3.17

Object

Representation ID: 3422

Received: 28/06/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Fletcher

What has happened to the other potential garden sites that are listed on the call for sites web page https://www.bedford.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-its-purpose/local-plan/call-for-sites/? Can you please provide the evidence to discount the other 3 sites compared to the Wyboston and Little Barford sites that are shown in the plan?
What evidence is there to discount the other sites or show that the 2 sites listed in options 2b,c & d will generate greater income for BBC?

Object

Representation ID: 3446

Received: 11/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Rachael Bunic

preferred option is 2c

Support

Representation ID: 3456

Received: 13/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan PERKINS

Option 2a is best balance of building in existing areas and preserves green space north of Bedford

Object

Representation ID: 3457

Received: 15/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Noakes

Over recent years Wootton has suffered greatly at the hands of the Borough Council by having two very large developments imposed on the village. Whilst collecting evidence for the emerging Neighbourhood Plan it is very clear local residents do not want anymore developments imposed on the village and it is my belief the Borough Council has to listen to these people instead of riding roughshod over them as has been the practice in the past. For that reason I support option 2c.

Support

Representation ID: 3461

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Mr ian Luder

I strongly support the policy of concentrated growth around the main transposrt corridors. I have a strong preference for Option 2C followed by 2A and then 2B
I object to the urban sprawl inherent in option 2D

Support

Representation ID: 3467

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Albert Kirk

Option 2a does not involve yet more building over rural countryside. If we live in urban areas, it will be easier to use public transport rather than cars.

Support

Representation ID: 3486

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Gell

I am support of 2c as this provides a more even spread of development. There has been less development on this side of Bedford in recent years and consequently I feel development should focus on the east of Bedford. The development creates new communities which is preferential from making existing ones every bigger.

Support

Representation ID: 3493

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Williams

Support for Option 2c which would have minimal impact on current villages and population. The development of two new settlements with suitable infrastructure and amenities seems logical.

Object

Representation ID: 3497

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Accessibility Bedford

Local Plan 2030 Policy 59S which requires dwellings built to Part M (Building Regs) Accessible Standards according to the number of dwellings should be retained. In view of the UK’s aging population, it would be beneficial to improve on this policy by a requirement for bungalows on sites of more than 20 dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 3502

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Charles Trustram

I would prefer the option 2A.

Support

Representation ID: 3503

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Warwicker

My preferred option is Option 2 c. Urban and rail-based growth. This would take advantage of East West Rail developments and allow for the utilization of the new and re-vamped stations. Greater rail use will reduce environmental impact of road use. Perhaps any logistics operations bringing new jobs to this area could use rail freight services instead of HGVs?

I am against any future development Eastwards as this area has conservation/leisure facilities that would be harmed. Additionally, there are large tracts of rural land and to use this would be to increase coalesce of villages and hamlets and more substantial developed areas in adjacent counties.

Support

Representation ID: 3504

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Antrobus

I am in favour of Option 2a of the Local Plan 2040.

Support

Representation ID: 3505

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Mountford

We live close to Bedford town centre so have no personal axe to grind about the local plan and growth.

However, please could you record that both my husband and I would choose option 2c for growth as it would concentrate the development in a smaller area, so spoiling less of the countryside. We would like to avoid dispersal of settlement all over the place. Please do not build in Cardingtom and Cople. These are real villages with thriving communities and should be preserved as such.

Have you considered where all the extra water, electricity and other utilities will come from? In our view green spaces in new developments and the allocation of land for the Millenium forest should have priority.

Susan and Duncan Mountford.

Support

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 26/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Giles

With reference to the four page flyer entitled Local Plan 2040, I would comment as follows

When you are asked to make a choice, one would expect the options would achieve very similar results. If not it's not a fair choice!

Let's take a significant factor in the plan, the number of houses to be delivered. Your introduction states a minimum of 12500 additional dwellings.
Option 2a and 2c add up to 12500, however option 2b adds up to 17585 40% more and 2d 15,500 24% more, so NOT a fair or equitable choice!

Lets compare 2a & 2b - The only visual difference is the two rather insignificant RED STARS, just one of which appears on the map to be what is being called locally as the Dennybrook project, a complex of FIVE garden ‘villages’ equating to 10,800 homes, but referred to on your map as Great Barford (3085 homes). however the ‘star’ is nowhere near Great Barford.These ‘stars’ appear on the other two options as well with identical numbers, totally 5585 homes, just HALF the numbers proposed for Dennybrook, let alone those at Great Barford and Wyboston.

The implication is that by selecting any of choices 2b c or d one is agreeing with 5585 home when in reality and by deception, one is agreeing with 10,800 PLUS Wyboston 2,500, plus Great Barford 3,085, a total of 16,385 Plus the other areas outlined - Urban 1500, adjoining urban 1,500, Transport corridors up to 7,000! So not a fair or equitable choice.

When Bedford Borough became a Unitary Authority it retained the name of Borough even though it now included ALL of North Bedfordshire. Borough implies by definition an urban built up area for residential use. That is NOT what exists in North Bedfordshire. It is a rural, with small to medium villages. When it comes to services the rural areas come last in priority so to retain its title of Borough it should develop within itself and not try and create new town in a totally rural setting, as far away from Bedford town as it can get. it should not try and hide that possibility behind some little red stars!

Therefore the only option that can be made from what you offer is 2a!

What is disappointing is that your are prejudicing the result by failing of offer any of the other areas of the Borough that have been considered in the past, many if not all are brown field sites, sites that should be developed FIRST before ripping up green field areas, creating multi millionaires in the process, just like the new development at Mowesbury. It suggests that money talks loader than common sense?

The reasons that these brown field sites were rejected, lack of access, applies equally to those suggested that are outside the ‘true’ borough.

Support

Representation ID: 3508

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Peggy Mallon

My opinion is that Option 2b is the most appropriate because it provides for a greater amount of housing to be built outside of Bedford. Bedford is already congested and further intensive development in or very near the centre will create even more congestion, lack of affordable parking, over subscription to health and education services etc

Support

Representation ID: 3509

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Ms Natasha Witt

In response to the proposals I would prefer option 2c since the other options consider more building in Wootton ignore the infrastructural issues - including but not exhaustively...
1) the health centre remains unable to manage the volume of villagers it has
2) the health centre remains in temporary accommodation with no prospect of a permanent building
3) educational provision is stretched, with many newcomers to the village unable to register their children at village schools
4) roads within the village are unable to accommodate existing traffic (for example issues on church road/hall end lane between school children and school buses.)

Object

Representation ID: 3510

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Vibeke Tilbury

1. I think the Plan has to include the two new settlements, rather than continue to extend the built environment around Bedford. Thus I am not in favour of Option 2a. This does assume that the new East-West Station will also have a link down to London. It also assumes that these will not just be housing estates but have the full range of amenities required to enjoy life (shops, schools, pharmacy, village hall, playgrounds, open spaces, cycle tracks).
2. I am in favour of developing brown-field sites in the Bedford area and believe a lot could be done to change old empty shops in the town centre into affordable housing. These new flats need to be built to a high standard and take full advantage of natural light, ideally with balconies.
3. You should be concentrating on starter homes to help the large number of youngsters who are finding it very difficult to get on the housing ladder.
4. No more in-filling of gardens should take place if you really want to improve the natural environment. In my area of Putnoe the amount of garden is continuously decreasing as people build in their gardens. More of the current Bedford open spaces should have areas transformed into wild meadows (this will save on Council labour costs as less mowing is required).

Support

Representation ID: 3511

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stride

Option 2a would be favourable in my opinion. This is because of the proposed development of infrastructure regarding the east/west railway and the construction of a 2/3 tier roundabout at the blackcat roundabout.
This would be enough development until at least 2099.
Regarding the impact on st.neots with a new house development abutting it would cause pressure on a small town in Cambridgeshire as the local services are liable to be used by the new housing development, schools, shopping, parking, NHS surgeries, Waste disposal and re-cycling plants, highways use, etc etc. St. neots being in Cambridgeshire would receive no recompense or resources off Bedfordshire authorities for the strain it is putting on its services.
At a recent common rights proprietors meeting it was discussed about a boarder change that it could be considered Wyboston, Chawston, Roxton could be considered to fall under the Cambridgeshire boarders.
Am Agricultural buffer zone could be set up north of Barford so no development extended beyond this and therefore put no infrastructure strain on st.neots.
Just some thoughts, as those of us that live in Wyboston, Chawston etc already fall under the Cambridgeshire NHS trust and other services.

Support

Representation ID: 3512

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Miss Francesca Desquesnes

Policy 2c.
Bedford and the surrounding areas are overpopulated with not enough schools, doctors or sufficient roads to keep building. Suggest building north towards St Neots/Little Barford where there is more land.

Current works to Ampthill Road and the High Street will make no difference to Bedford’s congested traffic but wil make it worse.

Private schools should be looked at in terms of increased traffic – do the parents really need to drive their children into school.

More park and ride schemes should be available – only one at present.

More needs to be done to encourage people into Bedford – since losing M&S, BHS, Debenhams and Beales people are continuing to shop in MK and Rushden.

Support

Representation ID: 3513

Received: 27/07/2021

Respondent: Felmersham & Radwell Parish Council

Felmersham & Radwell Parish Council has considered the recent consultation on the emerging Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 and responds accordingly.

The consultation outlines a number of options for the focus of future development in the period to 2040 and specifically identifies the need to build in the region of 12,500 new dwellings over and above existing allocations during this period.

It is acknowledged that many of the consultation options recognise the importance of the A421 corridor for future growth opportunities, recognising that the significant infrastructure proposals will provide a well-connected, accessible and sustainable location for growth. The Parish Council supports this approach and concurs that the A421 corridor is a significantly better location for growth and better able to meet housing need. This will, in particular, help maintain the character of the Great Ouse Valley, without the pressure of additional levels of growth, thus making residents lives more miserable through increased traffic and pressure on local services.

Opportunities for growth in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor must, therefore, be exploited and the Parish Council supports development growth option 2(c).

The Parish Council remains very keen to ensure that well respected and valued rural communities in North Bedfordshire are not subjected to further inappropriate scale of development given the inadequate infrastructure that exists to support growth, including the already congested A6 infrastructure. Further sizeable allocations in Key and Rural Service Centres identified in some of the consultation options, should be avoided. Whilst it is inevitable that significant housing growth will continue to be required to meet assessed needs, it is strongly the view of the Parish Council that the preferred options should focus on the creation of new sustainable communities aligned to the already well connected and accessible growth opportunities offered by the A421 corridor.

The Parish Council acknowledges, with encouragements, that the report to the Executive did state that the Local Plan strategy must recognise the significant contribution to growth that is already being provided in the Borough's larger villages (the Key and Rural Service Centres). As far as possible, the emerging range of options steer additional growth away from villages that have a Local Plan 2030 allocation although the Parish Council is concerned that, for some options, additional strategic development land may need to be allocated in those parishes. This is most unacceptable as further growth in villages like Sharnbrook, Clapham, Carlton, Harrold, Milton Ernest, Oakley etc would put unprecedented strain on the local road networks particularly the A6 and the bottleneck "Sainsburys" roundabout approaching Bedford. the inevitable rat runs through the villages would also be compounded if unacceptable levels of growth were allocated in North Bedfordshire. The A421 corridor, by contrast, represents a much better location for growth and must be exploited.

The Parish Council sincerely hopes that these observations are helpful and that the Borough Council will be prepared to focus its proposals for growth locations consistent with endeavours to protect existing sustainable communities from the harm that excessive growth will cause the immediate neighbouring rural communities.

Support

Representation ID: 3518

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Rodger Chrystal

I think these plans are excellent and it's great to see my town developing. The plans are thorough and clearly have been extensively worked on with significant effort.

But I have a few comments, the process to provide feedback on this was very complicated and I fear it's too difficult to see any substantial difference between options 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d to make a meaningful contribution.

Support

Representation ID: 3519

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Bennett

The new settlements proposed in 2 a , b and c are the most effective means of achieving the housing targets . The Great Denham development of c 2400 houses is a very good model for these new settlements , it provides an excellent sense of community with supporting infrastructure of schools , shopping , medical and other services.

Key service centres that have already been allocated 500 houses , eg Bromham , should not be considered for further development until these allocations have been delivered and the impact on village roads and schools have been assessed

Support

Representation ID: 3523

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Nehan

I am opposed to 2b, 2c, 2d
My reasons are :-
1 a prime area for agriculture rated as Grade A land
2 there is NO brownfield element
3 the local infrastructure is insufficient for a development of this size
4 the site has poor access to Bedford
5 a site nearer to Bedford should be selected as Bedford town centre is in serious decline
6 the people attracted to the site would be from the St. Neots area and as such unlikely to visit Bedford
7 the site would encourage vehicle traffic using the A1 and other major roads

Support

Representation ID: 3532

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: Wymington Parish Council

We support Option 2 c as this has the least impact on existing villages

Support

Representation ID: 3533

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: Wymington Parish Council

the Parish Council object to options 3 a,b and c on the grounds that there is no infrastructure in place and that the impact on the A6 will be too severe with any form of additional building in local key and rural services centres, as well as proposed developments at Sharnbrook and Twinwoods, and there is concern that Wymington will become a rat run to try and avoid the road.

They support option 2 c as this has the least imp[act on existing villages

Support

Representation ID: 3545

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Hilliard

Option 2a represents the optimal BBC solution to growth within the council area. It supports growth associated with the Bedford rail developments and maximises the use of brownfield sites for housing developments. I believe brownfield development is the best way to ensure the growth and vitality of the Bedford town centre. Growth associated with new train stations (South St Neots/Tempsford) are best served with plans from Cambridgeshire and Central Bedfordshire councils. The proposed Dennybrook development is essentially a suburb of St Neots, this will compromise the success of this new town when residents would rely on St Neots for services

Support

Representation ID: 3548

Received: 10/08/2021

Respondent: CKEML

It is eminently sensible to locate major housing developments and a new rail station in this region of north Beds.

Support

Representation ID: 3552

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Claudia Dietz

Supportive of Option 2b with the emphasis on a compact urban area, utilising brownfields site in the town centre, existing employment areas and around rail station locations. The transport corridor south of Bedford with the A421 and the close connection to Junction 13 as well as the M1 should be focused on.
The opportunity to create one new, highly sustainable settlement in proximity to the A1, A421 and A428 as well as a new East-West-Rail station is supported. Therefore, Wyboston appears to be the more suitable location.

Object

Representation ID: 3556

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Claudia Dietz

I object to Options 2a, 2c and 2d due to conflict with the reasons set out in my previous comments that support Option 2b.

Support

Representation ID: 3564

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Clerk to Marston Moreteyne Parish Council

The council notes that the Local Plan proposes further development at both Wootton and Stewartby. Both parishes border Marston Moreteyne and are therefore likely to impact the village. The parish council expresses concern that there appears to have been no collaboration between Bedford Borough Council / Central Bedfordshire Council / Milton Keynes Council. The Parish Council is concerned that the Borough Council feels it is acceptable to utilise the C94 and Beancroft Road roundabout as an unlimited access road both to enable further development within Wootton and Stewartby parishes which have already seen substantial development without consideration for

• the Covanta Energy from Waste plant (off Green Lane, Stewartby) which will utilise Green Lane and the C94 for a large number of waste lorries to the plant
• the proposed 5K homes in Marston Vale (proposed by Central Bedfordshire Council’s Local Plan, adopted 22nd July 2021). This development will also utilise the C94 and Beancroft Road roundabout.

The C94 was downgraded following the construction of the new A421, and as such consideration should be given to protecting the villages which connect to this road from a substantial increase in traffic which has a detrimental effect upon these parishes.