Object

Representation ID: 6645

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Bedford Borough Councillor

3.10 – 3.17:
As we have noted above, we are concerned that only 4 options have been put to residents and that each of those 4 has only 1500 dwellings proposed for the urban area. This approach necessitates, once again, an unacceptable impact on the rural area which we regard not only as lazy planning but irresponsible planning. As previously pointed out the Council’s own sustainability appraisal clearly states that urban growth is the most sustainable on virtually all criteria and village related growth the worst. The Council has declared a Climate Change emergency and there is a position statement on Climate Change at para 8.2 et seq, yet it is disappointing to note how little that has influenced this draft plan; it is a lost opportunity
We believe that properly planned urban development, inevitably entailing some expansion, albeit retaining green spaces between communities, and including areas of enhanced density housing, is not only the most sustainable, as confirmed by the Sustainability Appraisal, but more closely meets the needs of the main growth sectors as noted in the Local Housing Needs Assessment. Accordingly we believe that a variant of Option 1b, the variation to include some expansion and some rural growth is strongly to be preferred.
For those reasons we are strongly of the view that the listed 4 preferred development options fail to live up to the aspirations set out in the Council’s own Visions and Objectives referred to above.
Apart from the inadequacy of the urban growth element our objections to the various options are :
i) They all entail excessive loss of agricultural land, particularly grades 1 &2.
ii) The so-called corridors are tenuous concepts that may seem coherent on a map but embrace differing villages of various sizes with little or no linking infrastructure capable of supporting significant growth.
iii) They all will increase reliance on non-sustainable modes of travel for all purposes.
iv) They all entail a further erosion of the open countryside which is one of Bedford’s most valuable assets.
We are strongly of the view that Options 3b, 3c, 4, 6 & 7 should be dismissed. The “key service centres” are already being changed beyond recognition and the strain on their immediate and surrounding infrastructure cannot sensibly be added to within the time span of this plan. In each case the loss of agricultural land that would follow the further expansion of these settlement areas and the dependence on unsustainable travel for all purposes plainly breaches all relevant sustainability criteria.