. The proposed standard methodology has a figure of 1,153 dwellings per annum, and it would be prudent for the Council going forward to test levels of growth between 1,153 and 1,305 dwellings per annum.
Reference is made within the consultation paper to the housing requirement, and views being sought on a housing figure in the range of 800 – 1305 dwellings per annum. The figure of 800 dwellings per annum is not based on the current or proposed standard methodology, and therefore should not be taken forward as a basis for calculating the housing requirement. The proposed standard methodology has a figure of 1,153 dwellings per annum, and it would be prudent for the Council going forward to test levels of growth between 1,153 and 1,305 dwellings per annum. The Council will need to continuously engage with other strategic policy making authorities through the Local Plan Review to ensure any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas are considered. The Council will also need to ensure that its assumptions regarding the anticipated rate of delivery of existing commitments are realistic, and that an appropriate buffer is included to ensure delivery in accordance with the Framework. Further analysis and evidence will therefore be required to support the figures referenced in page 16 of the consultation paper.
Reference is made within the consultation paper to the housing requirement, and views being sought on a housing figure in the range of 800 – 1305 dwellings per annum. The figure of 800 dwellings per annum is not based on the current or proposed standard methodology, and therefore should not be taken forward as a basis for calculating the housing requirement. The proposed standard methodology has a figure of 1,153 dwellings per annum, and it would be prudent for the Council going forward to test levels of growth between 1,153 and 1,305 dwellings per annum. The Council will need to continuously engage with other strategic policy making authorities through the Local Plan Review to ensure any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas are considered. The Council will also need to ensure that its assumptions regarding the anticipated rate of delivery of existing commitments are realistic, and that an appropriate buffer is included to ensure delivery in accordance with the Framework. Further analysis and evidence will therefore be required to support the figures referenced in page 16 of the consultation paper.
The council should be building new houses to rent out.
Is a Supplementary Planning Document on concentrations of fast food outlets and especially drive through restaurants being looked at? With the national emphasis on health, especially prevention, health inequalities and issues around childhood obesity, diabetes and heart disease, it seems urgent. Bedford's Midland Road, Tavistock Street having a concentration of takeaways and now Aspects set to have three drive throughs together in addition to the drive throughs on Goldington Road east, the current planning system seems to be doing little to promote access to healthy food or active travel.
No