Question 1

No

I don't agree with the plan for dispersed growth, for mainly the reasons quoted and it's going to ruin current villages: May require growth in communities that have no or very few facilities. This may encourage more car use as residents have to travel further,making walking and cycling less attractive. Would still require significant growth in and around Bedford if it were to take its proportionate share. Lack of a focused critical mass of development makes providing new strategic infrastructure more difficult. Unlikely to facilitate employment growth due to dispersed nature. I think the plan to develop areas around the A421 would benefit Bedford greatly and not ruin North Bedfordshire for reasons stated: Takes advantage of existing and proposed road infrastructure improvements. Close to existing employment areas with good connections. Continues the regeneration of the Marston Vale and the creation of the Community Forest. Reduces need for growth in other rural areas. Opportunity to extend the established settlement at Wixams with access to the new rail station. Provides the opportunity to phase growth, linked to upgraded infrastructure. • Could incorporate a western expansion of St Neots or a new settlement at Wyboston. Capitalise on proximity and reduced travel time to high-value Cambridge market.

Yes

While I agree with the scope, with Bedford having such a high number of commuters, I think there needs to be a specific focus on the infrastructure that supports the use of things like regular reliable buses, parking at the train station, station capacity, and the roads between here and MK. I also think the plans must look more long term at the supporting infrastructure - Great Denham primary school is already too small for the number of children living in the parish, as the plans seemingly did not take into account future growth, and the design of the roads throughout GD also did not account for enough parking for multi-vehicle spaces. So, not so much a focus on "can we deliver enough houses" - but "can we deliver enough houses while building true self-sustaining communities"?

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

No answer given

Yes

I do not agree with such a significant number of new dwellings but clearly your hand is being forced by the government so we have no choice. I so agree that you must have policies to improve the quality of development especially their design. Many towns are blighted by bland, identikit boxes from the standard mass builders (Persimmon, Bellway etc) and residents are screaming out for some local building individuality. This could come from encouraging smaller builders to participate in developments, or forcing the mass builders to submit housing styles that enhance an area. This must be accompanied by major tree planting within the new estates - even old fashioned avenues - of NATIVE long living trees which must be up kept by the builder for at least 5 years, responsible for replacing dying trees in that time. Also if 'repurposing' the town centre includes completely rebuilding the hideous pedestrianised centre I'm all for that. It looks jaded, cheap, tacky and as if designed by a child. Your planners should visit many European cities to see how a proper town square can enhance a town and bring in tourists. No one would visit Bedford as a tourist (including the awful mock Milton Keynes style Riverside development) as it currently stands. Also divert the A6 from the town center altogether so the high street can also be pedestrianised and dare to think of building a tram system to replace all the buses that run through the town and link up to the out of town car parks.

No

No answer given

Yes

I think we should focus on brownfield sites initially, but not always with high density housing. The site needs to dictate the appropriate housing.

Yes

Everything we do from now on must be seen through the lens of sustainability and the climate crisis, whilst also preserving important natural areas for rest, relaxation and good mental heath.

Yes

No answer given

Yes

Links with Foreign Commonwealth Office and British Embassies organiziationally. High priorty of natural heritage, wildlife, animal and plant life including pets, agricultural and zoo animals. Feed and habitat provision, breeding and maintenance with ancilliary support activities. Well maintained parks and open spaces. A stock of empty properties for sorting, allocation, assessment and storage of live and deadstock.

Yes

No answer given

No

No answer given

No

Include policies to cover - protection of the environment and areas of natural beauty - protection of agricultural land providing food needed to support the population - protection of historic sites - protection of the nature of existing settlements - e.g village locationsshoudl be allowed to stay as villages rather than changed to towns include policies of - building on areas already affected by or adjacent to existing building or brown field sites - building in areas where infrastructure like roads can cope with the resultant additional traffic

No

The Borough needs to consider transport and its impact on the local environment

Yes

No answer given

No

While I do no work in this area the whole document is very broad with no clearly defined answers on: No Social Housing numbers in the currently plans, No confirmation that all new homes will be 100% carbon neutral in any future development, That while these new housing states are built how these will be services by buses to stop car use, tram service installed (as an asthma suffer I could t use an e-bike or wait in the cold for a bus too long) How the increased number of new home (other than saying there is a need for infrastructure) I have seen on bike lanes, wide open pathways to walk into town safely anywhere! I see no reference to the hospital and how people will access this with regard to parking I see no clear or confirmed (I have lived here 20 years) and still no development of the either station. That there will be sufficient parking to stop people having to drive. Access to the two stations is critical Why if climate change and polluation are so important why block the free flow of traffic through the centre of town?? it make no sense and will discourage people from attempting to access the town

No

As the Local Plan is a Government led initiative what will happen if there is a change in Government and housing is no longer the priority? What other evidence is there that up to 15,000 homes are needed?

No

The order of items in the list should be put in reverse order. 'Consider the need' is used for items that are essential and should be given the highest priority The need to protect the natural environment and diversity of species is not adequately stated There is an important consideration omitted which is the ability of the aquafers in the region to support more growth particularly in the event of lower than current average rainfall. The last consideration, meeting national policy requirements, we all know is hugely controversial. The priorities of the national government are to extract wealth from the general population with no regard to our welfare. They are already blatantly corrupt, the Jenrick housing minister episodes providing adequate evidence. National policy that degrades the lives of Bedfordshire residents should be challenged exhaustively.

Yes

No answer given

Yes

I don’t think that the Government will any different approach.

Yes

OXFORD-CAMBRIDGE ARC – I AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED BROWN – URBAN BASED LOCATION

No

YOU ALREADY HAVE A PLAN – SO WHY KEEP DOING MORE – IT’S A WASTE OF EVERYONE TIME.