3.17

Support

Representation ID: 3569

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Elder

I have little to add regarding the selection of new townships but they should be ‘traffic wise self-contained’ and not rely on the already over-loaded routes into Town (for schools, shopping or work). If the townships do involve additional Bedford traffic those traffic needs must be accommodated with additional route development and not at the expense of existing Bedford residents. This includes any additional traffic needs associate with the use of Bedford Railway Station (and the Station Quarter development).

Support

Representation ID: 3570

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Tara Malciw

I strongly believe that no further houses should be built in Wootton, Bedford and surrounding villages. Wootton has recently seen large amounts of green belt land ruined by housing, with wildlife suffering as a direct consequence. I have seen many deer, foxes and grass snakes suffering due t the loss of habitat, they are now struggling to locate food and are often killed by speeding car.

The houses built are not affordable which could soften the blow to young people like myself who wish to buy their first home in their family village, the buildings are also not in keeping with the village or built in a way that supports country living.

Wootton has almost doubled in recent years. I have recently bought my first home in Wootton, as my parents and their parents were both brought up in this village. I no longer live in the village that I grew up in. Due to an extremely high rise in crimes, from roughly 6 crimes per month to over 30 crimes a month (estimation from Facebook comments and reporting) in the last 2 years, I no longer feel as safe as I should. When I was a child the crimes, I saw were setting fire to a bin once or twice. Sadly, in recent weeks the village has seen a stabbing, several car thefts, theft from vehicles, burglary from dwellings, arson attacks and cold calling with intent to burgle. As you see above, I work for the Police, I have firsthand knowledge of the detrimental impact to peoples lives from such crimes.

Wootton is supposed to be a safe home for many elderly people and for young families to bring up their children but with links to County Lines and drugs/ gangs, the villages growing connection with the A421 and M1 is increasing the ease at which Organised Crime Gangs (OCGs) can infiltrate young children living here. Any further development will only decrease public safety, increase demand on local policing resources which are already extremely stretched and will encourage and assist Organised Crime Gangs.

As well as destroying public safety and wildlife, the village is also suffering more from road accidents seen by an overuse of our roads. I am a driver and a horse rider, in recent years my friends/ family and I have been subjected to dangerous driving resulting in police action, experienced many cats run over by speeding drivers, I have had many close calls with my horse whilst our riding, my aunties horse was even hit by a car on Bedford Road.

This is a horse-riding village that used to be the hub of local horse riding for Bedfordshire with Juffs’ stables, the village is now a permanent risk to our safety. The council has attempted to ease horse riding problems by offering “set asides” for horse riders to use however these are overrun by youths setting fires and having drinks and BBQs underage or are used by people that do not appreciate village life, walking their dangerous uncontrolled dogs off of the lead on the grass area allocated to horse riders only. Again, further homes would only encourage more people to utilise these areas, sadly not in a suitable manner. Of course, I could not have an issue if pedestrians remained with their dogs under control (I am also a dog owner so appreciate good dog control) and enjoyed the areas as the countryside settings they are, not for youth gangs to spoil.

Lastly, the local roads cannot support an increase in cars, the parking situations caused by poor parking allocation at new housing sites forces people to park dangerously on blind corners, risking the safety of children and other road users.

If an overwhelming impact on policing and a detrimental impact to public safety, wildlife and infrastructure is not
enough of a reason to stop ruining the village any further please consider building entirely new smaller villages in areas that are not already inhabited, there are open areas in Bedfordshire that could support a small setting with a few hundred houses and a local shop/ facilities to offer local employment, this at least would offer a housing solution without running areas that are already struggling.

In response to the Local Plan 2040 I believe that no further development should go ahead, however if I had to choose, I would choose Option 2d since there is the lowest amount of housing being built in Wootton. To comment though, the plans are very difficult to understand, and I reiterate, no further development should be seen locally.

Support

Representation ID: 3575

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Littleford

1. With the concerns over CO2 levels, and future housing developments should take into account existing and potential rail and bus routes to encourage their use rather than private cars.

2. Whilst it would be good if people could work locally, this is not necessarily what would happen, and so new housing should take into account other employment centres within travelling range. The most obvious one of these is Milton Keynes.

If these two points are followed up, then possible new housing could be built in the area between the A421 and the Oxford - Cambridge railway line to the south west of Bedford. Expansion on the east side of Bedford could depend on the line taken by the railway between Bedford and Cambridge. If the line leaves Bedford to the north, then expansion on the northern side of Bedford is a possibility as well as in villages such as Ravensden and Wilden. If the railway goes south and then east from Bedford, the villages such as Willington could expand, but this is better farming land than the clay to the north of Bedford.

A kite to fly: the government has made comments about transferring more powers to local mayors. Would it not be possible for our Mayor, in conjunction with the Mayor of MK to seek to have control of bus and train routes between the two places and so start a better coordinated transport policy involving buses and trains? This could then ensure that development of housing, employment and travel in the area would become more coherent?

Just a few thoughts - all based on accepting that Bedford needs to expand as suggested!

Support

Representation ID: 3576

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Playford

My preference is for option 2c.

Support

Representation ID: 3594

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Morphew

Of the four options presented, this is the preferred as urban development is more sustainable than rural development. This is borne out by Bedford Borough Councils own sustainability appraisals. Development within the urban area performed best particularly in relation to reducing CO2 emissions, promoting town centres, encouraging physical activity, providing for resident's needs and access to community services and reducing the need to travel. New stations are planned south of Bedford and the A421 has capacity for additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 3595

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Morphew

I object to options 2b, 2c, 2d - the preferred option is 2a - urban development is more sustainable than rural development.

Support

Representation ID: 3618

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Mandy Wilson

I support Option 2c. This would allow the current A421 to be used, upgrades are due at blackcat and A428. East/west rail plan a station at StNeots or Tempsford as part of the east coast mainline and this goes into London, plus a station is due at Wixams. If building at Wyboston its important that mitigations are put in place in villages like Thurleigh to ensure they do not become a rat run as AECOM seem to think people going to Cambridge will go into Bedford and out ( much longer route) rather than straight through Thurleigh to St Neots

Support

Representation ID: 3637

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group

A combination of Pink and Brown (now option 2b) would support Urban Growth in Bedford and a new settlement at Little Barford would support EWR with new station at St Neots south
Prefer Option 2b

Support

Representation ID: 3665

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Great Barford Neighbourhood Plan Group

Option 2b supports Road AND Rail links, plus takes advantage of evolving growth infrastructure to southwest of Bedford.

Support

Representation ID: 3681

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: GB PC

Option 2b with a new settlement at Little Barford, which would support EWR with a new station at St Neots south, and Urban Growth in and around Bedford is best sustainable choice.

Prefer option 2b

Support

Representation ID: 3706

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Symington

Looking at the 4 featured options, 2c is in my view the best balanced and is my preference. This ensures development is proportionate across both east and west of Bedford when existing development is taken into consideration. My second preference is 2d, the remaining two option put too much development to the west of Bedford.

Support

Representation ID: 3709

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Ploszajski

I support option 2c as the best way to deliver the required housing growth.

Object

Representation ID: 3710

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Ploszajski

I object to options 2d and 1a, because I believe that these would be the most inappropriate ways of meeting the housing targets.

Object

Representation ID: 3713

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Zwetsloot

One of the preferred options was to dispearse the new developments in a proportional way to existing settlements so that no area or village has the burden of major development and being dwarfed losing their identity. This was the grey option in the first consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 3728

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Tracey Williamson

The area marked out as urban is greenfield so most confusing and concerning that you have started this is urban. To build there would disrupt the natural landscape and habitats of the animals and people that reside within and would cost a fortune to put the infrastructure needed in to support such a huge development. Out of all the options presented, 2b would be better given Great Barford is an urban area.

Support

Representation ID: 3765

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Mills

The proposal to locate the housing and employment growth alongside the main travel corridors to the south and east of Bedford is absolutely the right strategy - options 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d. Transport investment in the recent past and planned future investment in roads and rail make this the only viable option to take. Any of the other options, especially major growth to the north of Bedford, are completely unsustainable because of the already overloaded transport network serving Borough residents and passing traffic from the north towards and away from Bedford.

Support

Representation ID: 3783

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Bolnhurst and Keysoe Parish Council

Bolnhurst & Keysoe Parish Council supports option 2a as the most suitable strategy. This delivers the requirements within the existing recognised development areas. By doing so it protects the precious area of open countryside in north Bedfordshire, that everyone in the Borough has the opportunity to visit and enjoy.

Support

Representation ID: 3811

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Brown

In options 2b,2c and 2d you have indicated developments at Dennybrook site next to Wyboston.

I think the representation of this development in your option maps is on consistent with the areas shown south of Bedford, two stars does not denote the geographical spread of this development.


Dennybrook is a proposed development of over 10,000 home which would lye between Wyboston and Colmworth. This is approximately the size of Biggleswade or 66% that of St Neots. The homes would bring about 20,000 extra cars, overwhelming the local road network. This proposal is hugely excessive and would totally erase the very rural nature and its historic developments

The land comprising of 2400 acres site is largely Grade AA agricultural land, growing essential crops. There is no brown field element to this site, a priority under the Governments national policy framework. Other rejected proposals for LP2040 such as Twinwoods include brownfield elements and should be prioritized.

The site lies in a very rural area with few access roads and minimal infrastructure. Apart from the east end of the site near St Neots, the only road access points are unclassified roads incapable of carrying traffic in volume. Several roads surrounding and within the site are single track roads, yet none are scheduled for widening

The scale of this project would create significant disruption from construction traffic extending beyond 2055, that is an unacceptable burden on the neighbouring communities.

The site has comparatively poor access to Bedford itself, many residents will favour St Neots which adds further economic damage to Bedford town Centre which is in serious decline.

There is no shortage of high-quality development opportunities for inclusion into LP40. The call for sites by Bedford Borough Council returned over 430 responses totaling in excess of 70,000 plots against a need for 12,500 for the completion of the plan. There s no need to consider something as large and destructive as the Dennybrook proposal.

The location of the site means that, for employment purposes in particular, many residents will be commuting above average distances and will almost wholly reliant on private cars. The distances for most would not encourage walking cycling and while there is a new railway station planned for the area, possibly around Tempsford or Little Barford, this will not be close enough to avoid using the car for access. This contradicts the first and last mile objective in the plan.

BBC noted in their assessment of this site in 2019 “then site is located in a relatively convenient location for vehicle journeys in the strategic network, which may be a deterrent to non- motorized travel”. In no way can this site be considered to an environmentally sound or sustainable solution to BBC housing needs.

It is difficult to understand how the site would contribute greatly to BBC housing need when potential residents would be more likely to be attracted form the St Neots area , particularly those reliant on methods of transport other than car, thus the site will likely fail to support the Bedford housing needs in proportion to the development.#

The BBC needs to consider and review options for developments north east of Bedford, previously considered along the A6 road corridor, this would even the burden and transport infrastructure challenges

Support

Representation ID: 3815

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

Of the options presented, RPC prefers Option 2a.

Object

Representation ID: 3848

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne Carr

Unfortunately, the online response forum is over complicated and unclear, hence why I have had to use the route via Word.
I am extremely disappointed that there has been no clear evidence of any substantial increase in the infrastructure to accommodate these new dwellings being built. Every school, doctors, hospital, dentist, etc etc is under pressure at the moment, let alone with the anticipated increase in town population. Driving in and around Bedford is a nightmare currently, unnecessary roadworks and no sense of forward planning, particularly when it comes to the roundabout at Clapham/Bedford Modern School.
When are planners going to consider the needs of current residents and not just look to increase revenue all of the time.
Looking at the location maps of the proposed new dwellings, I object to: 2d, and 1a not included in the flyer received.
The impact on the countryside, wildlife, transport infrastructure will be devasting. Why on earth build on thriving green countryside when Bedford is surrounded by brownfield sites. The rural way of life enjoyed by many is at threat by people that are determined to destroy residents well being and mental health.
The biodiversity will be destroyed, never to return.
We experienced severe floods in Bedford of recent years – there is no coincidence that this is as a result of the never ending residential building being done on flood plans – no thought for the longer term impact.
There is no logic.

Support

Representation ID: 3875

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Cook

I support option 2C. This is the most favourable one if the Borough Council is to meet its zero carbon target and address the climate crisis. The distance to railway stations will be the shortest with also the Little Barford/Wyboston developments. The Little Barford/Wyboston developments would be very attractive surrounding the lakes and short access to the railway station. This will limit the traffic in minor roads caused by developing the southern parishes.

Object

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Sir Graham Fry

Development in Bedford itself (Option 2a) is my preferred option. Second best would be to combine that with a new development at Twinwoods or Colworth.
It might be acceptable to combine lower development in Bedford with a new settlement at Little Barford, linked to the new East-West station, but only if considered in a longer timeframe and in the context of other development in the St Neots area.
Totally unacceptable would be a new settlement such as Dennybrook situated to the West of the A1, and separated from the new station by that road and the Great Ouse.

Support

Representation ID: 3924

Received: 28/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs MARGARET TURNER

Option 2B appear to be the appropriate option as it gives identifies small medium & large sites for development. However, if this option is chosen the large development should be at Little Barford to take advantage of the proximity to the proposed new train station.

Support

Representation ID: 3965

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Potts

I consider that option 2b with a new settlement at Little Barford is the best
option. The East West rail station south of St Neots will provide a truly sustainable form of
development at Little Barford. It will be better connected to the new station than Dennybrook. The
latter does not provide a suitable alternative – too far from the rail station, risk of coalescence, good
agricultural land. Our second preference if Little Barford were deemed unsuitable would be
Twinwoods at Thurleigh as a significant part of the site is brownfield land. See above and site
assessments for reasons

Support

Representation ID: 4009

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Turner

In my opinion option 2B would be the best balanced approach as it will give small, medium and large developments however if this is chosen the large development should be little barford to take into consideration the proximity of the proposed rail station and better road connections and ease of cycle paths

Object

Representation ID: 4035

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Jodi Henderson

Dennybrook development will not serve the needs of Bedford Borough residents. It will overwhelm infrastructure that is already bursting at the seams. Local roads won’t cope, the entire landscape of the proposed development will swamp the natural wildlife and beauty of the area. People haven’t moved to a rural area to be taken over by building works.

Object

Representation ID: 4062

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Snare

Options appear to be concentrating new houses around Wixams, Wilstead and Cotton End. Why no development in other areas in the borough? Reasoning appears to be based on a new rail station at Wixams. What happens if this isn't built? Won't this massively increase traffic into Bedford?

Support

Representation ID: 4066

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Ann Mills

This is the most rational option for locating the majority of new housing close to major transport infrastructure development as well as new and existing services.

Object

Representation ID: 4085

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Irish

Object to option 2d.
Object to potential for north Bedford station.

Development to be focused on town centre and south of Bedford using existing stations (option 2a).

Object

Representation ID: 4090

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Debbie Irish

I do not agree with the way this consultation document has been structured, burying the crucial question in the middle of many others.

2a would be my preferred option
2d is my LEAST preferred option