Any other comments?

Showing forms 151 to 180 of 183

Form ID: 2954

Do you have any other comments?

1. Beds Borough told East-West Rail “During the preparation of its emerging Local Plan the Council recognised that it would be beneficial to allow the newly created and expanded communities to the south of Bedford to mature before introducing further change. This means that growth opportunities in Wootton, Shortstown, Wixams and Stewartby are limited for the duration of the Plan. WPC consider that this shameful moving of the goal posts in order to curry favour with EWR in order to get the EW rail line to come through Bedford is not conducive to an open and honest Local Plan. 2. Beds Borough told EWR “Each site is to the north of Bedford and would be better served by the northern route for EWR through Bedford Midland, as would much of the development potential between Bedford and Cambridge. In the council’s view, therefore there is little or no scope to count further development south of Bedford against the benefits of a southerly route for EWR” Again a blatant touting of Beds Borough being willing to change every aspect of its Local Plan to benefit from an EWR ‘yes’ to a northern route and showing that this entire so-called consultation is nothing but a hollow exercise and waste of time, the decisions have already been taken and the Borough residents views count for nothing!

Form ID: 2986

Do you have any other comments?

As a life long resident of the Ouse Valley community I am writing to support the CPRE Briefing Document concerning the BBC local plan review The Ouse Valley is a precious asset for the whole Bedfordshire community providing space, beauty, tranquility and close contact with the natural world which is denied but needed by everyone Especially town dwellers. The villages in the valley are themselves beautiful created over centuries by their inhabitants. They are fragile and need conservation. They possess an intimate atmosphere where most people know their fellow villagers in cohesive relationships The impact on them by the large developments proposed by the BBC can only destroy this vital heritage, never to be regained Villages cannot be created, they exist only by a process of coalescence over time even centuries The BBC proposals will create new towns not villages. Their existence will imply the need for accessability, new roads, bridges, There will be congestion and disruption in narrow village streets And bring pressure, destructive pressure on these communities I agree with the CPRE that there should be a fresh start to look at.the real need and most importantly to take account of the drastic effect on surrrounding communities John Robert Tusting

Form ID: 3000

Do you have any other comments?

No.

Form ID: 3014

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

The key issue for all the rural areas represented is the amount of housing growth to be delivered and where. Central to this is both the ONS data and the formula used. In preparation of the 2030 local plan, ONS data from 2014 and the Standard Method of Calculation (SMC) were used to calculate housing growth giving a housing need of 1300 per annum. As stated in the Issues and Options consultation, using the latest 2018 ONS data gives a much-reduced figure for housing need of circa 800 dwellings per year. It is understood that the Borough Council have recently been working with a third-party demographic company and have come up with a figure of circa 1100 units per annum. With the SMC now under review in the recent consultation ‘Changes to the current planning system - Consultation on changes to planning policy and regulations’ by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government dated August 2020, it seems that in all likelihood that the formula for calculating housing need will change again. What is clear is that using the ONS 2014 data and the current SMC there gives is a significantly higher housing need compared to the other data figures and other formulae. In all probability, the final housing need figure will be lower than that used for the 2030 local plan if, as it should, the 2018 ONS data is used. As set out in other sections of this response, if the vision genuinely seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty including areas of tranquil retreat in the Borough then it is essential that the most up-to-date ONS data and method is used to identify accurate housing needs thereby protecting the rural areas from unnecessary and harmful development on greenfield sites in the rural area.

Form ID: 3028

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3042

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3056

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3071

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3086

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

where. Central to this is both the ONS data and the formula used. In preparation of the 2030 local plan, ONS data from 2014 and the Standard Method of Calculation (SMC) were used to calculate housing growth giving a housing need of 1300 per annum. As stated in the Issues and Options consultation, using the latest 2018 ONS data gives a much-reduced figure for housing need of circa 800 dwellings per year. It is understood that the Borough Council have recently been working with a third-party demographic company and have come up with a figure of circa 1100 units per annum. With the SMC now under review in the recent consultation ‘Changes to the current planning system - Consultation on changes to planning policy and regulations’ by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government dated August 2020, it seems that in all likelihood that the formula for calculating housing need will change again. What is clear is that using the ONS 2014 data and the current SMC there gives is a significantly higher housing need compared to the other data figures and other formulae. In all probability, the final housing need figure will be lower than that used for the 2030 local plan if, as it should, the 2018 ONS data is used. As set out in other sections of this response, if the vision genuinely seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty including areas of tranquil retreat in the Borough then it is essential that the most up-to-date ONS data and method is used to identify accurate housing needs thereby protecting the rural areas from unnecessary and harmful development on greenfield sites in the rural area.

Form ID: 3100

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3114

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3128

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3142

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3156

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3170

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3184

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3198

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3216

Agent: Hegsons Design Consultancy limited

Do you have any other comments?

Form ID: 3230

Do you have any other comments?

Given the significant amount of time and effort that is required to create a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) it is somewhat disappointing to note that the Borough Council is intending to take a potentially combative approach to those NDPs that have been, or are in the process of being, adopted as they relate to the new Local Plan 2040. When referencing the need for a new Local Plan, so soon after the last one was adopted, it is stated that “The second reason related to the speed with which new development would be built in coming years and the progress being made by local communities with their own neighbourhood plans, which the Local Plan 2030 relies upon to identify housing sites. The Inspectors saw that an early review of the Local Plan 2030 offers the opportunity for the Council to intervene if necessary, in order to maintain house building rates” and then “In due course parish councils with neighbourhood plans in place will decide if they want to review those plans to allocate development beyond 2030, either in accordance with the local plan review or because there is a local need to do so. If parish councils do not want to update neighbourhood plans then they can work with the Borough Council to include in the local plan review any additional sites that are needed”; this can be reasonably interpreted as BBC will enforce new housing development on those communities that do not look to revise their NDPs in line with latest BBC ‘targets’. This approach was also confirmed on the recent Local Plan overview presentation hosted by the Borough. This seems somewhat disrespectful to the hundreds of people who have given up many thousands of hours to work voluntarily on their NDP’s just to have it generically ‘overwritten’ by BBC. This also appears to be in complete contradiction to the stated Government aim of an NDP i.e. that it “provides the opportunity for communities to set out a positive vision for how they want their community to develop over the next 10, 15, 20 years in ways that meet identified local need and make sense for local people”. To our mind the whole point of an NDP is that it utilises local expertise and knowledge to provide a more focused development plan that meets the needs of the local community and their area, whereas a Local Plan, by its nature, is far more generic. The proposed approach by BBC potentially destroys the NDP ethos and as such the Borough’s position needs to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency, or better still, be dropped entirely; certainly for those communities that are very near to, or have completed Regulation 14.

Form ID: 3247

Do you have any other comments?

Rushden Town Council has no objections to this Consultation.

Form ID: 3252

Do you have any other comments?

I would like to outline my response and comment on the Local Plan Review. I will respond firstly in general terms to the overall plan review and then more specifically in relation to where I live, Sharnbrook, North Bedfordshire. Overview In general, I would say that if the pandemic situation is to teach us anything, it is that there is going to be a global and huge reset of the World economic and environmental landscape. I think many national governments actually wanted this but didn’t know how to achieve it. ‘Whatever it takes’ and continual money printing can’t be the long term solution for Zombie companies and populations mired in debt and credit arrangements. We need to learn to fly less, drive less and build less or rather, be more inventive with what we have already built. There is an overwhelming urge to reduce consumption. This is going to massively impact not only the draw on central and local government finances (money out) but also what you draw in (money in). There is never likely to be enough of the right resources in the World for this, the next or even the 'one after' generation to ‘go electric’. Solar panels are expensive and costly to make (ask the German Government!!).Hybrid vehicles using fuel and electric are even worse, I wish they’d ban them. Fossil fuels are going to be around for a long time. Just to comment in general on any future planning, one of the great disappointments for me of having moved to a semi-rural area 17 years ago is that my car travel and journeys have more than tripled. Yes, more than tripled. I’m ashamed of it myself. More importantly, if national and local governments are going to meet their environmental and financial responsibilities, they have to be brutally honest about planning and dispersing or moving settlements away from towns or commercial centres is definitely not going to be the answer. Yes, some more people will work from home after the pandemic but studies I’ve read estimate this may pan out at 15-20% over a 20 year period. And if you don’t have people working in and around towns and cities, important revenue streams and taxation to you will disappear. Added to this, I think that if national and local governments do not build in and around towns and cities right now, town centres in particular will die off (they are part way now) and this would be a disaster not only for communities but also for your finances. The pandemic has opened up the World to the ease of online and if you don’t try to save towns and cities with modern, attractive places to live in and around them, jobs and revenues from shops, restaurants and ‘in town’ businesses will just disappear. You need to be inventive. Look at the way Germany and Holland build around their towns and cities, where people can walk or cycle. The Dutch city farms are great. We are going to have to produce more UK and local grown food in the future and retention of farmland is vital but also bringing farming to towns and cities. Water is also going to become a major commodity (see how it is sold around the world). I've even considered buying water shares myself though the concept seems wrong. Planning also affects school provision and quality. Local, smaller schools in towns and cities will reap benefits. There needs to be a move away from the conglomerate, giant schools which are factory teaching and, I suspect, are partly responsible for the surge in young mental health issues as well as putting kids in buses all over the place which is a major issue where I live (as well as all the cars that also accompany the buses!!) It’s just nonsensical. Now I would like to move on to where I live and the plan review. Please bear with me, I appreciate this is semi long but I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and care passionately about them. NIMBY – I don’t think anyone can accuse Sharnbrook residents or the Parish Council of Nimbyism. Since I moved here 17 years ago we have had a major housing development just up from the Unilever site entrance, another major housing development by the Upper School, 3 x semi major housing developments where I live on Mlll Road (yes, 3!!) as well as various additions and infill housing etc., etc., ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Sharnbrook has been overwhelmed by this and roads and schools and facilities are at breaking point. There is apparently another development at Yelnow Road proposed but I am hoping this will be stopped (it must be, especially in one of the prime archeology areas!).There has been exponential and unsustainable growth. Add to this the fact that as I explained my car journeys living here have tripled, just imagine the overall environmental and fossil fuel impact. LOCATION – The plan refers to the Cambridge Arc. Well, Sharnbrook is almost in Northamptonshire and travel to Cambridge from here is definitely not easy or environmentally very sound. If you need a ‘new settlement’ then it needs to be St. Neots or Kimbolton side where there is plenty of land, good access to the main roads and……it’s actually near Cambridge! I’ve worked in commercial business all my life, sat in on meetings when we have looked at locations (the company I work for opened a big, new office in Northants just before the pandemic!!) and I cannot understand the desire to put more housing in North Beds in general. There is not going to be job growth here and all you would do is add to commuting, journeys and environmental damage. It makes no sense. There will be more jobs near Cambridge for sure, Cambridge itself has spread out a great deal but any new development targeted at Cambridge jobs needs to be in that area to reduce commuting and the overall impact. People also like to live in ‘new’ villages or locations. I know a number of people who moved to Wixams and to Cambridge settlements and they love it because everything they need was built for them and in a sustainable way, judged against the number of people living there. TRAFFIC/TRAVEL. The traffic in Sharnbrook has grown exponentially since I moved here and is pretty horrendous now. Mill Road is like a race track at times, Templars Way and Park Lane not far behind. Remember, there is only one ‘through route’ for the whole village and this also provides access to other villages in the area. At school and rush hour time it is clogged and dangerous. I gave up walking my daughter to school on the days I didn’t work 4.5 years ago. It’s not safe. My son’s friend was clipped by a bus at the junction of Mill Road and the Fordham Arms pub a few years back, another friend had the bracelet ripped off her arm by a vehicle going past (and fast) at the bottom of Kennel Hill, another lady from the village (who has since moved out) was badly hurt after being hit by a vehicle near the Coop in the village. What are you waiting for? A fatality? No more houses and no more cars please. It’s a very serious issue. SCHOOLS – The lower school in Sharnbrook has benefited from staying small and catering for the local population in general though I know some children have come in from outside. The village does not need and could not cope with another school, the numbers, the traffic, the pressure. In terms of the Upper School, I don’t know anyone in the village who either went to or has a child at the Upper School that doesn’t think the school has been in a slow but definite decline for many years now. This is undoubtedly due to changes in the local education plans (middle school closure) but also overwhelming the school with new housing as well as trying to cope with children being bussed in at the same time. This has been a disaster. HISTORY/HERITAGE/ARCHEOLOGY – I have lived in Bedfordshire all my life and I can tell you that other than Woburn (and now Centre Parcs) there aren’t many places that people from other parts of the country come to visit in Bedfordshire. The heritage of Sharnbrook, Harrold, Felmersham is vital to the area and county. Overdevelopment would be a disaster. I am not saying this for me. I don’t know if I will be around or alive in 10 years. But areas have to be protected for future generations. The fact that you get tourism from walkers, bikers etc., is fantastic but for them to keep coming, the ‘lie of the land’ has to be protected. There have been numerous archaeological studies of the area (University of Cambridge 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 11 & 12, Yelnow Villa 2009 to name just a few) and this area is known to have undisturbed Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon and medieval remains. Ancient rural settlement is a crucial area of research. I am frankly stunned that anyone is considering allowing development at Yelnow Lane. There is a conservation area in a large part of the middle of the village and you have to ask the question that if the area is cited as important for conservation and important for study why has so much development been allowed and why is it not being stopped altogether? I have a number of friends in this and other villages who are very concerned that the current Borough Council and incumbent Mayor are ‘anti rural’ by political stance. I sincerely hope that is not the case because for one it would be against the oaths taken and legal requirements to ‘work for all’ when sitting in public office but also, as I say above, because areas like this are not protected for me or you but for future generations and for the whole county as an area that brings in and creates revenue. There’s also the issue of needing to protect farmland and water as there is no doubt we are going to have to produce far more home grown food in the future and this is an important farming area for Bedfordshire. So please, review indeed, but if you need a new ‘settlement’ look for a new one near Cambridge where the jobs will be and the commute will be less damaging, build (or reuse) near the towns or there will be no shops or jobs in the towns and please protect the very few rural conservation places there are in Bedfordshire for future generations. I will certainly be campaigning locally on the above issues.

Form ID: 3253

Agent: Avison Young on behalf of National Grid

Do you have any other comments?

Local Plan Review, Issues and Options Consultation and Call for Sites July – August 2020 Representations on behalf of National Grid National Grid has appointed Avison Young to review and respond to local planning authority Development Plan Document consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation on the above document. About National Grid National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) owns and maintains the electricity transmission system in England and Wales. The energy is then distributed to the electricity distribution network operators, so it can reach homes and businesses. National Grid Gas plc (NGG) owns and operates the high-pressure gas transmission system across the UK. In the UK, gas leaves the transmission system and enters the UK’s four gas distribution networks where pressure is reduced for public use. National Grid Ventures (NGV) is separate from National Grid’s core regulated businesses. NGV develop, operate and invest in energy projects, technologies, and partnerships to help accelerate the development of a clean energy future for consumers across the UK, Europe and the United States. Proposed development sites crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets: Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified that one or more proposed development sites are crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets.

Form ID: 3260

Do you have any other comments?

Luton Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation document. These comments are based only upon the documents which are available to review online which include the consultation document, sustainability appraisal scoping report, HELAA and site selection methodology. The main comments are in relation to housing need and the figures identified within the consultation paper. It is noted that a flexible approach has been adopted (given potential changes in Government legislation) within the consultation paper identifying housing requirement numbers of 800-1,305 dwelling per annum across the plan period. The minimum housing requirement is based upon the Government’s current standard method for assessing local housing need, which is currently under consultation to change. The Governments revised standard method currently out to consultation could potentially result in a figure within the range of the figures stated within the paper at 1,153 dwellings per annum. If the Bedford Local Plan does not meet its own housing need, Luton given its own constraints, will not be able to help to meet Bedford’s housing needs. The revised Local Plan will need to ensure that it is able to meet Bedford’s minimum annual housing requirement in accordance with Government guidance for the plan period.

Form ID: 3268

Do you have any other comments?

Thank you for consulting Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) on the Bedford Borough Local Plan Review. Central Bedfordshire Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the review of the local plan from the outset to help shape the next plan for Bedford Borough and we look forward to continuing the good working relations that have already been forged between the two Councils. To this end, I hope you find the comments below useful. CBC welcomes the early review of the Bedford Local Plan in the context of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc and the need to provide additional growth to contribute to meeting the aspirations set out by Government. Given the potential levels of growth that are envisaged, CBC considers it paramount to consider the needs and delivery of infrastructure from the outset of the plan – not just in relation to connectivity, but also key areas such as green infrastructure, education and health. This is relevant to both the delivery of infrastructure within Bedford Borough as well as implications for existing and potential new infrastructure within neighbouring areas. CBC supports the approach for this current consultation in that it focuses on developing a strategy to guide housing and employment growth and identify the infrastructure needed to support it. CBC considers that an appropriate and robust strategy from the outset is paramount to the success of the plan. CBC further supports the approach proposed in terms of identifying policies that seek to deliver quality development at the same time as tackling climate change, protecting the natural environment, providing open spaces, and providing opportunities for self and custom build homes. Whilst it would be helpful to have an understanding of the levels of growth envisaged for the Borough, to be delivered through this plan review, CBC appreciates that this is not possible at the current time. The consultation material suggests that the published Standard methodology would be used to identify the future growth requirements but that the Plan period, which is currently part of this consultation, would be a contributing factor for the identified housing targets. It is currently identified that if the plan period is to 2040, the plan would need to deliver between 5,000 and 15,000 new homes, but if the plan period runs to 2045, this would increase to between 9,000 and 21,625. However, a review of the standard methodology is currently underway and therefore CBC considers that the Borough Council will need to bear this in mind and consider a potential adjustment of plan targets in the future. Having said that, CBC recognises the need to make progress with the plan review and therefore the Council’s early identification and consideration of potential options for the distribution and delivery of growth. It is our view that in the first instance, brownfield and previously development land should be utilised to its maximum capacity before looking to greenfield land to deliver growth. The urban based location options would offer huge benefits in terms of sustainability and growth could be successfully delivered without the need for new large-scale road infrastructure. Intensification of sites within Bedford should be fully considered in line with the estate regeneration objectives of the NPPF and the decisions around East West Rail that have now been taken, which provide confidence in terms of infrastructure in this area. CBC consider some of the ‘cons’ outline in the consultation paper could be successfully overcome through high quality design and exemplar sustainability objectives. Opportunities should be taken to provide exemplar and sustainable development, with the necessary infrastructure available from the outset. The consultation document makes numerous references to new infrastructure, but there is also a need to consider the potential impacts of growth on existing infrastructure, particularly around A421 and the A1 corridor. Planned growth within CBC Local Plan must be taken into account when considering the growth options and their potential impacts. CBC note some of the options suggest development in close proximity to the A1 corridor. If growth in this location is being proposed, a comprehensive understanding of the capacity of the A1 corridor would be required. Further work would be needed to explore a solution for additional traffic impacts. Bearing in mind the known constraints here, this would likely involve the need for large-scale intervention, such as realignment. CBC would welcome the opportunity to be involved in such work. CBC would question whether growth could be considered in these locations without a commitment to such interventions, which would undoubtedly require government funding. CBC would also be interested to understand the rationale behind the potential growth option at St Neots. In relation to employment, CBC appreciates that the evidence work to identify future requirements for employment land is still ongoing and we look forward to future discussions when this is available. The recognition within the consultation material of the need to attract businesses back to the urban areas and the Town Centre is supported. In relation to any future employment requirements and opportunities that are more strategic in nature, it is considered that any expansion of existing sites as well as the provision of new employment sites, should be well located and where it can be supported by both the local and strategic road network. Whilst CBC understand the Planning for the Future White Paper and Changes to the current planning system consultations (Aug 2020) have only recently been released, and this was after the publication of the Bedfordshire Borough Local Plan consultation, there will be a need to consider the implications of these proposals when progressing with further iterations of the plan. I hope you find the above comments helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss these comments further. I look forward to future and ongoing discussions in relation to cross-border working and the provision of a sound Local Plan for Bedford Borough.

Form ID: 3269

Do you have any other comments?

Water Resources Bedford lies within the area traditionally sourced by Anglian Water. The Local Plan needs to address the timings of the projected growth with the availability of potable water supply and any necessary improvements to infrastructure. Anglian Water has published (November 2019) a revised draft water resources management plan (WRMP), which sets out how the company will maintain customer supplies over the period 2020- 2045. The plan can be viewed here: https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/our-strategies-and-plans/draft-water-resources-management-plan/ The company’s assessment is that it will have sufficient supplies to meet this growth but will need to develop a strategic grid to achieve this. This will involve transferring water from Lincolnshire to areas where deficits in supply are predicted. They also seek to reduce individual customer demands and reduce leakage. We recommend that your Authority considers the long term viability of supplying any new development and how the phasing of growth links to the timings of this planned new strategic scheme. The Anglian River Basin Management Plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/anglian-river-basin-district-river-basin-management-plan considered the status of all rivers and aquifers in the Region and looked at what it would take to ensure they met good ecological status and reverse the over abstraction related to historical licensing of water. The measures required to make these improvements were subject to a cost benefit test. The assessment of the measures needed to get the entire aquifer and river system back to supporting good ecological status were deemed to be disproportionately expensive. The plan did approve some measures to improve the status of the rivers that were failing to meet their ecological flow needs where it was cost beneficial. Given the pressure the Chalk aquifer faces, we cannot rule out future further reductions in the supplies available to Anglian Water to prevent deterioration of the water related ecology. At this point, we are not planning on any further reductions before 2025, but there is a high likelihood that further reductions could be required after this period. Any resultant loss in available supplies would need to be addressed in the company’s next WRMP (2024). The Sustainability Assessment Scoping report (July 2020) states in section 10.26 that ‘ Water companies are expected to be able to maintain adequate water supply and wastewater management over the plan period. The requirements of the Water Framework Directive are likely to lead to continued improvements to water quality within the area’. As noted above water companies are only expected to meet increased demands from development by the means of new strategic schemes and the timings of these schemes will be crucial in the phasing of growth. It is important that the Sustainability Assessment evaluates the need to prevent deterioration in Water Framework Directive targets which will prevent water companies from using headroom to increase supply to new developments. Considering that current levels of abstraction are causing environmental damage, we recommend that that the Local Plan considers water resources as a key issue and your Authority recognises the damage of long term increases in abstraction due to growth. We also recommend any new development takes into account the combined effect of growth across the region, including in neighbouring authorities, and therefore the overall increase in demand for water. We note that the last water cycle study was published in 2012 for this area (Bedford & Central Beds Water Cycle Study, Halcrow). Are there any plans to commission a new study or to take into account new information and obligations? Additional Comments on Adopted Local Plan: Policy 51S - Climate change Para 9.19 states that ‘Development will be expected to address both adaptation and mitigation through water and energy efficiency, appropriate layout, design and landscaping, and the use of renewable energy’. We welcome this, but could more detail be added along the lines of ‘New homes and development need to be future proofed in terms of their resource use and efficiency, location, design, construction, orientation and access to nature, for instance ensuring roofs are sufficiently strengthened to allow the future installation of solar panels and green roofs. Proximity to trees, other vegetation, ponds and lakes which provide natural cooling and improve local air quality is also important’ ? Policy 52 - Water demand We welcome the current policy for new development to achieve the higher water efficiency standard. The current wording is ‘Unless it can be demonstrated that it would make the development unviable, new residential development will be required to achieve the higher water efficiency standard in the Building Regulations’. The joint AWS/EA/NE water efficiency position statement points out that although ‘the Local Planning Authority should consider viability taking account of local circumstances and policy requirements, research has shown that the cost of the optional higher water efficiency standard and associated cost can be as low as £6-94 per dwelling. We therefore consider that this does not make Local Plans, or individual development proposals, unviable’. would you consider removing the reference to viability? Call for Sites We would appreciate being consulted on proposed new sites, once you have undertaken the sequential test. In addition to the above comments, we still support the comments and recommendations we previously made under the Adopted Local Plan.

Form ID: 3270

Do you have any other comments?

We feel however there is insufficient information to make a meaningful assessment relative to our Parish at the present time. We are concerned that upon the Ox - Camb Arc there appears to be a massive increase of approx 35% on the current Local plan levels. This appears to equate to 15000 new homes up to 2040 in addition to those already in the 2030 local plan. Brownfield sites are insufficient to provide for this ambitious growth, therefore greenfield development would unfortunately take place and the devastating impact on The environment, biodiversity, adverse implications for climate change and adversely impacting on the wellbeing and quality of residents life would be severe. Adequate infrastructure ie roads, schools, shops, leisure facilities needs to go hand in hand with development necessitating more land and more environmental destruction. The final route of the East/West railway needs to be finalised ASAP as this has a huge impact on the Plan.

Form ID: 3271

Do you have any other comments?

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. e. You then head on flat land directly eastwards and the A421 Bypass needs to be raised with a bridge over the old railway formation to double track specification and accommodating a cycle-cum-footpath/equestrian access. This was raised in the 1993 Side Roads Order 199 whereby the Department of Transport said were the railway pursued they would give sympathetic consideration to accommodating rail access. This clause should be evoked and worked on to the aforementioned specification. f. From east of the bypass the railway leaves the old formation at an angle to go through Willington Woods (largely a gutted quarry) to cross the River Great Ouse and bypass-built Willington. It would then cross back the other side of Willington and curve round to go under the Willington-Great Barford Road and continue erring to the left to align and bridge the Great Barford-Blunham Road. From here, on embankment to avoid River Great Ouse flooding, to continue to north of built Blunham to access the Tempsford flood plains from the south-westerly direction. g. Crossing the A1 and River Great Ouse/Ivel on embankment you ascend the plains north of Station Road Tempsford. h. Our preference would be a multi-aspecting flying junction interceptor with the slows of the ECML rather than another station. This would enable passenger and freight integrations from: - Peterborough/all south including St Neots-Bedford/Oxford corridor and vice versa - Stevenage/Thameslink/East Bedfordshire direct access to County Town of Bedford and the Oxford Corridor and vice versa. - Peterborough/St Neots – Cambridge via Cambourne direct including access to/from Addenbrookes. 4. Land West of Bedford Midland: The former goods shed should be saved for extra parking and second booking hall (capacity) as new bays or through tracks will displace current parking and require extra lands to spread out. Losing this capacity to other-than-rail development would seem short-sighted if growth of usership from current broad range catchment is envisaged. 5. Retail Park/Kempston Town Station: Residents of growing populations south of Bedford River Great Ouse need better rail-based access to Bedford Midland as driving adds 20 minutes to journey time. We recommend the Retail Park on the Bedford-Bletchley Railway be given a station. Studies hitherto have shown positive and expanded parking off Southfields Road could avert any local residential concerns from the Magnolia Close quarter. Summary: It is our view this would significantly enhance reach, range and diversity utilising same tracks. Our route avoids hills, avoids housing conflicts and in all probability would be much easier, cheaper, retains the Northampton-Bedford integrative option and enables through working via Bedford Midland ‘north-east’ and vice versa, whilst trains from Oxford could bay at Bedford Midland if adequate bays are provided, and reverse out to Cambridge and vice versa. Key detail is savvy end-to-end train swaps by drivers and even on X5 that is always a bug bear for passengers as is constantly having to change from a coach to a bus at Bedford for whatever reason, resulting in a downgrade often. For this reason, we ask that the St John’s site development is rejected and that the route we are suggesting is given a fair and objective evaluation contrast the northern route with the wider gains added to the benefit/cost ratio listing and that comparison to be placed in the public domain.

Form ID: 3304

Do you have any other comments?

I would just like to email in regards to the apparent planning of 5000 new houses on the boarder of St Neots, this has already caused huge outrage on our private st neots page and will not be welcomed at all. There is so much wildlife in the surrounding areas that NEED to keep their homes in order to survive. As well as this, The building of these homes is absolutely NOT necessary and will cause a huge outrage and divide in the community. St Neots does not have the capacity to cater for such a huge amount of new residents (on top of Wintringam) as they will obviously be using the st Neots services. There are millions of empty houses in the uk. Build on and fix some of those before completely destroying our beautiful surrounding areas and wildlife. The idea of building this is disgusting and with complete disregard for the current situation we are in as well as our planet.

Form ID: 3308

Do you have any other comments?

I have read the Local Plan Review and wanted to ask if there will also be considerations for our local wildlife within all of this expansion? Will there be a consideration for wild meadow roundabouts and road verges etc and you could also look at saving money by deciding to stop using pesticides . . . surely it is essential to any successful development to also consider the impact of this on our natural world and to include this as an essential part of any successful development.

Form ID: 3316

Do you have any other comments?

I absolutely love where I live, and feel the village and it’s surrounding fields and wildlife gives me immense joy and really adds to my quality of life. I love being outside and having the open land around me as I feel impacts my mental and physical well-being in a greatly positive way, and many others in the village will agree and say the same. Therefore I am absolutely devastated to hear of the proposed development of 5000 houses just across the road from Hail Weston, in the Duloe and Staploe area. This location is adored by many for various reasons, such as a brilliant cycling route, a great place to walk your dog, go for an evening run, or simply enjoy the beautiful fields and sounds of the amazing and valued wildlife that resides there. For example, in the evening, you can hear such a huge variety of birds and insects chirping and living happily in the area. If you go ahead with building the huge amount of houses planned, all of this wildlife will be forced out, with little places left for them to go anyway, which may result in a huge loss of biodiversity as their habitats will be destroyed. And I am not just talking about birds and rabbits etc, also the thousands of insects that currently live in the green vegetation, that are essential for the survival and upholding of the food chain for all the wildlife that lives in the area. The following UN report below clearly explains and highlights our detrimental impact on the environment, especially through land-use change and the growth of urban areas. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ In addition, the protection of the nature hasn’t gone unnoticed by Bedford Council, as around Duloe you can see posts in the grass verges clearly stating they are a nature reserve and should not be cut until late August. Please reconsider destroying these beautiful area that is loved and enjoyed my many. I cannot imagine how the residents do Duloe and Staploe village must be feeling, as they are used to their lovely, one street villages, which will be completely taken away from them, and the relaxed, friendly village feel will be taken from these people forever. I understand the demand for housing, as an environmental science university student I know the social and environmental pressures felt from all angles, but building on brownfield sites and potentially building smaller houses (to prevent for example a couple having a 4 bed house, which would result in unnecessary bedrooms) may be a solution? Thank you for taking your time in reading this email, and hope that some justice can be given to the surrounding residents of your proposed building site.