Object

Representation ID: 8378

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Bedford Borough Councillor

We reject the Government’s assessment of “housing need”. In a country with more bedrooms per head of population than ever before, the issue is one of distribution of housing, not overall supply. Large scale inward movement of population into Bedford Borough from other parts of the country will increase demand for housing, work against needed improvements in affordability here and increase inequality within the country.
The picture is further complicated by the Government’s spatial framework for the OxCam Arc expected in January 2023. There is a severe danger that that special framework will undermine this proposed Local Plan. In addition, the Council is a member of the Central Area Growth Board. If the Central Area Growth Board is trying to “provide the strategic leadership that will enable planning for economic transformation across the central area of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.”, it would be expected that this Draft Plan would relate its proposals to the ideas of the unmentioned Central Area Growth Board. Again, the possibility that the plan will be undermined by such a Board is very worrying.
However, we recognise that, unless it successfully challenges them, the council is compelled to work within central Government targets, and thus all that can be done locally is to make the best of the resultant requirement to provide opportunities for housebuilders to make unwarranted profits.
As part of this, we support Neighbourhood Plans. Unreasonable central Government pressure should not result in large numbers of houses being added to village-after-village in the face of local opposition.
We explicitly reject talk of the “A421 transport corridor”. Such road-based development is fundamentally inconsistent with Theme 4 of the policy and the objectives it outlines, or what would truly be required by Theme 1, let alone the apparent high priority given to “Tackling climate change and adapting to and mitigating its effects”. The resource used by private road transport (whatever energy source is used) is greater than that which is consistent with “a borough where everybody has appropriate access”, let alone tackling climate breakdown and its impacts.

On this basis, our assessment is that Option 2c appears to be the least-worst of the options, with more scope for rail-based transport, however, of the elements of this option, development at Wyboston looks the least likely to be associated with good public transport, particularly if the A428 is redirected to be south and east of Little Barford.
There may, further, be concerns about flood risk in low-lying land, especially as climate breakdown brings about extra severe weather events.
Paragraph 3.23 outlines “principles [that] provide a framework for Bedford’s existing transport policies”, yet they fail to mention public transport. While principles 1, 2 and 4 all actually imply public transport, the failure to mention public transport is a glaring omission.
Principle 1 risks being self-defeating. Working towards reduced congestion is likely to work against delivery of low carbon transport. Congestion provides vehicle owners an incentive to use other methods of transport, or to keep journey lengths down. To deliver low carbon transport requires provision for public transport, and low energy consumption forms of transport, such as cycling, walking and rail.
Principle 2, “Promote connectivity and accessibility” can only truly be met by providing connectivity that is accessible to all, including those with financial constraints and impairments that preclude them using private cars.
Thus, to truly meet “Principle 4 – Promote and support infrastructure development”, the infrastructure that needs to be developed is public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, in communities that are designed whereby the norm is walkable neighbourhoods.
The claim under 3.24 that “The current polices … do not need to change” does not withstand scrutiny. They are not compatible with the vision of “Tackling climate change… at the heart of new development throughout the borough”, they are not compatible with Theme 4: Better Places, and its objectives, and they are not compatible with Theme 1 if there is an honest desire to make the borough “Greener”.