I object to development 2a, 2b and 2d in the areas that include the Southern parishes and East parishes. (East of the A6 and south of the A421 below the greensand ridge and south eastern river valley)
Although they are located near to transport links they deserve to be viewed and valued as unique and valuable in their rural setting between river valley and greensand ridge. This ancient rural landscape includes many important historical and natural features such as remains of medieval field systems, villages, water courses and listed buildings and provides a beautiful contrast to and view from the Greensand ridge. Development, particularly large scale development in these two areas would irreversibly alter the rural character and unique landscape setting of the Eastern Clay Vale villages (5E in the Landscape Character assessment)
Development here would surely contradict the Landscape management guidelines 5E.1.31 to 5E.1.40 and Development Guidelines 5E.1.41-51 , which include conserving the open large scale setting of Cardington Airship sheds, conserving the clear views and visual relationship with the Mid Greensand Ridge, conserving the dispersed pattern of settlements , preventing the merger of villages, and creating further green infrastructure.
The area should continue to provide an open, agricultural setting to Bedford and contrast to the Greensand Ridge as stated in the landscape strategy for this area.
The only option of 2 I would not object to is 2c – settlements near to new train stations would make sense, and the unique character and ruralness of the Southern and Eastern parishes could be preserved and enhanced.
I also was not able to see in sufficient detail the Natural Capital assessment as I don’t have access to GIS . I really hope that those management and development guidelines in the Landscape Character assessment are considered within the natural capital network as the maps of opportunities seem rather sparse in this 5E Eastern Clay Vale area. The fields below the ridge are plentiful in small springs / ponds / watercourses that may not have shown in general habitat assessments but are oases of biodiversity which could be valuably enhanced. The area is also home to a variety of farmland birds which may not fit with development plans, even for net gain opportunities as they require farmland and hedgerow habitats. This may not be reflected properly in the assessment of development in the Southern and Eastern parishes against Objective 2 of the sustainability appraisal which is rather broad brush when assessing biodiversity impact.