Question 1
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes, I agree in part with the proposed scope of the Local Plan review. I agree with the inclusion of strategy and allocation of new development sites to allow for sustainable growth in the Borough and to improve the quality of the built environment. I strongly agree with the need to consider changes to current policies for the natural environment following the publication of the Environment Act. With this in mind and the proposed aim to prepare policies in order to address climate change, I would like to see an additional focus and more emphasis on the preservation of valuable and important open space within the Borough, particularly those already identified in the existing adopted Local Plan and strengthen these policies so that built development is directed to brownfield sites and those previously developed sites. I would like to see a review of the Local Open Spaces and Gaps in the Borough and to see policies strengthened around these areas to ensure that the natural environment is not further eroded and is afforded the highest protection.
I first object to the process that Bedford Borough Council (BBC) are using for this consultation: • The NPPF describes the Local Plan as being drawn up in consultation with the community. Due to COVID-19, BBC admit that they cannot hold ordinary drop in sessions around the borough, so the vast majority of the information is provided online. This discriminates against those who are unable to access or use online information and the consultation is therefore unfair and undemocratic. • In the specific case of my parish of Staploe, broadband is not even available to many residents, so they are unable to take part in the process. This is made worse by the Staploe Parish council also operating entirely on line, including online consultation meetings. • Parishioners are therefore excluded from the BBC and Parish consultation process. • The process should be postponed until BBC can hold the appropriate drop in sessions and our Parish Council can hold proper consultation meetings. The January 2023 deadline for submission of the new Local Plan should be extended by the period of postponement. Secondly I object to the basis of the scope of the Local Plan review: 1. Oxford Cambridge Arc. Local Plan 2030 was adopted in January 2020 after independent examination. In approving the plan the examiners have stipulated that the next plan be accelerated from 5 to 3 years (submission by January 2023) for two reasons, including: • To respond to long term growth requirements in relation to the Oxford Cambridge Arc, as Local Plan 2030 had been unable to do this due to the uncertainty about Arc-related development and infrastructure needs after 2030. The government has set out its ambitions for the Oxford Cambridge Arc. The 2019 planned broad, joint public engagement exercise has not yet taken place and the government have yet to clarify the route for the Oxford Cambridge Arc, the need for an expressway, East West Rail station locations and a spatial strategy for the Arc. It is therefore clear that there is no further information on the Arc since the approval of Local Plan 2030, so it is not possible for BBC to meaningfully advance this Local Plan review and be held to the submission date of January 2023. 2. East West Rail. While the corridor for the route has been announced, further consultation to determine the best alignment is due to take place in 2021, so where stations will be located is undecided. This is essential information for planning housing development. 3. Housing Need. A new Local Plan needs to be based on up-to-date, competent and reliable data. The Draft Housing Strategy 2021-26 shows that the following are not in place: • A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was produced in 2016 and updated in 2018. The Council will need to update the SHMA to provide data on housing needs such that it can reliably inform future housing strategies, policies and for the Local Plan review. • A new Local Housing Need Assessment (LHNA) will be required to provide the housing needs evidence base for the new Local Plan. • BBC are using demographic information in its Housing Strategy based upon the census data collected in 2011. A new census will be undertaken in 2021 and it will be necessary to consider the updated information it provides and establish whether and how changes in demographics impact upon housing objectives and strategies as they are renewed and updated. BBC estimate that they will not consider these results until 2022/23! 4. Annual housing requirements. Explanation is provided for the range of annual housing requirements (800-1305 dwellings/year) used in the consultation. It makes no sense to use the out of date 2014 based population predictions that inflate the need to 1305 houses/year. The 2018 based population predictions should be used (800 houses/year). In addition the government intends to review the standard methodology this year, so the process should be postponed until it is clear what housing need has to be planned for. 5. Development Corporations. The Government has announced its intention to examine and develop the case for up to four new Development Corporations in the Arc to accelerate new housing and infrastructure development. One of these is for a new Development Corporation covering the Borough. What is known about these Development Corporations? Who will be their members, how will they be funded and what powers will they have? Will they be required to follow planning policy/rules and comply with the Local Plan, or will they have more extensive powers? 6. Summary. With outdated demographic and housing need information, lack of clarity on how to calculate housing need, unknown locations for the East West Rail stations and lack of government strategy and consultation on the Oxford Cambridge Arc, there are too many unknowns at this time for a meaningful review of the Local Plan. Rather than rush this through based on unreliable information to meet a deadline set by the examiners of Local Plan 2030, the Review and consultation should be postponed and an extension to the January 2023 submission date be sought, until reliable information and proper consultation can be held.
There is no mention of Transport and Accesability. No mention of Villages and Hamlets in fact the Rural environment seems to have been forgotten
I have significant concerns about the number of houses planned for north bedfordshire. The area is congested already , whether going south or north and east and little access going west without going through villages. If heading into Bedford the Clapham roundabout takes ages a peak time and going the backroads is difficult and can be dangerous due to narrow roads. North bedfordshire enjoys great small village communities and to lose some of this character would be unfortunate but the bigger issue is accessibility. Rushden is so close and with more and more development happening in east northamptonshire, it is creating greater traffic to bedford already with no plans to increase the capacity of the roads around. We already have parking and access problems in wymington due to the nature of the high street and the train track. The access in to rushden is difficult even when it is non-peak times.
No answer given
I have to say, do you all sit in a room throwing darts at a map?! In reference to the 'Brown' option, its absolutley clear noone has actually visited the site in Staploe, Duloe and Honeydon! It states several times within your documentation that this area is an "urban area", when in actual fact its entirely rural! this area needs to be removed from any option!
Due to COVID-19 Bedford Borough Council are unable to hold the usual public consultation sessions. The use of online information and submissions prevents those in society unable to use these methods from being able to participate in the process. The process is therefore unfair and undemocratic. It should be postponed until all in the community can take part and have their say. • Due to COVID-19 Staploe Parish Council are unable to hold the usual public consultation sessions. The use of online meetings prevents those in society unable to use these methods from being able to participate in the process. The process is therefore unfair and undemocratic.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes, I agree in part with the proposed scope of the Local Plan review. I agree with the inclusion of strategy and allocation of new development sites to allow for sustainable growth in the Borough and to improve the quality of the built environment. I strongly agree with the need to consider changes to current policies for the natural environment following the publication of the Environment Act. With this in mind and the proposed aim to prepare policies in order to address climate change, I would like to see an additional focus and more emphasis on the preservation of valuable and important open space within the Borough, particularly those already identified in the existing adopted Local Plan and strengthen these policies so that built development is directed to brownfield sites and those previously developed sites. I would like to see a review of the Local Open Spaces and Gaps in the Borough and to see policies strengthened around these areas to ensure that the natural environment is not further eroded and is afforded the highest protection.
No answer given
The effects of the lockdown have accelerated the challenges to the traditional town centre, with even more closures of traditional large retail outlets and the possibility that there will be more working from home. Assumptions about the provision of office space need to be reviewed. If redundant retail and office space is to be repurposed for housing it will be challenging to maintain standards. We need more housing but the people living there need to be in a good environment with the faciities they need. Meeting numerical targets without quality only stocks up problems for the future. Central government approaches to this must not lead to development that is not planned properly at the local level. The very recent proposed changes to planning may throw up unforseen challenges. The proposal to end the S106 system to be replaced by some sort of fee may weaken the ability of local government to ensure the quality of developments. The existing planning system had weaknesses that have been shown by events in Great Denham leading to the loss of the golf course. It is essential to lobby against measures based on the assumption that planning processes need to be loosened. If they do need to be clarified and simplified they do not necessarily need to be weakened.
I first object to the process that Bedford Borough Council (BBC) are using for this consultation: • The NPPF describes the Local Plan as being drawn up in consultation with the community. Due to COVID-19, BBC admit that they cannot hold ordinary drop in sessions around the borough, so the vast majority of the information is provided online. This discriminates against those who are unable to access or use online information and the consultation is therefore unfair and undemocratic. • In the specific case of my parish of Staploe, broadband is not even available to many residents, so they are unable to take part in the process. This is made worse by the Staploe Parish council also operating entirely on line, including online consultation meetings. • Parishioners are therefore excluded from the BBC and Parish consultation process. • The process should be postponed until BBC can hold the appropriate drop in sessions and our Parish Council can hold proper consultation meetings. The January 2023 deadline for submission of the new Local Plan should be extended by the period of postponement. Secondly I object to the basis of the scope of the Local Plan review: 1. Oxford Cambridge Arc. Local Plan 2030 was adopted in January 2020 after independent examination. In approving the plan the examiners have stipulated that the next plan be accelerated from 5 to 3 years (submission by January 2023) for two reasons, including: • To respond to long term growth requirements in relation to the Oxford Cambridge Arc, as Local Plan 2030 had been unable to do this due to the uncertainty about Arc-related development and infrastructure needs after 2030. The government has set out its ambitions for the Oxford Cambridge Arc. The 2019 planned broad, joint public engagement exercise has not yet taken place and the government have yet to clarify the route for the Oxford Cambridge Arc, the need for an expressway, East West Rail station locations and a spatial strategy for the Arc. It is therefore clear that there is no further information on the Arc since the approval of Local Plan 2030, so it is not possible for BBC to meaningfully advance this Local Plan review and be held to the submission date of January 2023. 2. East West Rail. While the corridor for the route has been announced, further consultation to determine the best alignment is due to take place in 2021, so where stations will be located is undecided. This is essential information for planning housing development. 3. Housing Need. A new Local Plan needs to be based on up-to-date, competent and reliable data. The Draft Housing Strategy 2021-26 shows that the following are not in place: • A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was produced in 2016 and updated in 2018. The Council will need to update the SHMA to provide data on housing needs such that it can reliably inform future housing strategies, policies and for the Local Plan review. • A new Local Housing Need Assessment (LHNA) will be required to provide the housing needs evidence base for the new Local Plan. • BBC are using demographic information in its Housing Strategy based upon the census data collected in 2011. A new census will be undertaken in 2021 and it will be necessary to consider the updated information it provides and establish whether and how changes in demographics impact upon housing objectives and strategies as they are renewed and updated. BBC estimate that they will not consider these results until 2022/23! 4. Annual housing requirements. Explanation is provided for the range of annual housing requirements (800-1305 dwellings/year) used in the consultation. It makes no sense to use the out of date 2014 based population predictions that inflate the need to 1305 houses/year. The 2018 based population predictions should be used (800 houses/year). In addition the government intends to review the standard methodology this year, so the process should be postponed until it is clear what housing need has to be planned for. 5. Development Corporations. The Government has announced its intention to examine and develop the case for up to four new Development Corporations in the Arc to accelerate new housing and infrastructure development. One of these is for a new Development Corporation covering the Borough. What is known about these Development Corporations? Who will be their members, how will they be funded and what powers will they have? Will they be required to follow planning policy/rules and comply with the Local Plan, or will they have more extensive powers? 6. Summary. With outdated demographic and housing need information, lack of clarity on how to calculate housing need, unknown locations for the East West Rail stations and lack of government strategy and consultation on the Oxford Cambridge Arc, there are too many unknowns at this time for a meaningful review of the Local Plan. Rather than rush this through based on unreliable information to meet a deadline set by the examiners of Local Plan 2030, the Review and consultation should be postponed and an extension to the January 2023 submission date be sought, until reliable information and proper consultation can be held.
Greater emphasis should be given to local ownership of housing development boundaries
No answer given
Although I agree with the proposed scope of the Local Plan Review, there are elements in the Draft Vision which are not addressed by the Scope of the Plan. 1. “Facilitating sustainable food production”. There is no policy to achieve this aim. Class 1 and 2 agricultural land is being reclassified to allow development and mineral extraction while brownfield sites, former clay and gravel quarries are not being redeveloped. 2. “Renewable energy technology”. There are no policies to require new developments to provide charging for electric cars. 3. “New town centre transport interchange” There are no policies for an integrated transport strategy. Bedford Midland Mainline Station Is difficult to get to from the east of Bedford. The bus services go to the town centre and not the station. More cycle paths are required. The rural community will have to suffer the impact of the East/West Rail Project while not benefiting from access due to lack of public transport and difficulty parking. 4. Bedford Town Centre. Post COVID-19 the centre of Bedford is likely to be very different. Many of the department stores have closed. In the past people lived in town centres. There are no policies to adapt to the change to retail market moving online.
There should be much more emphasis on protecting the environment, our natural landscape and open countryside. There should be no presumption to build on greenfields until all brownfield sites have been re-developed.
STOP allowing the likes of Amazon and rich online companies to put more SHED'S all over Bedfordshire's green and pleasant land at the expense of young families gardens ( more so with the advent of Covid19). If you can build an incinerator in a disused clay pit I'm sure Amazon could afford to build its warehousing underground in the disused clay pits around Stewartby. If it was built with a substantial steel frame it could be grassed over or decent housing built over it and so negating the cost of the structure. Also a bonus to the flagging British Steel Industry
The proposed scope of the Local Plan Review is very extensive and is supported. The inclusion of matters such as addressing climate change improving quality of developments and repurposing (diversification) of the town centres are all welcome. This Council’s particular interest is in the development of a new spatial strategy and the six alternative potential growth strategies that are proposed
No answer given
Whilst we acknowledge the need for an early review of Local Plan 2030 following the Inspectors recommendation, there appears to be a number of uncertainties and unresolved matters which could significantly impact upon the level of growth required in the Borough, in particular (i) how the level of growth associated with the Oxford to Cambridge Arc is to be distributed; (ii) the Government’s figures for affordability (due to published in March 2021); and (iii) the review of the standard methodology to resolve the housing requirement. We are concerned that these unresolved matters could have a significant impact on the direction of the new Local Plan in particular on the housing figures required for the new Local Plan period. Should any significant changes arise this could have an impact on the Local Plan strategy and in particular the locations for growth. We would not wish for a scenario whereupon an agreed strategy for growth is resolved only to be altered later in the preparation of the Local Plan which could have an impact on Rural Service Centre such as Carlton which has already been allocated a level of growth within a recently adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The existing Local Plan 2030 provides a significant number of generic policies which do not distinguish between urban and rural settings. Within the Parish, we have seen developments come forward where standards are more applicable to urban environments and this has been to the detriment to the character and form of the settlement. In light of this, the Parish consider that the Local Plan Review should acknowledge this by providing advice either through policy or supplementary planning guidance in defining what constitutes ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ development. There is significant growth for the Borough and any allocations for new development either for housing or employment should include new policies for appropriate infrastructure to be in place to support the proposals, Currently, Bedford Borough only has the A6 as a major road serving the north of the Borough, it’s entry into Bedford is already a pinch point and is not adequate to address traffic generated from new developments to Bedford railway station. Finally on this section, we would strongly emphasise the need for new development sites to address the resulting impact on infrastructure, education & medical provision as well as green infrastructure including green spaces and access to the countryside.
Policies: 28S, 29 and 30 need to be updated to incorporate more comprehensive details which is based on a strategy and a vision for the character and design of Bedford’s urban landscape, in particular for Bedford’s town centre. In the 2030 Local Plan, ‘design codes’ are mentioned under many polices for different site allocation, 10,11,12,13,14, 22, 24 and that ‘they will be to be agreed with the Local Planning authority as part of the application process’. This policy wording is contrary to the National Planning Policy framework 2019, section 125 which states: “Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics.” The current wording in the plan will mean a) no community involvement in the design code and b) design codes for each site, with no overarching strategy or vision for the design codes to refer to thereby continuing the piecemeal development of the town centre and beyond. Local Plans in other towns and cities do have a strategy and an overarching design code, for example, Cambridge, Bath and York. Whilst Bedford cannot compete with these towns in terms of numbers of span of historical buildings, the local plans for these areas are clearly a good benchmark and are a good example of aspiration, that Bedford so desperately needs. Lack of strategy and lack of aspiration has led to Bedford’s decline in terms of how desirable and attractive it is to live, visit and work in Bedford. Making Bedford a desirable place to visit will be important to fully realise the benefits of the East-West Railway.
The claims of benefits to the Borough due not distinguish between urban and rural parts. Most of the benefits appear to be to the urban areas. The East-West rail should be added to the list. I live in a village and asked the following question at one of the East West Rail consultation meetings. "How will East West Rail benefit me?" The answer from one of the organisers was "Not at all". I understand that the Borough Council lobbied hard for one particular route which originally was very expensive. I think it should be added to the list so we can learn why this route was chosen.
I agree, but I think you also need to add preservation of agricultural land, woodland and meadow/river conservation, together with protection of the traditional historic villages of North Bedfordshire.
I first object to the process that Bedford Borough Council (BBC) are using for this consultation: • The NPPF describes the Local Plan as being drawn up in consultation with the community. Due to COVID-19, BBC admit that they cannot hold ordinary drop in sessions around the borough, so the vast majority of the information is provided online. This discriminates against those who are unable to access or use online information and the consultation is therefore unfair and undemocratic. • In the specific case of my parish of Staploe, broadband is not even available to many residents, so they are unable to take part in the process. This is made worse by the Staploe Parish council also operating entirely on line, including online consultation meetings. • Parishioners are therefore excluded from the BBC and Parish consultation process. • The process should be postponed until BBC can hold the appropriate drop in sessions and our Parish Council can hold proper consultation meetings. The January 2023 deadline for submission of the new Local Plan should be extended by the period of postponement. Secondly I object to the basis of the scope of the Local Plan review: 1. Oxford Cambridge Arc. Local Plan 2030 was adopted in January 2020 after independent examination. In approving the plan the examiners have stipulated that the next plan be accelerated from 5 to 3 years (submission by January 2023) for two reasons, including: • To respond to long term growth requirements in relation to the Oxford Cambridge Arc, as Local Plan 2030 had been unable to do this due to the uncertainty about Arc-related development and infrastructure needs after 2030. The government has set out its ambitions for the Oxford Cambridge Arc. The 2019 planned broad, joint public engagement exercise has not yet taken place and the government have yet to clarify the route for the Oxford Cambridge Arc, the need for an expressway, East West Rail station locations and a spatial strategy for the Arc. It is therefore clear that there is no further information on the Arc since the approval of Local Plan 2030, so it is not possible for BBC to meaningfully advance this Local Plan review and be held to the submission date of January 2023. 2. East West Rail. While the corridor for the route has been announced, further consultation to determine the best alignment is due to take place in 2021, so where stations will be located is undecided. This is essential information for planning housing development. 3. Housing Need. A new Local Plan needs to be based on up-to-date, competent and reliable data. The Draft Housing Strategy 2021-26 shows that the following are not in place: • A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was produced in 2016 and updated in 2018. The Council will need to update the SHMA to provide data on housing needs such that it can reliably inform future housing strategies, policies and for the Local Plan review. • A new Local Housing Need Assessment (LHNA) will be required to provide the housing needs evidence base for the new Local Plan. • BBC are using demographic information in its Housing Strategy based upon the census data collected in 2011. A new census will be undertaken in 2021 and it will be necessary to consider the updated information it provides and establish whether and how changes in demographics impact upon housing objectives and strategies as they are renewed and updated. BBC estimate that they will not consider these results until 2022/23! 4. Annual housing requirements. Explanation is provided for the range of annual housing requirements (800-1305 dwellings/year) used in the consultation. It makes no sense to use the out of date 2014 based population predictions that inflate the need to 1305 houses/year. The 2018 based population predictions should be used (800 houses/year). In addition the government intends to review the standard methodology this year, so the process should be postponed until it is clear what housing need has to be planned for. 5. Development Corporations. The Government has announced its intention to examine and develop the case for up to four new Development Corporations in the Arc to accelerate new housing and infrastructure development. One of these is for a new Development Corporation covering the Borough. What is known about these Development Corporations? Who will be their members, how will they be funded and what powers will they have? Will they be required to follow planning policy/rules and comply with the Local Plan, or will they have more extensive powers? 6. Summary. With outdated demographic and housing need information, lack of clarity on how to calculate housing need, unknown locations for the East West Rail stations and lack of government strategy and consultation on the Oxford Cambridge Arc, there are too many unknowns at this time for a meaningful review of the Local Plan. Rather than rush this through based on unreliable information to meet a deadline set by the examiners of Local Plan 2030, the Review and consultation should be postponed and an extension to the January 2023 submission date be sought, until reliable information and proper consultation can be held.
No answer given