1.9

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 3970

Received: 29/08/2021

Representation Summary:

Sites should be then chosen that do not necessarily rely on the arc using small to medium developments bedford seems to have plenty of these emphasising on brown field sites as a priority.

Full text:

Sites should be then chosen that do not necessarily rely on the arc using small to medium developments bedford seems to have plenty of these emphasising on brown field sites as a priority.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4013

Received: 29/08/2021

Representation Summary:

Do no want speculative development.

However do not want large new settlements above 2500 houses or initial phases of yet to be planned new towns (Dennybrook) until Arc vision published.

Full text:

Do no want speculative development.

However do not want large new settlements above 2500 houses or initial phases of yet to be planned new towns (Dennybrook) until Arc vision published.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4047

Received: 30/08/2021

Representation Summary:

I support the continuation of local plan making regardless of the progress of the Arc Spatial Framework because it is more closely related to the actual housing and infrastructure requirements for the local area, rather than to the development of the regional area as a whole.

Full text:

I support the continuation of local plan making regardless of the progress of the Arc Spatial Framework because it is more closely related to the actual housing and infrastructure requirements for the local area, rather than to the development of the regional area as a whole.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4314

Received: 31/08/2021

Representation Summary:

Bedford BC has a very good case to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030, which then required immediate review after adoption because of the need to align with the arc) should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed. Don't be so weak.

Full text:

Bedford BC has a very good case to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030, which then required immediate review after adoption because of the need to align with the arc) should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed. Don't be so weak.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 01/09/2021

Representation Summary:

concern about excessive increase in numbers and inconsistancy between local and central govt

Full text:

concern about excessive increase in numbers and inconsistancy between local and central govt

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4735

Received: 01/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Bedford BC has a very good case to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030, (which then required immediate review after adoption because of the need to align with the arc) should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Full text:

Bedford BC has a very good case to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030, (which then required immediate review after adoption because of the need to align with the arc) should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 4923

Received: 02/09/2021

Representation Summary:

There is a complex and inter related strategic plan making context to Bedford in light of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc. The Government’s commitment to the Arc in terms of growth, spatial planning and infrastructure is well documented, and it is regrettable that Arc wide plan making has been so significantly delayed, since the clearly preferred position is that the Arc should inform the Bedford Local Plan 2040.
Notwithstanding, we recognise the importance – embedded in the Local Plan 2030 – in Bedford progressing a Local Plan review and on balance it is appropriate that Bedford continues to progress a plan review despite the sequencing difficulties vis a vis the Arc plan making process.
In this context, we would strongly recommend that the Local Plan 2040 be the subject of an early review policy so as to ensure that the issue of sequencing with the Arc is quickly brought back in to line such that strategic/regional planning informs local planning. We recognise that the Local Plan 2040 will, under current NPPF requirements, be the subject of a 5-year review. However, this requirement may change through subsequent revisions to the NPPF, whilst the need for a 5-year review is not a binding whole plan review – NPPF paragraph 33 makes clear that the requirement is to “… review to assess whether they need updating at least once every 5 years”.
The Local Plan 2030 is the subject of an early plan review policy which the Council have accepted on the basis of strategic planning issues (in the case of the Local Plan 2030 issues relating to the standard methodology for calculating housing need). As such adopting an early review policy in the Local Plan 2040 would simply follow the current accepted approach to dealing with strategic planning issues.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 06/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 5715

Received: 07/09/2021

Representation Summary:

1.9 In response to this delay, some local authorities in the Arc have adjusted their local plan production timetables so that planning activity follows the development of the Arc Spatial Framework in order to create a more joined up process. Government however has urged Councils in the Arc to carry on with plan-making and, in Bedford Borough's case, the consequences of not doing so could be significant for the reasons relating to policies becoming "out of date" described above; so preparation of this local plan must continue. The relationship between the local plan timetable and the published timetable for the preparation of the Arc Spatial Framework is shown below.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 5877

Received: 08/09/2021

Representation Summary:

There is a complex and inter related strategic plan making context to Bedford in light of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc. The Government’s commitment to the Arc in terms of growth, spatial planning and infrastructure is well documented, and it is regrettable that Arc wide plan making has been so significantly delayed, since the clearly preferred position is that the Arc should inform the Bedford Local Plan 2040.
Notwithstanding, we recognise the importance – embedded in the Local Plan 2030 – in Bedford progressing a Local Plan review and on balance it is appropriate that Bedford continues to progress a plan review despite the sequencing difficulties vis a vis the Arc plan making process.
In this context, we would strongly recommend that the Local Plan 2040 be the subject of an early review policy so as to ensure that the issue of sequencing with the Arc is quickly brought back in to line such that strategic/regional planning informs local planning. We recognise that the Local Plan 2040 will, under current NPPF requirements, be the subject of a 5-year review. However, this requirement may change through subsequent revisions to the NPPF, whilst the need for a 5-year review is not a binding whole plan review – NPPF paragraph 33 makes clear that the requirement is to “… review to assess whether they [policies] need updating at least once every 5 years”.
The Local Plan 2030 is the subject of an early plan review policy which the Council have accepted on the basis of strategic planning issues (in the case of the Local Plan 2030 issues relating to the standard methodology for calculating housing need). As such adopting an early review policy in the Local Plan 2040 would simply follow the current accepted approach to dealing with strategic planning issues.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 5904

Received: 08/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Why have BBC not adjusted their local plan production timetables as other Councils? How have the other Councils been allowed to do so, while Bedford say that HMG are forcing them to continue the Local Plan review in unrealistic conditions to an accelerated timetable?
Fully integrated planning across all of the Arc is required so that developments and infrastructure improvements are made in the correct places and the burden of these is fairly shared across the Arc.
For BBC to advance this Local Plan review in this way risks a potential waste of time and tax-payers money, and some or all of the work will have to be repeated when the Arc strategy and other major issues become clearer.
Alternatively BBC are likely to make incorrect decisions and locate developments in the wrong parts of the borough.
These are major decisions that will have a lasting impact on the borough and the lives of the residents forever.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 6340

Received: 10/09/2021

Representation Summary:

There is a complex and inter related strategic plan making context to Bedford in light of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc. The Government’s commitment to the Arc in terms of growth, spatial planning and infrastructure is well documented, and it is regrettable that Arc wide plan making has been so significantly delayed, since the clearly preferred position is that the Arc should inform the Bedford Local Plan 2040.
Notwithstanding, we recognise the importance – embedded in the Local Plan 2030 – in Bedford progressing a Local Plan review and on balance it is appropriate that Bedford continues to progress a plan review despite the sequencing difficulties vis a vis the Arc plan making process.
In this context, we would strongly recommend that the Local Plan 2040 be the subject of an early review policy so as to ensure that the issue of sequencing with the Arc is quickly brought back in to line such that strategic/regional planning informs local planning. We recognise that the Local Plan 2040 will, under current NPPF requirements, be the subject of a 5-year review. However, this requirement may change through subsequent revisions to the NPPF, whilst the need for a 5-year review is not a binding whole plan review – NPPF paragraph 33 makes clear that the requirement is to “… review to assess whether they [policies] need updating at least once every 5 years”.
The Local Plan 2030 is the subject of an early plan review policy which the Council have accepted on the basis of strategic planning issues (in the case of the Local Plan 2030 issues relating to the standard methodology for calculating housing need). As such adopting an early review policy in the Local Plan 2040 would simply follow the current accepted approach to dealing with strategic planning issues.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 6974

Received: 16/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 7047

Received: 17/09/2021

Representation Summary:

There is a complex and inter related strategic plan making context to Bedford in light of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc. The Government’s commitment to the Arc in terms of growth, spatial planning and infrastructure is well documented, and it is regrettable that Arc wide plan making has been so significantly delayed, since the clearly preferred position is that the Arc should inform the Bedford Local Plan 2040.
Notwithstanding, we recognise the importance – embedded in the Local Plan 2030 – in Bedford progressing a Local Plan review and on balance it is appropriate that Bedford continues to progress a plan review despite the sequencing difficulties vis a vis the Arc plan making process.
In this context, we would strongly recommend that the Local Plan 2040 be the subject of an early review policy so as to ensure that the issue of sequencing with the Arc is quickly brought back in to line such that strategic/regional planning informs local planning. We recognise that the Local Plan 2040 will, under current NPPF requirements, be the subject of a 5-year review. However, this requirement may change through subsequent revisions to the NPPF, whilst the need for a 5-year review is not a binding whole plan review – NPPF paragraph 33 makes clear that the requirement is to “… review to assess whether they [policies] need updating at least once every 5 years”.
The Local Plan 2030 is the subject of an early plan review policy which the Council have accepted on the basis of strategic planning issues (in the case of the Local Plan 2030 issues relating to the standard methodology for calculating housing need). As such adopting an early review policy in the Local Plan 2040 would simply follow the current accepted approach to dealing with strategic planning issues.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 7365

Received: 20/09/2021

Representation Summary:

This planning process also seems premature regarding the considerable uncertainty due to the ongoing OxCamArc Spatial Framework and East-West Rail consultations. Given that one of the high-level objectives of the OxCamArc is:

“To realise the full opportunities – and overcome the challenges – will require coordination of planning functions across the region. Local councils cannot do this on their own because of the level of coordination needed across the area, and because they do not have all the levers needed to develop a genuinely integrated plan. Government needs to play a supporting role to bring together a strategic approach at the Arc level to support better planning and ultimately better outcomes for the economy, environment and communities.”

St Neots Town Council is concerned that this Local Plan pre-empts those consultations, and goes against this spirit of region-wide planning. We are disappointed that no attempt has been made from Bedford Borough Council to engage with St Neots Town Council during the consultation phase for the 2040 plan.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 8277

Received: 03/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 8329

Received: 03/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 8562

Received: 03/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.

Support

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 8570

Received: 03/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Bedford Borough is located towards the centre of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc (the ‘Arc’) and is one of some 23
local authority areas that fall within it. The area is one of the most economically successful in the country and
competes internationally for high-tech and science investment. The Government has identified the Arc as a
key economic priority and announced a range of measures seeking to maximise its potential.
Unfortunately, however, as is often the case in the plan making process, the timing of complimentary
planning strategies that need to have regard to each other does not always run in sequence.
The BBC Issue and Options documentation published in August 2020 acknowledged that one of the key reasons
that the Inspectors insisted on the inclusion of an early review requirement within the adopted Local Plan
2030 was that it does not appropriately respond to the longer-term growth requirements of the Arc. It is
therefore of critical importance that the key objective underpinning the ongoing Local Plan Review is
supporting Government’s ambitions in respect of economic growth within the Arc.
However, as a result of the review policy in the 2030 Plan, BBC is working to a strict timescale to produce a
new Local Plan, which is out of sync with the publication of the Arc spatial framework strategy. The
Regulation 18 ‘Draft Strategy Option and Draft Policies Paper’ and the ‘Development Strategy Paper’
published at the end of June 2021 acknowledge that the housing and employment development quantum
identified for the 2040 Plan (some 12,500 dwellings and 123ha employment land) reflect the Borough’s own
need, but not any additional requirements that may arise from the Arc itself.
To a certain extent this is understandable, given the lack of confirmed Arc guidance in relation to precise
figures for housing and employment expectations within Arc local authorities. Whilst previously there had
been much discussion around a figure of some 1 million homes being provided across the Arc, recent months
have seen the Government stepping back from that ambition. Indeed, the two 2021 publications, ‘Planning for
Sustainable Growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc: An introduction to the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Spatial
Framework’ (February 2021) and the recent consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-
Cambridge Arc’ (July 2021) falls short of announcing any development quantum across the Arc, let alone
within each of the affected local authority areas.
That said, the July 2021 Arc consultation document paragraphs 1.7-1.10 make it very clear that the Arc
Spatial Framework will be national planning and transport policy creating a vision for the area to 2050 – it will
sit alongside the NPPF and all Local and Neighbourhood Plans within the Arc will have to accord with it
notwithstanding where they are in the process.
The potential timing is such that the current Bedford Local Plan review to 2040 will be at Examination (during
2023) at the same time the Framework is to be adopted. The Regulation 18 consultation indicates an
emerging preference for growth, inclusive of the creation of new settlements (Wyboston and /or Little
Barford) around the potential new stations on the East West Rail corridor at St Neots south or Tempsford.
Whilst this reflects in part the ambition of paragraph 5.8 of the July 2021 paper (..‘examining and developing
the case for new and/or expanded settlements in the Arc, including options informed by possible East-West
Rail stations between Bedford and Cambridge’), we consider that it does not accord entirely with it.
The spatial framework premise for the Arc is transport-led sustainable growth - economic supported by
associated housing, building on and expanding its existing strengths of quality employment opportunities.
Paragraph 5.8 (July 2021) also recognises the potential opportunities for new settlements over and above
those cited along the East West Rail corridor and ‘the government will undertake additional Arc consultation
on specific proposals that may come forward’ – Colworth is such a location. Paragraph 5.8 goes on to say that
‘The Spatial Framework will guide the future growth of the Arc to 2050, including on the question of new
housing and infrastructure and will, as part of its development, take into consideration any significant new
housing and infrastructure coming forward to meet the Arc’s ambition’. CGV meets this ambition absolutely,
being focussed around the established, but considerably underplayed quality employment location of Colworth
Science Park, providing it with land for expansion as well as new sustainable travel/access opportunities that
would not otherwise be realised, through the provision of a new railway station and direct access to the A6
alongside 4,500 homes.
Paragraph 5.6 (July 2021) continues this same theme, emphasising the identification of ‘opportunity areas’ to
accommodate growth that comes forward as part of the Arc – Colworth is such a location.
A major emphasis of this government is on levelling up economic opportunities throughout the country and we
see this within the Arc itself. Paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 (July 2021) note that the considerable economic and
wage growth experienced in the cities of Oxford, Cambridge and Milton Keynes has not been felt in all towns
and cities of associated rural areas. The inclusion of the less affluent areas of Northamptonshire such centres
as Corby, Kettering, Northampton are a case in point. They are located some way from the East West Rail
route, but importantly, still connected to the main Arc corridor via the Midland Mainline into Bedford, passing
directly adjacent to Sharnbrook and the Colworth Science Park. Historic travel to work data indicates that
many employees at the Science Park commute in from Northamptonshire. Unfortunately, the expansion and
future viability of the Science Park is compromised by its current reliance on car-based transport. The
delivery of a railway station at Colworth and further land for expansion supported by the creation of CGV
provides a sustainable growth solution that fits exactly within the levelling up, economic and transport led
opportunity area principles of the Arc.
20. CGV (i) supports the East West Rail growth philosophy as it connects into this route at Bedford, just one stop
away; (ii) it assists the levelling up opportunity within the northern part of the Arc providing a direct
sustainable transport link back down to the East West Rail; (iii) alongside the provision of housing it also
allows for expansion of the Science Park which would otherwise be constrained, and (iv) such expansion of
specialist employment offer would be complimentary to that likely to be provided along East West Rail
corridor.
CONCLUSIONS
The Government has identified the Oxford - Cambridge Arc as an economic growth corridor that is
fundamental to the future economic success of the United Kingdom. This recognition has been identified in
publications for several years and is further emphasised in the latest February and July 2021 publications.

It has set out a clear ambition to build upon the emerging successes evident within the Arc to ensure that it
becomes globally significant (a UK version of ‘Silicon Valley’). The Government recognise that central to this
ambition is the delivery of the economic growth supported by sustainable transport-led infrastructure and the
provision of homes. This view is shared by Bedford Borough, as evidenced by The Oxford-Cambridge Arc:
Government Ambition and Joint Declaration issued in March 2019.
23. The need for this Local Plan review is in large part due an acknowledgement that recently adopted Local Plan
2030 does not appropriately respond to the longer-term growth requirements of the Arc. It is therefore of
critical importance that the key objective underpinning the Local Plan Review is supporting economic growth
that is significant in both a national and international context. Every aspect of the Local Plan Review should
acknowledge and be driven by this ambition.
Whilst the emerging preferred strategy with its focus on the East West Rail corridor and the potential for new
settlements alongside its new stations is reflected, in part, with this emerging OxCamb Arc ambition, the
Local Plan does not go far enough – it ignores the principle of a new settlement on anything but the East West
Rail corridor, missing the obvious ‘opportunity area’ that is presented by the comprehensive CGV proposal to
provide a sustainable development based around a railway station and existing high quality economic hub
that can act as a catalyst for levelling up, not only within the more rural areas of Bedford Borough itself, but
also extend its influence northwards into the Northamptonshire fringe areas of the Arc.
The evidence base that has been submitted to BBC is extensive and comprehensive, identifying that CGV is
sustainable and deliverable and, when coupled with the steer of OxCamb Arc, is a justifiable addition for
inclusion within the BBC Local Plan development strategy. Any outstanding matters (targeted submissions)
needing clarification can readily be addressed in lead up to the publication of the Regulation 19 plan later in
2022. CGV should, therefore, be recognised as an allocation within the Regulation 19 plan.

Object

Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Representation ID: 8702

Received: 13/09/2021

Representation Summary:

Staploe Parish Council certainly do not want policies or plans to be deemed out of date but feel that it should be possible to argue that a plan adopted in 2020 to 2030 which was required to be reviewed immediately after adoption because of the need to align with the arc should be granted an extension now that the arc has been delayed.