3.16
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3430
Received: 09/07/2021
Respondent: Ms Tamsyn Hammond
Option 2a is my preference
Option 2a is my preference
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3453
Received: 13/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Charles Cook
I favour Option 2c because it minimises further over-development to the South of Bedford.
I favour Option 2c because it minimises further over-development to the South of Bedford.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3454
Received: 13/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Wiliam McDowell
I prefer Development Option 2c, which creates two new settlements at Little Bardford and Wyboston, since it minimises population and traffic growth in the vicinity of Bedford town.
I prefer Development Option 2c, which creates two new settlements at Little Bardford and Wyboston, since it minimises population and traffic growth in the vicinity of Bedford town.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3455
Received: 13/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Peter Knight
I support option 2A only. None of the options suggesting new developments on green field sites at Wyboston or Little Barford are environmentally sensible.
I support option 2A only. None of the options suggesting new developments on green field sites at Wyboston or Little Barford are environmentally sensible.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3473
Received: 25/07/2021
Respondent: Mr Peter Gell
I support option 2c. There has been much more development to the west of Bedford, i.e. Kempston and Wootton in particular. 2c provides a better balance, and the duelling of the A428 around Great Denham wouldn't be needed. Creating new communities reflects the change that people want following Covid.
This option provides more employment than option 2a, and consequently is also preferential from that perspective. My second choice option is 2d, not as balanced as above, though has the best employment, and better balance of dwelling placement than the remaining two options.
I support option 2c. There has been much more development to the west of Bedford, i.e. Kempston and Wootton in particular. 2c provides a better balance, and the duelling of the A428 around Great Denham wouldn't be needed. Creating new communities reflects the change that people want following Covid.
This option provides more employment than option 2a, and consequently is also preferential from that perspective. My second choice option is 2d, not as balanced as above, though has the best employment, and better balance of dwelling placement than the remaining two options.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3492
Received: 25/07/2021
Respondent: Mrs Deborah Williams
Considering the options outlined in your summary I should like to support option 2c with the development of two new settlements and development within the existing urban area.
Considering the options outlined in your summary I should like to support option 2c with the development of two new settlements and development within the existing urban area.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3499
Received: 26/07/2021
Respondent: John Hargreaves
New settlements are the least effective option in terms of delivery, unlikely to be developed in the plan period.
In and adjoining the urban area is the most sustainable option allied to public transport.
Southern parishes have less environmental value than north and east.
Eastern new settlements create potential for unsustainable commuting.
Reliance on greenfield sites will hinder the delivery of urban sites, so emphasis should be on urban sites first and only when thay are exhausted should less complex options be resorted to.
New settlements are the least effective option in terms of delivery, unlikely to be developed in the plan period.
In and adjoining the urban area is the most sustainable option allied to public transport.
Southern parishes have less environmental value than north and east.
Eastern new settlements create potential for unsustainable commuting.
Reliance on greenfield sites will hinder the delivery of urban sites, so emphasis should be on urban sites first and only when thay are exhausted should less complex options be resorted to.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3617
Received: 16/08/2021
Respondent: Miss Mandy Wilson
I do not believe there should be any further building along the A6 corridor unless the road is dueled from Bedford to Rushden to take account of the 2800 plus houses being built in Rushden, plus 500 Sharnbrook, 500 Clapham and smaller amounts in rural services centres that all use the A6. In addition care needs to be taken about the unoffical northern bypass via Thurleigh/Ravensden and into Bedford- the road needs upgrading now, never mind when all the houses are built
I do not believe there should be any further building along the A6 corridor unless the road is dueled from Bedford to Rushden to take account of the 2800 plus houses being built in Rushden, plus 500 Sharnbrook, 500 Clapham and smaller amounts in rural services centres that all use the A6. In addition care needs to be taken about the unoffical northern bypass via Thurleigh/Ravensden and into Bedford- the road needs upgrading now, never mind when all the houses are built
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3636
Received: 16/08/2021
Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group
The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report, June 2021 has superseded by the May 2021 version It favours Urban Growth. Emphasis should be given to the Town Plan regeneration.
The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report, June 2021 has superseded by the May 2021 version It favours Urban Growth. Emphasis should be given to the Town Plan regeneration.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3656
Received: 17/08/2021
Respondent: Sport England
Sport England supports urban growth being concentrated in existing urban areas. New residential development will need to provide on site facilities for sport and informal physical activity (walking, cycling etc). Priorities for formal sport will be determined by the Bedford Playing Pitch Strategy (2021).
Sport England have published 'Active Design' which can help developers ensure that new development areas plan properly for sport and physical activity, more information is available here: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design
Policies should ensure that existing facilities are protected, including playing fields, games courts, indoor facilities and multi-use games areas
Sport England supports urban growth being concentrated in existing urban areas. New residential development will need to provide on site facilities for sport and informal physical activity (walking, cycling etc). Priorities for formal sport will be determined by the Bedford Playing Pitch Strategy (2021).
Sport England have published 'Active Design' which can help developers ensure that new development areas plan properly for sport and physical activity, more information is available here: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design
Policies should ensure that existing facilities are protected, including playing fields, games courts, indoor facilities and multi-use games areas
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3658
Received: 17/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs L Ward
2c is the only viable option
The only option I can see as viable if you wish to be green and sustainable is option 2c - as I don’t see how building additional areas on already over developed areas such as Wootton will meet the green and sustainable living you claim to be providing. Only building on brownfield sites makes sense, or if on new land complete new villages with facilities using Eco build methods . Building more and more in existing ‘service areas’ is a joke - when facilities in these locations are now stretched to the max - people can’t get a Doctor, or school places for their children in the schools. You say you want to create living spaces that give a good quality of life, yet you cram more and more houses on an area where the people living there have repeatedly said ‘no more’. It’s a ridiculous situation
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3680
Received: 19/08/2021
Respondent: GB PC
The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report, May 2021 appears to have been superseded by the June 2021 version It seems to favour the Urban Growth. Weight should be given to the Town Plan regeneration needed to support EWR through Bedford
The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report, May 2021 appears to have been superseded by the June 2021 version It seems to favour the Urban Growth. Weight should be given to the Town Plan regeneration needed to support EWR through Bedford
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3712
Received: 21/08/2021
Respondent: Mrs Veronica Zwetsloot
Option 2A is the best option, more sustainable, will promote Bedford as a town centre and help rejuvenation. If the urban areas cant sustain all the new development, then a new settlement at Twinwoods is the best option, followed by Little Barford, but NOT DENNYBROOK
option 2A , focuses on the urban growth south of Bedford. This development is more sustainable than rural development. This is supported by the Bedford Boroughs own sustainability appraisals. New stations south of Bedford are planned and the A421 has capacity for additional traffic
Govt. planning policy states that brown field sites should be selected over greenfield sites which rules out Dennybrook which is development on high grade agricultural land.
Twinwood development would be favorable, as this is partly on a brown field site and would tackle the problem of congestion on the A6
The new settlement at Little Barford would also be better than Dennybrook as it would be in proximity of the new EWR station and better transport links.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3769
Received: 24/08/2021
Respondent: Mr David Mercer
I agree that development should be focused on existing urban areas and the A421 corridor. Option 2c would seem to be the best of those presented. This would provide a good balance between making use of existing or planned infrastructure and maintaining the uniqueness of Bedford's rural locations.
I agree that development should be focused on existing urban areas and the A421 corridor. Option 2c would seem to be the best of those presented. This would provide a good balance between making use of existing or planned infrastructure and maintaining the uniqueness of Bedford's rural locations.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3784
Received: 25/08/2021
Respondent: Ken Cook
In what will become a fairly densely populated area travel amongst extended Borough villages even with ERVs will add to CO2 emissions.
This will also preserve the character of the southern part of the Borough.
Option 2C makes sense in so many ways as we face the climate emergency
If Bedford Borough Council is serious in tackling the climate emergence there is only one of the options below which can be considered. That option is 2C.
It will concentrate commuting and travel by rail over road. Development will limit travel to railway stations by foot or bicycle to under 1 mile which will ensure that car travel will be limited.
The Wixams station soon to be built will be central to that area and so will the East/West rail station at Wyboston and Little Barford.
In what will become a fairly densely populated area travel amongst extended Borough villages even with ERVs will add to CO2 emissions.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 3850
Received: 26/08/2021
Respondent: Mr Keith Blaxill
Option 2a is preferable. The only one with no new settlements or dispersed growth.
Option 2d least preferable, with new settlements and dispersed growth.
Having said that there should be a new settlement around any new rail station within the Borough.
(Despite saying I object, I neither object nor support, but am giving my views as requested)
Option 2a is preferable. The only one with no new settlements or dispersed growth.
Option 2d least preferable, with new settlements and dispersed growth.
Having said that there should be a new settlement around any new rail station within the Borough.
(Despite saying I object, I neither object nor support, but am giving my views as requested)
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4067
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Ann Mills
Agree it is important to take into account the social, economic and environmental effects of the alternative development options.
Agree it is important to take into account the social, economic and environmental effects of the alternative development options.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4109
Received: 30/08/2021
Respondent: Debbie Irish
Why have you buried this significant set of questions about the plans in the middle of this long, long list of questions?
Why is this form not structured simply and coherently so people can understand the key elements first in order to respond in an informed way?
We have struggled to find again sections we read previously because it is so difficult to search for specific pages.
Like most people, we are steering clear of public places still as Covid is still active. The public opportunities (limited as they are) to ask questions are too limited and discriminate.
Why have you buried this significant set of questions about the plans in the middle of this long, long list of questions?
Why is this form not structured simply and coherently so people can understand the key elements first in order to respond in an informed way?
We have struggled to find again sections we read previously because it is so difficult to search for specific pages.
Like most people, we are steering clear of public places still as Covid is still active. The public opportunities (limited as they are) to ask questions are too limited and discriminate.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4431
Received: 31/08/2021
Respondent: Mr Simon Marsh
To this end urge you to focus your plans for growth on Option 2a focussing on the existing urban area, land adjoining the existing urban area, the A421 transport corridor whilst retaining the character and rural nature of the Great Ouse Valley.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4567
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Miss Andrea Witham
See reply in section 3.17
See reply in section 3.17
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4593
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Edward Chamberlayne
I am opposed to those options that include a new settlement in the A6 corridor as I do not believe the road infrastructure can cope with this level of development and that it is unrealistic to expect a new railway station to be built so close to Bedford.
I am opposed to those options that include a new settlement in the A6 corridor as I do not believe the road infrastructure can cope with this level of development and that it is unrealistic to expect a new railway station to be built so close to Bedford.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4596
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Richard Draycott
Having spent many hours trying to get an understanding of the implications of the Local Plan and being a resident of Wilstead I would make the following comment:
Whilst accepting that there is an inevitability of some development in the village I would strongly suggest that this should be very much limited based on the central village reduced capacity on the number of vehicles it can cope with. Already there is a dangerous pinch point near the cross roads which is made worst by the location of a church, post office, village hall, school and motor trade business.
Therefore I would request that option 2 c is adopted. Any major development should be considered on the A421 corridor over to the A1 and Wyboston.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4627
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Denis Ivins
emerging growth strategy options are fundamentally flawed because they are based on a housing requirement figure which is
excessive and unjustified and use out of date ONS data.
Do not agree with development proposal around Denybrook and Wyboston.
emerging growth strategy options are fundamentally flawed because they are based on a housing requirement figure which is
excessive and unjustified and use out of date ONS data.
Do not agree with development proposal around Denybrook and Wyboston.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4693
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Darren Edwards
Agent: Fuller Long Planning Consultants
We consider Option 2a is preferable for sustainability reasons. Benefits stem from reducing carbon dioxide emissions, promoting town centres, encouraging physical activity, providing for residents’ needs and access to community services, reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel.
A settlement at Wyboston would not be consistent with the NPPF due to the following:
Greenfield Site
Grade 2 Agricultural Classification
Harm to the character of the countryside
Loss of identity of Honeydon and Begwary.
Insufficient open space between the settlement and St Neots.
Little or no benefit to sustaining Bedford Town Centre.
Flood Risk
Damage to ecology
Representation on behalf of Darren Edwards
Option • 2a – We consider in accordance with Government Guidance set out in the NPPF that growth from the existing urban area is preferable for sustainability reasons. This is supported by the Council’s sustainability appraisals. Benefits stem from reducing carbon dioxide emissions, promoting town centres, encouraging physical activity, providing for residents’ needs and access to community services, and reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel. New stations south of Bedford are planned and the A421 has capacity for additional traffic.
Regarding the remaining options, having reviewed the draft local plan and site assessment pro formas our client shares the concerns detailed by Staploe Parish Council. We have set out the pertinent points below.
Whilst paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises that new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns this is provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes). Furthermore, Paragraph 174 under the heading ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ confirms planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
“…….recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land”
and that;
“Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality”
We do not consider the proposed settlement at Wyboston (site id 977) is consistence with the guidance given in the NPPF for the following reasons:
1. The site is entirely greenfield.
2. The land has a Grade 2 Agricultural Classification (higher than other sites)
3. The substantial development of 10,000 houses (as set out in the vision document) would decimate the character of the open
countryside whilst resulting in the loss of the identity of existing hamlets namely Honeydon and Begwary.
4. Insufficient open space is retained between the new settlement and St Neots leading to “urban sprawl”, again harmful to the
Countryside.
5. There would be little or no benefit to sustaining Bedford Town Centre given the proximity of the site to St Neots.
6. Flood Risk - There are 5 watercourses which feed into the Ouse just upstream of St Neots from the area which are known to flood.
7. Ecology – As the Council are aware the site provides habitat for several protected species (these have been listed by the Parish
Council). Furthermore, there are significant roadside nature reserves in Honeydon.
8. Impact on Heritage – There are several Listed Buildings both within the site or within its setting including St Denys Church,
Colmworth, Chestnuts, and Dairy Farm Cottage, Honeydown and Tythe Farm.
9. Impact on existing residents’ quality of life though the loss of their peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the surrounding countryside.
Indeed, many of these concerns have been identified by the Council in their site assessment for Wyboston (Site 977). The following are confirmed as negatives to its development.
1a) The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement.
2a) The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance
2b) Protected Species recorded on the site (identified by the Council as a major negative)
4a) The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets.
9a) The site is not on previously developed land
9b) All or a majority of the stie is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPG
15f) Serious capacity constraints in terms of highways and absence of footpaths/cycleways.
Considering the above, we believe the development of a new settlement at Wyboston in the manner proposed would be entirely contrary to the sustainability objectives set out in the NPPF and that there are preferable sites with reduced negative impacts available that would still enable the Council to meet their housing requirements.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4754
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Francessa Frew
I object to the proposed creation of a new development at Wyboston which according to flyer sent out by the develper Taylor Wimpey is a proposed development of 10,000 houses in total. The area lies at the extremity of the Borough so is more likely to meet the housing needs of St Neots/Huntingdonshire than Bedfordshire; nor will it support the regeneration, shopping, hospitality in the town centre as both St Neots and Cambridge can offer more readily accessible facilities.
I object to the proposed creation of a new development at Wyboston which according to flyer sent out by the develper Taylor Wimpey is a proposed development of 10,000 houses in total. The area lies at the extremity of the Borough so is more likely to meet the housing needs of St Neots/Huntingdonshire than Bedfordshire; nor will it support the regeneration, shopping, hospitality in the town centre as both St Neots and Cambridge can offer more readily accessible facilities.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4841
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs C Dilley
Not sure why only choices are support or object when 4 options available! Least problematic option seems to be 2b which gives wriggle room on numbers and concentrates development in a new location which can be properly resourced from the outset (shops, schools, doctors, transport...) . Not 2a or 2d - spreads countryside encroachment; not 2c - two new towns too much for the area.
Not sure why only choices are support or object when 4 options available! Least problematic option seems to be 2b which gives wriggle room on numbers and concentrates development in a new location which can be properly resourced from the outset (shops, schools, doctors, transport...) . Not 2a or 2d - spreads countryside encroachment; not 2c - two new towns too much for the area.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4903
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Janet Goodland
Option 2c with two new settlements would be my preferred option; new settlements provide significant opportunities for zero carbon initiatives, improved access etc which more diverse development may not. Option 2d also meets these criteria.
Option 2c with two new settlements would be my preferred option; new settlements provide significant opportunities for zero carbon initiatives, improved access etc which more diverse development may not. Option 2d also meets these criteria.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 4920
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Matthew Brough
Every area has a DNA. Wilstead’s goes back to the Doomsday book and is that of a village with community at it’s centre. Already close to full immersion into the neighboring Wixams development and existing approved development plans Wilstead’s identity is at risk of not just being diluted but of ceasing to exist. The Wixams development will merge with not just Elstow and Houghton Conquest but also Kempston Hardwick and conceivably Shortstown eventually. The result will be an urban sprawl with no identity for any of the parishes. I understand that despite there being significant capacity already in either unsold or not yet built properties that this is a plan to 2040. And whilst I do not like it or agree with it, I know there will be a proposal put forward.
Therefore, my preference is the least impactful to Wilstead’s current DNA and community namely Option 2c. In addition, this allows full creation of whole new settlements that can have their identity created rather than absorbed and diluted in to an existing village. This blank piece of paper should be the dream for authorities to deliver environmentally friendly developments with their own identity and DNA creation.
This is followed by Option 2d but with Wilstead’s development taking place at sites 686 and 819 as they will not continue the sprawl that will join up to neighbouring parishes and will continue to allow Wilstead to have a separate identity without impacting the existing roads, properties, and appearance by affecting the existing framework.
Options 2a&b are to me unnecessary in this area as there are far more suitable solutions namely 2c outlined above.
The infill between neighbouring settlements is already reducing the green space for all communities and continues ever increasing like ripples on a lake. For mental wellness, physical wellness, and aesthetics these spaces and boundaries are essential. Separate identities are paramount to successfully delivering additional housing. If identities and separation were not important then the whole area could just be called Bedford and no planner developer or person with a social conscience would promote that as the dream or their marketing proposal. They know community and belonging are important and this will be at the centre of the councils many other projects. This should be borne in mind when creating new areas and not having to react to the complications that could have been avoided.
You have to have a social conscience. Creating new settlements does not impact an existing settlement directly as there obviously is not one. Therefore, this is of course less impactful for community DNA and objections from the existing community and is the best course of action as outlined in Option 2c.
Object
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5033
Received: 02/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Romans
Option 2c is supported but options 2a, 2b and 2d are objected to. It is difficult to see how the level of development can be delivered in options 2a and 2b and 2d with sufficient strategic transport infrastructure to support this south of Bedford. Option 2d risks the eventual coalescence of urban development along the Lower Ouse Valley all the way to better located new settlements either side of the A1. Option 2c could deliver the required growth with two distinct urban centers with better strategic transport options.
Option 2c is supported but options 2a, 2b and 2d are objected to. It is difficult to see how the level of development can be delivered in options 2a and 2b and 2d with sufficient strategic transport infrastructure to support this south of Bedford. Option 2d risks the eventual coalescence of urban development along the Lower Ouse Valley all the way to better located new settlements either side of the A1. Option 2c could deliver the required growth with two distinct urban centers with better strategic transport options.
Support
Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation
Representation ID: 5190
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Dr Rachel Horn
Out of the preferred options, I would support Option 2c and 2d with limited building in Wilstead. The reasons being:
- substantial development would alter the character of the village/community and would change its rural feel
- need some space between Wilstead village and other communities such as Wixams to prevent coalescence
- already had some building in Wilstead without extra local facilities such as schooling and doctors which is already oversubscribed, would be worse with significant building works.
- would increase traffic and pollution in the village, roads around school and shop etc already congested at peak times
Out of the preferred options, I would support Option 2c and 2d with limited building in Wilstead. The reasons being:
- substantial development would alter the character of the village/community and would change its rural feel
- need some space between Wilstead village and other communities such as Wixams to prevent coalescence
- already had some building in Wilstead without extra local facilities such as schooling and doctors which is already oversubscribed, would be worse with significant building works.
- would increase traffic and pollution in the village, roads around school and shop etc already congested at peak times