Any other comments?

We deserve an open, transparent and honest evaluation of the data and a measured debate before a decision is made. You have clearly no intention of building a station north of Bedford. The Borough has submitted 18.1km of new track along Route E so you must have a clear route in mind, even though you profess to have no determination of that as yet. How can that be? The Mayor and the executive must stop hiding behind the 'Commercial Confidence' smokescreen and put all the cards on the table. Many people feel that the oft-repeated claim that the present discussions are being undertaken in an ‘open, honest and transparent’ relationship is a falsehood, that the various public consultations are ultimately a meaningless waste of time as all the major decisions have already been taken, that the exercise is merely to satisfy some process requirement but will not have any influence whatsoever on the ultimate outcome.

Housing Association and Housing Developer based in Bedford and with an active in development programme within Bedford Borough.

Strategic Growth The Bedford Local Plan 2030 Inspector’s Report and consequential inclusion of Policy 1 (Reviewing the Local Plan 2030), commits the Council to commencing a Local Plan review no later than 1 year after the adoption of the plan. Policy 1 commits the Council to: “…The plan review will secure levels of growth that accord with government policy and any growth deals that have been agreed. The planning and delivery of strategic growth will be aligned with the delivery of planned infrastructure schemes including the A421 expressway, Black Cat junction, East West Rail link and potentially the A1 realignment. The review will also serve to build stronger working relationships with adjoining and nearby authorities and may result in the preparation of a joint strategic plan based on a wider geography.”

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Issues and Options representation is made on behalf of Axiom Great Barford Limited (‘Axiom’) who have land interests in Great Barford. A separate call for sites submission has been made in relation to the site. 1.2 Axiom are promoting land off Bedford Road, Great Barford on behalf of two landowners and the site can accommodate approximately 350 new dwellings, community facilities, open space and landscaping. 1.3 The site has been promoted for allocation through the Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan which is being developed by the Parish Council to designate land for the 500 homes allocated to the village in the adopted Local Plan 2030. The site has received a favourable assessment by AECOM, the consultants assisting the Parish Council with the Neighbourhood Plan, but at this time the plan has not progressed to the point of setting out a development strategy or proposed allocations. 1.4 Whilst the preference is to work closely with the Parish Council to secure the allocation of the site, Axiom are promoting the merits of the site, and Great Barford in general, as a sustainable location for growth in the Local Plan Review. 1.5 This representation is structured around the 13 questions which are set out in the Issues and Options Paper. However, only those questions that are relevant to Axiom’s land interests have been answered.

Bedford Local Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation July – September 2020 Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Bedford Local Plan Issues and Options consultation stage. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment, Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. Therefore we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Issues and Options consultation and Call for Sites. We have now had the opportunity to review the documents and can provide the following substantive comments. Introduction The county town Bedford lies towards the south of the borough. Founded at a ford on the River Great Ouse, the historic market town was granted borough status in 1165. The Borough has a rich and diverse historic environment with over 1,300 listed buildings including 50 listed at grade I, 68 scheduled monuments including many moated sites, 8 registered parks and gardens and 28 conservation areas. The north of the borough bordering Northamptonshire boasts a number of pretty villages with stone and thatched cottages as well as a number of Bedford Estate cottages. To the south of the borough, the heritage and legacy of the brickworks as well as the hangers at Cardington shape and dominate the landscape. Situated within the heart of the Ox Cam arc and with fantastic existing and potential transport connections in the form of the A421, M1, A1 as well as located on the Midland Mainline and the route of the new East West Rail, the area is set to experience considerable growth in the coming years. The challenge is to ensure that this is good growth that respects and takes the opportunity to enhance the historic environment.

10.1 Whilst not appearing to be formally part of this consultation, we note that the HELAA and Site Selection Methodologies have been published alongside the Issues and Options consultation. 10.2 What is of note is that neither methodology appears to recognise the inherent differences between residential and employment sites, and in turn how they should therefore be assessed differently. 10.3 We therefore contend that the Council should produce a separate methodology for employment and residential site assessments and selection, focused on the specific characteristics of each use. 10.4 As a final comment, we would like to reiterate our case that the land at Broadmead is a logical and highly sustainable location for future employment growth. This site is capable of providing an important contribution to current and future employment needs, as evidenced by the live planning application on the site (as summarised in our Call for Sites submission enclosed at Appendix 2 of this Statement). The application includes a marketing report by Savills which sets out the demand for employment development of this type, in this location. 10.5 The Local Plan Review should take the opportunity to proactively plan for the employment needs of the Borough in this highly sustainable location.

It is noted that the Environment section of the document references ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’. It is considered that, in accordance with the government’s ‘25 year Plan to Improve the Environment’ and the stated aims for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, the plan should be seeking to achieve an overall net environmental gain. As referenced above, the impact of future growth on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA will also be a key consideration.

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 300,000 dpa 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 standardize 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 is intending to give consideration how to best capture the economic benefits of it under this Review. This in itself is evidence enough that despite there being no clear government 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.

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 300,000 dpa 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 standardize 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.

Introduction These representations are prepared on behalf of Richborough Estates in respect of their land interests at Newton Lane, Turvey as illustrated on Figure 1 below. The site has been previously promoted through the various stages of the development of the adopted Local Plan and is being promoted through the ongoing preparation of the Turvey Neighbourhood Plan (recently the subject of Regulation 16 Consultation). Figure 1 – Site Location Plan The adopted Bedford Local Plan was adopted under the transitional arrangements of the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2018 and 2019) and as such the housing requirement was based on the objectively assessed need (OAN) delivered through the 2016 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The provisions of the Framework now require as part of this review, that the Council utilise the Standard Methodology for assessing local housing need as the starting point for establishing a new housing requirement. This results in a Local Housing Need of 1,305 dwellings per annum. The government has however published for consultation proposed amendments to the Standard Methodology, which would reduce the Local Housing Need to 1,153 dwellings per annum. Irrespective of whether this approach is adopted, or what the transitional arrangements are, the figure remains the starting point and can and should be increased to account for other factors, such as the Authorities location in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. This means as a minimum the annual increase in housing requirement is circa 180 dwellings per annum above the current requirement of 970 dwellings; a step change in delivery.

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Issues and Options representation is made on behalf of Mr Alex Simpson who owns land at Cotton End. Two separate Call for Sites submission have been made in relation to this site. The plan below illustrates the extent of our Clients land ownership at Cotton End. 1.2 The total land ownership amounts to some 77.83ha. The Call for Sites submission split this site into two parcels of land, the first of which is approximately 21.4ha and is situated to the south east of the area outlines above and was considered suitable for approximately 400 dwellings with access through the existing farm entrance and an emergency access from the southern tip of the site via Wood Lane. The second parcel of land is approximately 56.4ha and is considered suitable for some 930 dwellings, 2.5 hectares of employment land and 1 hectare of mixed use development. The first phase is considered suitable for development within the first 5 years of the Local Plan, with the second area of land coming forward in the medium term. 1.3 The site was previously been submitted to the Local Plan at the latter stages of additional site submissions by a promoting third party. 1.4 Our client is keen to promote the land and there has been significant developer interest. Bedford Borough Local Plan Issues and Options Response Land at Cotton End 1.5 This representation is structured around the 13 questions which are set out in the Issues and Options Paper. However, only those questions that are relevant to the land at Cotton End have been answered.

14.1 Given the timing of the publication of the draft consultation guidance, it has not been possible for BBC to include this within the emerging Local Plan at this point in time. However, as the Government consultation continues and further clarity is provided, these changes should obviously be included within the Local Plan. 14.2 Consideration must also be given to the changes to the Use Class Order and any repercussions that this could have on the provision of certain uses, particularly retail. These may have implications for Bedford town centre, surrounding local centres and out of town retail units.

Please note the site was put forward in the October 2018 Call for Sites process under the applicant name of ‘Gallagher Estates’. These representations are made on behalf of L&Q Estates following the merger of these companies. A site plan, previously submitted, accompanies these representations.

As set out in the call for Sites representations LSL's land interests at Great Barford are a logical location for residential development that would deliver growth along the A421 transport corridor, allowing infrastructure and development to integrate effectively, leading to the implementation of a sound, effective strategy for the Local Plan Review. The call for Sites submission is not repeated here but should be read alongside these representations in the Council's ongoing preparation of the Local Plan Review and they are appended to this letter for completeness. The Site is sustainably located and Great Barford has previously been found a sustainable location for development of up to 500 new dwellings. In the absence of a Neighbourhood Plan addressing the requirement, it is necessary for this Plan Review to make provision as required by Policy 4S of the adopted Local Plan. Unlike other residential development options in and around Great Barford, the Site can be developed without detrimental impacts on any heritage assets and with only a minor adverse effect on local landscape character (which itself will be mitigated). The identification of Great Barford as a continued location that is suitable for development and allocation of the LSL land interests south of Roxton Road would address any shortcomings of the current Local Plan should the Neighbourhood Plan not be published by January 2021, and would deliver on a sustainable spatial strategy for the Local Plan Review, as set out in these representations.

COMMENTS ON LOCAL PLAN REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 44. A review of the three available supporting documents has been undertaken and brief comments are set out below. HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT (HELAA) 45. The Stage 2 Site Assessment section lists the circumstances under which site may be excluded from consideration on suitability grounds. This includes sites that: "Do not relate well to the structure of the settlement and existing facilities. In many cases, to relate well will mean that the site should be within or adjoin the settlement policy area or the urban area, or be within the built form of a defined small settlement. This is particularly important for residential development proposals." 46. The rationale behind the criteria is clearly to exclude sites that are some distance from existing facilities and are therefore result in unsustainable travel patterns. However, the current wording could have the unintended consequence of excluding sites being promoted for new settlements, one of the potential growth options set out in the Issues and Options Paper. These sites may not be well related to existing facilities, but the proposal would be for standalone settlements which include the new facilities required to serve their residents and do not therefore result in unsustainable travel patterns. The criteria should be amended to address this point. SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL SCOPING REPORT AND SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY 47. The Site Selection Methodology contains a set of questions against which each site that the HELAA determines to be deliverable or developable will be assessed. These questions are taken from the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. 48. As with the HELAA the rationale behind the questions is understood and supported. However, the wording of several questions needs to be amended to ensure that they can be applied fairly to proposals for new settlements. For example, question 1b asks whether the site is: “Accessible on foot to a food store? The accessibility by foot to the nearest food store is calculated for each site using TRACC computer software.” 49. A site proposed for a new settlement could potentially score poorly as it may be the case that the nearest existing food store is further than 30 minutes’ walk. This would ignore the fact that a new food store may be part of the development proposals. In contrast some of the questions are worded in a manner that allows the RAPLEYS LLP 9 potential provision of onsite facilities and infrastructure to be taken into account. For example, question 7b asks whether the site is: “Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?” 50. The wording of the each of the questions needs to be reviewed to ensure that, where applicable, they allow for the potential on-site provision of the applicable facility / infrastructure item. CONCLUSIONS 51. These representations seek to advance the case for the allocation of Colworth Garden Village (‘CGV’) as a new settlement option within the Local Plan Review. The key points can be summarised as follows: 1. The Government has identified the Oxford - Cambridge Arc as an economic growth corridor that is fundamental to the future economic success of the United Kingdom. 2. The Government has set out a clear ambition to build upon the emerging successes evident within the Arc to ensure that it becomes globally significant (a UK version of ‘Silicon Valley’). They recognise that central to this ambition is the delivery of the homes (up to one million new homes by 2050) and infrastructure necessary to support sustained economic growth within the sub-region and in the areas immediately beyond. This view is shared by Bedford Borough, as evidenced by The Oxford-Cambridge Arc: Government Ambition and Joint Declaration issued in March 2019. 3. The need for an early review of the Local Plan is in large part due an acknowledgement that recently adopted Local Plan does not appropriately respond to the longer term growth requirements of the Arc. It is therefore of critical importance that the key objective underpinning the Local Plan Review is supporting economic growth that is significant in both a national and international context. Every aspect of the Local Plan Review should acknowledge and be driven by this ambition. 4. The standard methodology for assessing housing need and the need to address the Government’s ambitions in respect of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc will result in a significant step change in the housing requirement between the adopted 2030 Local Plan and the Local Plan Review. This will necessitate the allocation of one more new settlements in the Local Plan Review. 5. Colworth Garden Village is the standout candidate in terms of potential new settlements. It was one of four new settlements considered during the preparation of the Local Plan 2030, but was the only one to be identified as a proposed allocation in the January 2018 Regulation 19 Submission Version. Furthermore, the concerns raised by BBC in respect of deliverability have now been addressed.

In conclusion, the main concerns of Odell Parish Council are that developments are not made in areas where infrastructure is already overloaded and does not meet demand. Brownfield sites must be developed in the first instance and development in rural areas is only considered in areas where the necessary transport infrastructure has already been provided or will be in place. Where at all possible the rural environment must be preserved and any development should be sustainable and in line with carbon emissions targets.

Charlotte Ditchburn Access Field Officer – East Region charlotte.ditchburn@bhs.org.uk

Nikki Brown 88 Coventry Road, Bedford MK40 4EH

Since the consultation was published, the Government has published its White Paper on planning which seeks to reform the system. Within that was a draft version of a new standard methodology for calculating housing requirements. While this formula will be subject to further consultation it showed a decrease in dwellings per annum (dpa) from 1,305 to 1,153. This is a mid-range of the potential dpa figures the Council has produced in the consultation document which were 800 to 1,305. It is considered that the 1,153 would likely form a strong rationale as a minimum housing need rather than the 800 figure in the consultation document. L&Q are working proactively with the Neighbourhood Planning Group and Parish Council of Clapham who have draft allocated L&Q’s site for 500 dwellings and land for a 2-form entry primary school in their Regulation 14 consultation plan. For clarity, Appendix 1 contains a red line location plan showing the site referred to which is west of Milton Road.

Overall, East Northamptonshire Council is keen to continue engaging closely with Bedford Borough Council as the Local Plan progresses. There are potentially significant issues that could arise if significant new development is proposed for the A6/ Midland Mainline corridor; notably the possible Colworth Garden Village or Wymington strategic development proposals. It is welcomed that the Local Plan is considering an extensive range of potential spatial development strategies (at least six possible approaches). It is reiterated that East Northamptonshire Council could potentially support strategic development proposals where these deliver tangible infrastructure projects, such as a new Midland Mainline rail station (be it at Colworth/ Sharnbrook or Wymington). Any proposed development to the south of Rushden would benefit from future joint Masterplanning, which engages both Local Planning Authorities and other relevant partners.

I appreciate the difficulties the BBC has in producing a credible Housing Plan in the current political and environmental context, but something more 'grounded' in the realities of current circumstances and which reads less like a political manifesto's wish list would be helpful in encouraging a serious debate on the issues. Now the test is will anyone take any real notice of the comments made in the consultation - of course not! Note I have not replied online as the registration requirements to do so were unnecessarily onerous and complex.

Opportunities for employment must be prioritised. Housing should not be built where there is no nearby employment

Dave Ursell Custodian of the War Memorial & Villager.

I believe central government is forcing too many new houses to be built in Bedford Borough. In the post COVID 19 era, more people may be working from home so house building could be focused in the less densely populated parts of England.

The Odell Parish Council is disappointed that after so many years of development, the Local Plan 2030 and the earlier Plan to 2035, that Bedford Borough has failed to address the fundamental challenges of a growing town, including its rural locations, in a more rigorous strategic manner and produced a plan that is fit for the future.

To those concerned in the preparation pf this Review, thank you. Your efforts are much appreicated.

Consideration should also be given to access to hospital services e.g. Stroke Unit is at Luton & Dunstable which is extremely difficult to get to without a car. Provision of services and activities for the elderly to minimise their impact on precious resources.

Bedford town centre river area is the most attractive in the county always use this when trying to attract new businesses to Bedford Borough.

Remain generally concenred regarding the destruction of teh vilage communities by rapid enforced expansion and the new rail link. Rural Bedford will soon be no more.