1.10

Support

Representation ID: 4014

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gerardine Meola

The Local Plan 2040 must protect the natural environment.

No development in open countryside. No new large settlements of more than 2500+ homes or phase one of new towns (Dennybrook for example).

Development within 2040 plan should focus on urban based growth (Bedford) and rail based growth to the south of Bedford and dispersed growth.

Support

Representation ID: 4048

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Ann Mills

N/A

Object

Representation ID: 4095

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Irish

We can and should say no

Support

Representation ID: 4513

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Clare Buddle

Support aligning economic growth with the natural environment early on in the Local Plan: this is important for sustainability, to improve local communities and to add value to development.

Object

Representation ID: 4585

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Ivins

concern about excessive increase in numbers and inconsistency between local and central govt written into council policy which are not clear and transparent.

Support

Representation ID: 5716

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Hannah Hambleton-Jewell

1.10 Whilst this local plan will progress alongside the development of the Spatial Framework it shares many of the overarching principles relating to economic growth and the natural environment. In these respects, the two will be aligned.
No comment

Object

Representation ID: 5905

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Tagg

While principles may be aligned, the actual specifics and detail associated with developing the local plan are being planned in isolation by BBC.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 6108

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mr J Gill

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.9 The draft strategy contends that the Council draws heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment drawn from the Spatial Framework. However, they fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development as anticipated by the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the LP2040 draft strategy as a whole is overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
3.10 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Ox-Cam Arc Spatial Framework, that the LP2040 draft strategy Options make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
3.11 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the Ox-Cam Arc consultation places significant emphasis on connectivity, defined as:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
3.12 Paragraph 4.4 affirms the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery and moreover, at paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
3.13 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering the requirement for sustainable communities, serving a wider rural hinterland – both immediate needs and throughout the plan period. The strategy in the BLP2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres and by placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans.
3.21 Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
3.22 In the case of Wootton, no provision for additional growth was identified in the strategic policies of the LP2030, by reason of plan period and the Council knowingly opting to pursue an objectively assessment of housing needs substantially below government policy as indicated by the result of the standard method. These policies (including Policy 3S) nonetheless recognise Wootton’s highly sustainable location and support for recent patterns of growth south of Bedford.
Remedy
3.14 The Council’s draft strategy consultation proposals offer limited scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive strategy with no confirmation of the levels of growth that may be supported in Wootton as part of the selected strategy option.
3.15 The Local Plan must acknowledge the continuing need for additional village-related growth within the ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Considerable and significant growth is weighted towards the delivery of strategic new settlement growth. Such development carries substantially higher delivery risk and is dependent on strategic infrastructure. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period to sustain the role and function of the Borough’s most sustainable settlements within the context of a longer term vision.

Support

Representation ID: 7553

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Cambridge Meridian Academies Trust

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The proposed Oxford-Cambridge Spatial Framework will have the status of national policy and is intended to form a material consideration for plan-making alongside the National Planning Policy Framework.
The government is currently seeking view on priorities for the Framework as part of consultation on the document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ (until October 2021). The latest consultation proposals set out that it will aim to guide sustainable planning and investment decisions under four policy pillars:
• the environment;
• the economy;
• connectivity and infrastructure; and
• place-making.
The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, that the consultation proposals make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”

Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres such as Oakley and in placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive ‘hybrid’ strategy. This is as a result of identifying no requirement for additional village-related growth outside of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period to sustain the role and function of the borough’s most sustainable settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8427

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs G Hunt

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

he Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, makes no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
aragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
"the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres such as Oakley and in placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive strategy. This is as a result of identifying no requirement for additional village-related growth outside of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period to sustain the role and function of the borough’s most sustainable settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8503

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, that the consultation proposals make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
"improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities in terms of placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
The Council’s Preferred Option 2d delivers scope to fulfil local requirements for effective place-making and enhancements to connectivity through support for growth in the ‘east’ corridor parishes and specifically at Great Barford. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the approach to this component of the strategy is underpinned by the Council’s site assessment and site selection process and that this seeks to specify levels of development that maximise opportunities for growth. This is particularly the case at Great Barford (the only Key Service Centre within the ‘east’ corridor) where the majority of development under this part of the strategy would be expected to take place.
The Council’s indicative figure of 750 units in the ‘east’ corridor parishes in the strategy distribution options is not based on any site-specific testing. Firstly, this represents a risk to securing the opportunities and benefits from this part of the Plan Area as part of the approach, once finalised. Secondly, the current evidence base also takes no account of those opportunities that would embrace opportunities both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period. Our client’s Willoughby Park proposals comprising a self-contained scheme for 500 units accord closely with the Council’s indicative figures for distribution and incorporate a positive response to the emerging Plan’s place-making objectives (particularly in terms of provision for health and green infrastructure). It is therefore essential for soundness that our client’s site is confirmed as part of the final selected strategy subject to future consultation in order to provide a significant local contribution towards the emerging priorities of the Spatial Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 8649

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs N/A Box

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.8 The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
3.9 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, makes no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
3.10 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford- Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
3.11 Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
3.12 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres such as Oakley and in placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
3.13 The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive strategy. This is as a result of identifying no requirement for additional village-related growth outside of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period to sustain the role and function of the borough’s most sustainable settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8711

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.9 The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic- level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.

Reasoning
3.10 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, that the consultation proposals make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.

3.11 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford- Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:

“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”

3.12 Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population


in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:

“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”

3.13 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities in terms of placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.

Remedy
3.14 The Council’s Preferred Option 2d delivers scope to fulfil local requirements for effective place-making and enhancements to connectivity through support for growth in the ‘east’ corridor parishes and specifically at Great Barford. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the approach to this component of the strategy is underpinned by the Council’s site assessment and site selection process and that this seeks to specify levels of development that maximise opportunities for growth. This is particularly the case at Great Barford (the only Key Service Centre within the ‘east’ corridor) where the majority of development under this part of the strategy would be expected to take place.

3.15 The Council’s indicative figure of 750 units in the ‘east’ corridor parishes in the strategy distribution options is not based on any site-specific testing. Firstly, this represents a risk to securing the opportunities and benefits from this part of the Plan Area as part of the approach, once finalised. Secondly, the current evidence base also takes no account of those opportunities that would embrace opportunities both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period. Our client’s Willoughby Park proposals comprising a self-contained scheme for 500 units accord closely with the Council’s indicative figures for distribution and incorporate a positive response to the emerging Plan’s place-making objectives (particularly in terms of provision for health and green infrastructure). It is therefore essential for soundness that our client’s site is confirmed as part of the final selected strategy subject to future consultation in order to provide a significant local contribution towards the emerging priorities of the Spatial Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 8908

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraph 1.10 (alignment with the Spatial Framework)– Comment
2.2 The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
2.3 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, makes no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
2.4 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
2.5 Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”.
2.6 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for
sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres such as Oakley and in placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
2.7 The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive strategy. This is as a result of identifying no requirement for additional village-related growth outside of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire Plan period to sustain the role and function of the Borough’s most sustainable settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8931

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Snelsons Farm Partnership

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraph 1.10 (alignment with the Ox-Cam Spatial Framework)– Comment
3.9 The draft strategy contends that the Council draws heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment drawn from the Spatial Framework. However, they fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development as anticipated by the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the LP2040 draft strategy as a whole is overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic-level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.
Reasoning
3.10 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Ox-Cam Arc Spatial Framework, that the LP2040 draft stratgey Options make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.
3.11 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the Ox-Cam Arc consultation places significant emphasis on connectivity, defined as:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”
3.12 Paragraph 4.4 affirms the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population in terms of service delivery and moreover, at paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”
3.13 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering the requirement for sustainable communities, serving a wider rural hinterland – both immediate needs and throughout the plan period. The strategy in the BLP2030 has deferred important decisions
relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the reclassification of centres and by placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.
Remedy
3.14 The Council’s draft strategy consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive strategy.
3.15 The Local Plan must acknowledge the continuing need for additional village-related growth outside of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period to sustain the role and function of the Borough’s most sustainable settlements within the context of a longer term vision.

Object

Representation ID: 8989

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily
on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging
Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation
proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable
development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation
document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred
Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic level
connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.

Reasoning
It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc
Spatial Framework, that the consultation proposals make no mention of the connectivity or
place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal
importance.

Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-
Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is
not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:
“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality,
sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of
a great approach to place-making.”

Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population
in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:
“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving
communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”

The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Rural Service Centres and Key
Service Centres across the Authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for
sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate
needs and their role throughout the Plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has
deferred important decisions relating to these priorities both in terms of avoiding the
reclassification of centres such as Oakley and in placing the requirement to allocate sites
upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event
the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.

Remedy
The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals offer no scope to address these local
requirements for place-making and connectivity as part of a comprehensive ‘hybrid’ strategy.
This is as a result of identifying no requirement for additional village-related growth outside
of the ‘east’ or ‘south’ transport corridor parishes. Opportunities for sustainable development
in accordance with these requirements (and the objectives of the emerging Spatial
Framework) must be embraced both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in
the need for growth) and across the entire Plan period to sustain the role and function of the
Borough’s most sustainable settlements.