1.52

Support

Representation ID: 3661

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: SMART CJS

I agree in principle to the overview. I am the CEO of a multi-site charity in Bedford with employees requiring affordable housing. We require access to sites outside of Bedford through well-maintained road and/or rail network (Milton Keynes and Oxford.)
What I am NOT seeing here is any COVID mitigation or reassessment ; it has meant that people (consumers, traders, service providers) use town centres and infrastructure very differently. A larger proportion may be working flexibly from a home base. Have any surveys been done or ONS data used to take into account changed habits since COVID -19?

Object

Representation ID: 3791

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Woolmer

The proposed Dennybrook development is flawed on so many levels.
Environmentally it will bring chaos to small local lanes which in many cases cannot be widened without major impacts on local residents & wildlife.
The overall infrastructure is already inadequate with no mains sewerage, inconsistent electrical supply, very poor broadband & mobile phone connectivity.
The development would make St.Neots a much busier centre, to the detriment of Bedford town.
The rural nature of the site would encourage car usage, which is completely to opposite of government policy.
There are much better sites which apparently for political reasons have been ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 3888

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Sir Graham Fry

It makes no sense to prepare this Plan without waiting to know the railway route or the Spatial Framework. The only reason for doing it now is to meet an arbitrary requirement from Whitehall and prevent the local plan from being deemed "out of date". Why not be honest and say so?
Having said which, I sincerely hope that the Council will indeed listen to local communities in preparing the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3914

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs MARGARET TURNER

It may enable the Council to maintain control over the selection of locations for growth but as in 1.49 it will override local communities

Object

Representation ID: 4000

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Turner

It may enable the Council to maintain control over the selection of locations for growth but as in 1.49 it will override local communities

Support

Representation ID: 4058

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Ann Mills

Agreed!

Object

Representation ID: 4102

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Irish

You acknowledge there are many uncertainties. We must use this time to drive for reasonable, necessary improvements. The way this form has been structured along with its myriad cross-references has made this (yet again) another impenetrable "consultation" document.

Support

Representation ID: 4203

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Bedford Architectural, Archaeological & Local History Society

We are concerned about the uncertainty for coherent planning and the future of local communities created by the failure to select a route for the Oxford to Cambridge rail link.

Object

Representation ID: 4250

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Fletcher Giles

It may enable the Council to maintain control over the selection of locations for growth but as in 1.49 it will override local communities

Object

Representation ID: 4334

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Leach

It may enable the Council to maintain control over the selection of locations for growth but as in 1.49 it will override local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 4365

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Leach

It may enable the Council to maintain control over the selection of locations for growth but as in 1.49 it will override local communities.

Support

Representation ID: 4375

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gerardine Meola

However, there only 279 respondents to initial Issues and Options paper of which only 50% were residents, this is of concern.

For example, this consultation implies that land west of Wyboston is favoured, yet residents of Staploe Parish which would be affected by development on this land were 3rd highest respondents and were not in support of said land, yet somehow it is the favoured option?

More likely other interested parties were in favour, but they are not local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 4586

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Ivins

council should work for an agreement with govt to suspend the local plan until the Spatial framework has been finalised

Support

Representation ID: 4783

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Great Denham Parish Council

The Council notes that all existing policies in Local Plan 2030 will continue and be included in Local Plan 2040. In particular the Council stresses the need for LP Policy 99 (Loss of existing Sports and Community facilities) and Policies AD 41 Urban Area Boundary, AD 42 Local Gap and AD43 Urban Open Spaces and Gaps relating the definitions and protection of the Urban Gap to be included in the new plan with no change.

Object

Representation ID: 4820

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Murray

As the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework and route for East West Rail are still undecided, it seems premature to produce a Local Plan that could be over taken by these. Additionally, as we now know East West Rail is following the northern corridor, why is there no development alongside the general area of the corridor - This seems to be a major omission

Support

Representation ID: 4880

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Goodland

It is important to meet the 2023 timescale and retain control of how the area is developed.

Object

Representation ID: 4961

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Foster

Speaking as chair of Kempston Rural Parish Council, the call for sites for this area will ruin the settings for the traditional "Ends" due to considerable over-development on the sites around Box End and Green End/Gibraltar Corner, with far more houses proposed than are already extant. Kempston Rural Parish Council should remain rural, without major housing developments being imposed on them.

Object

Representation ID: 5034

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Jon Bayliss

Additional housing is needed but in the right place. Do not destroy existing villages where there are limited facilities and restricted infrastructure. Build new houses by creating new areas such as Wixams which are will planned and funded.

Object

Representation ID: 5221

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Norris

1. The projected house building targets are excessive compared to the projections by all neighbouring Authorities and cast doubt on the validity of the Borough assumptions used to frame the 2040 LP.
2. The presumption that the flawed choice of Route E for the E-W Rail project is a done deal is premature. There are many pressures on the E-W Rail solution which are yet to be properly addressed which could radically affect the design solution and the length of time to introduce it.

Object

Representation ID: 5264

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jetinder Dhaliwal

Please correct to state that support for EWR route E was personally by the mayor and not the elected council (this is documented btw). The Council should be obtaining facts from the goverment and not on elements that are not fully defined. How can a solution be developed for any project if the requirements are not clearly defined. That is a recipe for scope creep, resoource shortages, impact assessments being inadequate and cost increase. At the end of the day, Bedford will suffer, especially the services provided by it if not sized correctly and openly.

Object

Representation ID: 5350

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Jackie Brand

The locations of housing development need to be aligned to decisions made on the East West Rail route, to maximise the number of households that can easily access the train stations along that route.

Object

Representation ID: 5927

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Tagg

I disagree entirely. As my response to item 1.1:
It is clear that it is not possible for BBC to meaningfully advance this Local Plan review as there are too many unknowns at this time. To do so will be a potential waste of time and tax-payers money and some or all of the work will have to be repeated when these 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.
The Review and consultation should be postponed until the regional planning context is clearer and an extension to the January 2023 submission date be sought, until reliable information and proper consultation can be held.
BBC note that “…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.” Why have BBC not done this to have a more efficient and effective planning process and Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 6368

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Para 1.52 – OBJECT

CPRE Bedfordshire believe that the Council should not acquiesce with the uncertainties resulting from the timing of the emerging Oxford to Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework.

As stated earlier, we believe the Council should act with urgency to reach agreement with the government to suspend the submission date for this local plan until the requirements of the Spatial Framework are made known.

Without such an agreement, the Council and the local communities’ ability to maintain
control over the selection of locations for growth through this local plan is seriously compromised.

Alternatively, Bedford Borough Council could follow the example of Buckinghamshire County Council and withdraw from the Oxford to Cambridge 'ARC Leaders' Group' in order to remain in control of their own future economic development and housing decisions.