Policy HOU13 Land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural

Showing comments and forms 61 to 70 of 70

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 9999

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: London Square Developments Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Draft Policy HOU13 allocates Land at Gibraltar Corner for new development including a mix of residential uses, open space and a primary school. However, an area of land which is suitable and available for development has been excluded from this draft allocation without valid justification.

Site #2410 is referred to in the Council’s HELAA evidence base associated with the Draft Local Plan at Appendix 5. Whilst the site passed Stages 1 and 2 of the assessment and scores well in the sustainability criteria under stage 3, the site assessment concludes that the site is not preferred for development. The justification for this is not robust and it is the landowner’s view that this site should be more carefully considered, particularly as the wider area has a draft allocation for development.

In terms of site 2410, the landowner engaged in two rounds of pre-application discussions with Bedford Borough Council in 2018 and 2019 regarding the development potential for housing. At this time, the Council’s pre-application advice noted that this site was surplus to the Council’s housing land requirements and that the best option would be to promote the site via the Local Plan process.

In line with the above advice, representations were submitted to the Council’s call for sites in September 2020. At this stage, the site was put forward with potential capacity for 38 dwellings. Representations were also submitted to ‘The Draft Plan: Strategy Options and Draft Policies’ consultation which was held between 29 June and 3 September 2021. As part of this consultation, detailed comments were provided on the Council’s analysis of the site noting that if the site were to receive a draft allocation, the relevant surveys would be undertaken to ensure that no ecological, biodiversity or highways issues would arise as a consequence of developing the site. These representations concluded that there were no criteria leading to the site being unsuitable or undevelopable.

Following the above consultation, the landowners of Site 2410 were not contacted in respect of the site’s suitability, deliverability or the representations made. In reviewing the HELAA evidence base published as part of this Regulation 19 consultation, the site assessment states the following:

“The site is not preferred for development. The site has a constrained access. Development of the site has the potential to impact on the amenity of properties in The Chase given their close proximity to the boundary. The site is partially within flood zones 3a and 3b at its eastern edge. Alternative sites are preferred which in combination are proposed for a level of growth to support the provision of a primary school”.

This statement raises three potential concerns associated with the site’s suitability: access/highways, proximity to existing neighbours and flood risk. Each of these potential issues are dealt with in turn below. These representations are also supported by a Vision Document prepared to demonstrate the site’s deliverability.

1) Access

Appendix 5 to the HELAA also includes the following statement on highways in respect of Site 2410:

“The site is located in the village of Wootton approximately 6 miles south of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Wootton Road, but the width is tight, around 9m. Traffic generation from the potential development could cause moderate problems to Wootton Road. The nearest bus stops are on Ridge Road approximately 220m in distance. The footway on Wootton Road is around 1.8m and is shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Given the significant scale of proposals, a road to adoptable standards is required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standard. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and provision of satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists”

The enclosed vision document for the site demonstrates that a site access of 7.5 metres from Wootton Road is achievable. This would comprise of a 5.5 metre carriageway and a 2.0 metre footpath and is considered by transport specialists to be entirely adequate for a proposed development of 38 dwellings. The location of the access is also safely located between nos. 11 and 15 Wootton Road. The highways officer has noted that a Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and provision of satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. A Transport Assessment was not requested by the Council from the landowner to demonstrate the site’s deliverability at any stage to date. We consider that this should have been requested in order for the site to be considered unsuitable/undeliverable and this did not take place. The view of a transport specialist is that a Transport Assessment could show that elements of the access require rearranging (e.g. it could be that the pedestrian footpath into the site is better located to the south of the access) but accessing the site in this location from Wootton Road is unlikely to be an issue in principle.

2) Impact on neighbouring amenity

The vision document demonstrates that this site could be developed in a manner that would not impact the amenity or privacy of residents living in The Chase. The Concept Plan at 5.2 of the accompanying Vision Document demonstrates that adequate distances could be retained between existing dwellings on The Chase and any new development proposed on the subject site. Any proposed gardens adjoining the boundary with the Chase would have distances of between 11 and 16 metres and the existing gardens associated with properties on The Chase are also generous, therefore the building to building distances would be much greater.

3) Flood risk

In terms of flood risk, the site is almost entirely within Flood Zone 1. Only a small area in the south eastern corner of the site is within Flood Zone 2/3, the Vision Document clearly demonstrates that this area would not be built on.

Whilst we do not object to the inclusion of the sites referred to in the HELAA documents as sites #636 and #1333 as draft Policy ‘HOU13’ in the Local Plan submission version, the Council’s assessment of these sites identifies the same potential issues with regard to highways, impact on adjacent existing development and flood risk.

Appendix 5 of the HELAA document notes that sites 636 and 1333 will be required to submit a Transport Assessment to identify the impact on the local highways network. The highways officer also notes that a re-design of the Wood End Lane/Ridge Road and Ridge Road/Home Road junctions may be required if development comes forward. These comments demonstrate further work with regard to highways are necessary to demonstrate that the draft allocation is deliverable and is at least comparable with those highways comments received in respect of site 2410.

Part of the draft allocation (site 636) has elements which are located in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Like site 2410, it is considered that these parts of the site would not be built on.

In terms of impact on existing neighbouring development, Site 1333 includes a residential development plot adjacent to existing residences on Ibett Close and Home Road. This is also comparable with Site 2410 which could be designed to respect the amenity of existing neighbours on the Chase. It should also be noted that the draft allocation sites also have the potential to impact on heritage assets which is not a concern in respect of site 2410.

It is not clear why these issues are considered surmountable in respect of the draft allocation and not with regard to Site 2140. The Council’s assessment of Site 2140 concludes that “Alternative sites are preferred which in combination are proposed for a level of growth to support the provision of a primary school”. As the draft allocation HOU13 clearly seeks to bring forward a number of non-contiguous sites in Gibraltar Corner, it is considered that the Council should have actively engaged in discussions with the landowner of Site 2140 as this is suitable for development with comparable or lesser constraints to those sites which are included in the draft allocation.

Attachments:

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10061

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Great Denham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The Parish Council discussed the draft Local Plan 2040 which has been made available for consultation at its meeting on Monday 4th July 2022, and wishes to highlight the following areas that it is unhappy with:
The development around Gibraltar Corner bypass

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10080

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Savills

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Savills (UK) Ltd are instructed to respond on behalf of our client, The Crown Estate (TCE) to the
current consultation into the Reg.19 Submission version of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040.
Our clients have noted the preferred spatial strategy is to focus future growth of homes and
employment into the area to the south of but close to Bedford. They are supportive of this
sustainable approach to focus growth on the A421 transport corridor which is properly evidenced in
the Sustainability Appraisal. It is also noted that the Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan allows for
the Gibraltar Corner site to come forward without reliance on any prior off site infrastructure being
committed or delivered. These representations are made in relation to policies HOU12 and HOU13
accordingly.
The importance of an overarching vision for the area where significant growth and change are
proposed is recognised and the approach taken in proposing policy HOU12 is supported. We see it
as vitally important to the successful delivery of the growth and associated infrastructure that
landowners and developers are involved in the process of preparing the strategic place making
framework. It is also important that early progress is made to engage all partners in the shaping
and detail of the proposed supplementary planning document, so as to allow the process to flow
into preparation of site specific masterplans and design codes as described in subsequent policy
allocations. TCE would urge that sufficient resources are made available by the Local Planning
Authority to ensure the timely preparation of these documents so that the bringing forward of much
needed new homes is not delayed. TCE welcomes the opportunity to engage in this process in the
coming months.
In terms of policy HOU13 TCE is pleased to see that delivery of sustainable development at
Gibraltar Corner has been recognised and that an allocation is proposed. We would confirm that TCE land remains available and deliverable and we support the delivery of a sustainable mix of
uses in this location, including housing, education and strategic green and blue infrastructure
improvements. Because of the scale of the proposal and the fact that not all of the proposed
allocation is within a single ownership or control we agree with the proposed approach of the
preparation of a masterplan and design code. Given the policy objectives to match new homes with
necessary community and green infrastructure it is vital that a partnership approach be taken to the
design and agreement of a masterplan and the appropriate mechanism for sharing of the costs and
benefits of the infrastructure to be delivered.
We would expect that the masterplan process would be used to identify the extents of land required
to deliver the supporting infrastructure in consultation with landowners and the community and that
the Council does not see the indicative land use areas on their proposals plan at Figure 6 of the
Plan as being necessarily fixed at this stage but allowing for further refinement during the
masterplan process. It would be prudent to amend the wording of Policy HOU13 to allow for the
submission of a planning application before the final approval of the masterplan, as later stages of
this process could take place in parallel, allowing the earlier implementation of the development.
The Gibraltar Corner Vision Document (Annex 1) demonstrates how a sustainable new
neighbourhood can be delivered on TCE landholdings and we look forward to building on this work
alongside the adjacent landowners, the community and the Council as part of the masterplan SPD.
Further technical investigations have been ongoing in recent months and the Crown Estate
proposes that the area of the allocation be extended southwards to enable the incorporation of a
second access option off Bedford Road, as illustrated on the attached vision document. It had
previously been thought that ridge and furrow remains would preclude this access option however
further archaeological work suggests that ridge and furrow remains are not present on the area
immediately south of the allocation boundary, enabling a second access option to be incorporated.
Initial technical work also indicates the additional access would meet highway visibility and
geometry requirements. The option of a second access will provide improved sustainable travel and
connectivity opportunities.
In summary, this representation-
1 supports the strategy and evidence underpinning the allocation of the land at Gibraltar
Corner
2 encourages stakeholder engagement in the early preparation of SPD and masterplans
3 supports the early delivery of housing on the site which is not constrained by major
infrastructure requirements and seeks a minor change to policy HOU13(i) to allow a
planning application to proceed in parallel with adoption of a masterplan
4 seeks an amendment to the boundary of the allocation to allow a second vehicular
access to be provided

Attachments:

Support

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10142

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Axis Land Partnership

Agent: Strutt and Parker

Representation Summary:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This representation has been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships (“Axis) in response to the current Regulation 19 consultation on the emerging Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040: Plan for submission consultation.

1.2 Strutt & Parker on behalf of Axis, have been promoting land at Gibraltar Corner as part of the emerging Local Plan and this representation should be read in conjunction with earlier representations made. This representation responds to relevant policies in the plan, having regard to land at Gibraltar Corner, which has obtained an allocation for a residential development and provision of the delivery of open space and green infrastructure improvements under policy HOU13 of the emerging Local Plan.

1.3 As set out within previous representations Axis are promoting the land to the north of Wood End Lane and to the east of Home Road. The land on the south side of Wood End Lane and Home Close are being promoted separately by the Crown Estate.

1.4 The allocation HOU13 is shown in Figure 1 below:
SEE ATTACHMENT
1.5 This representation provides a response in relation to key policies within the plan in turn. For the reasons explained further within Section 2 of this report, Axis as promoters of the site fully support the proposed allocation as set out in Policy HOU13. In accordance with the requirements of the consultation, it is considered that the plan in its current form is legally compliant, sounds and complies with the duty to co-operate.

1.6 Section 2 of this representation seeks to assess the soundness of this allocation having regard to tests set out within national policy.
2. REVIEW OF KEY POLICIES

2.1 The tests of soundness are set out in Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). According to Paragraph 35, plans are ‘sound’ if they are:

a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

2.2 This section provides a response in relation to key policies within the plan as follows:

Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy

2.3 Policy DS2 (S) Spatial Strategy of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 sets out the Strategic locations proposed for growth as part of the emerging Local Plan.

2.4 This includes an allocation on land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural, under policy HOU13. The wording set out within policy DS2(S) is considered to be sound and Axis fully support the key objective of delivering sustainable development and working towards a net zero carbon emissions borough. The allocation of land at Gibraltar Corner is considered to be fully aligned with the objectives set out within policy DS2(S) and the proposed allocation, given its proximity to Bedford and Kempston will assist maintaining and enhancing Bedford and Kempston as a vibrant location as identified in policy DS2(S).

Policy DS3(S) Amount and Timing of Housing Growth

2.5 The proposed quantum of housing growth as set out in policy DS3(S) is supported, which appears to be positively prepared and seeking to meet Bedford BC objectively assessed housing needs.

Policy DS5(S) Distribution of Growth

2.6 The proposed distribution of growth is supported and policy DS5(S) is considered to be both justified and effective.

2.7 The proposed allocation of 1,500 dwellings within strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, are considered to be particularly important to the Distribution of Growth Strategy. It is noted that a large quantum of the proposed growth relates to new settlements to the South of Bedford and Little Barford. Whilst no objection is raised to either allocation, the delivery of both sites will require the provision for significant infrastructure, which is likely to mean that they will not come forward within the immediate term. The allocation of the smaller and medium sized sites such as Gibraltar Corner is therefore imperative to maintain a consistent delivery of housing, as required by paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Policy HOU13- Land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural

2.8 Land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural will be developed for a mix of residential uses and open space including the delivery of strategic green infrastructure improvements.

2.9 A response to each of the policy requirements is set out below:
SEE ATTACHMENT

2.10 Overall the allocation of the site under policy HOU13 is fully supported by Axis. The site is fully deliverable in planning terms and offers an appropriate location for strategic growth. It is considered to be sound in planning terms and retention of the allocation is important to ensure that the Local Plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and in accordance with national policy. It is requested that the minor adjustments to the policy as set out above are made in order for the policy wording to be effective as required by national policy.

Comment

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10262

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Representation Summary:

Policy HOU13 - Land at Gibraltar Corner
10.5 The submission local plan identifies that this allocation will contribute to the delivery of key green and blue infrastructure projects in the south of Bedford area including a section of the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Park and the Forest of Marston Vale. These are both projects that CBC are supportive of - indeed, Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Councils have been working closely for some time with the Forest of Marston Vale Trust and are currently undertaking a joint consultation in relation to the Forest of Marston Vale SPD which will ultimately be adopted by both authorities. CBC therefore welcomes the proposed allocation at Gibraltar Corner and the resulting benefits that would also be afforded through this development to residents and communities within Central Bedfordshire.
10.6 However, whilst the submission plan identifies that this proposed allocation forms part of the wider South of Bedford Area, it is unclear how many homes would actually be delivered here. CBC would welcome clarification in regard to this as well as early engagement in relation to the proposed SPD for the site.
10.7 We would also welcome dicussions on bus routing, as this site will require a high quality link to deter driving to the future Wixams station. Presumably the bus route will be offered in parallel with parking management/ control at the destination end of the journey to prevent this.

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10373

Received: 23/06/2022

Respondent: Rebecca Grover

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I suggest you read the new levelling up bill from May 2022 which changed the planning recommendations. Few examples is to build on brown field sites and leave green sites, communities are the ones to have more say and we are to be listened to! Make sure infrastructure is in place before new build projects which Kempston and Bedford does not have! Your 2040 plan is outdated and you have already built over recommended numbers as you state.
As a resident of Kempston for all my life I am fed up of you and the council building and approving plans that is taking all our green space away. I will fight along with many residents over the Gibraltor corner plans.
Please listen to Gove where he states green spaces are important to communities and their well being and you are taking them all away.
I am watching the new bill as it progresses through parliament and I suggest you actually take time to and listen to the residents instead of pushing these stupid plans ahead and some even being built on flood plains such as the Shortstown plans. Absolutely ridiculous!

Just be prepared as us the community have more say in new plans and we need to be listened to!

From one very angry resident

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10456

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Conservative Group

Agent: Bedford Borough Councillor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This proposed development is opposed by virtually all local residents who have had an additional 1200 home and also continuous warehousing developments. The addition of a further 500 houses will finally destroy the rural nature of Kempston Rural Parish. This proposal will mean a loss of yet more agricultural land, destroying the character of the area and will mean that there is a continuous sprawl of housing and warehousing from Kempston Town to Wootton contrary to the Council's own policies on coalescence and the NPPF s174.

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10487

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordshire Police

Agent: West Mercia OPCC

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Having worked with Bedford Borough Council during the preparation of its Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Bedfordshire Police (BP) is very disappointed with the outcome of this in two key respects:

1. Policies HOU1 – HOU 19 do not reference the police, or indeed the emergency services, infrastructure that will be required to support the developments they propose.

2. Although BP provided the Council and its consultants (AECOM) with a detailed Infrastructure Plan detailing precisely the police infrastructure required to support new housing growth in the Borough, only its contents in relation to premises requirements have been allowed for in the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and even then inaccurately. The Council’s IDP also erroneously states that BP will eventually be able to meet the costs of delivering the infrastructure required to the growth envisaged by the Local Plan. In fact developer funding will be required to meet the costs. This was explained and evidenced at length in the Infrastructure Plan submitted by BP.

The above outcomes contrasts starkly with the basic expectation that when people move into a new housing estate or other development, they are protected by police and other emergency services that can operate efficiently and effectively in that vicinity. This applies to all levels of service, whether they ring 999 should the worst happen, or are simply benefitting from the reassurance of day-to-day neighbourhood policing for example.

It means in turn that the delivery of police and other emergency services infrastructure needs to be planned and funded in advance of a new development scheme, in the same way as utilities, education, health, transport and other public services that are currently specified in various places in Policies HOU1 – HOU19.

The potential impact on the police and other emergency services from a new development is not simply due to an increase in population, but also the location of where that new population is arising and the impact that it will have on the present disposition of emergency services resources. Delivery of services to the new communities is also not just about responding to crimes or incidents, but also includes community assurance, delivery of crime safety advice and where necessary providing referral responses when there are expressed concerns about the safety of children, the elderly or those with special needs, for example.

The experience of BP shows that new developments quickly take on the characteristics of surrounding areas in terms of calls, incident types and crime numbers, even from the point when materials are delivered to a site. Therefore, service provision needs to be expanded accordingly, as do those of other public service providers.

This is very important as development growth, particularly new housing development, has significant and permanent implications for the emergency services once delivered. Whether it takes place on green fields, urban centres or redundant factory sites, new schemes invariably result in an increased demand for ‘blue light’ services.

Hence why planning policies (i.e. HOU1 – HOU19) have a key role to play in ensuring that the police and other emergency services can provide the same level of service to the residents/occupiers of a new development as for existing residents, without compromising frontline services. After all, it is only possible to create successful places and support new communities if they are brought forward alongside adequate services and infrastructure.

BP would also like to point out at this juncture that mitigating the impact of a given scheme on the emergency services is not a false choice between design or infrastructure measures. These in fact go together to ensure a development is safe and secure. The emergency services want to see schemes that incorporate fire safety measures, adopt Secured by Design guidance, include suitable access for response vehicles (police cars, fire engines and ambulances alike) and provide the infrastructure necessary to enable service delivery and on-going coverage for the scheme in question. Current legislation and policy do not permit ambulance services, fire and rescue services and the police to downgrade the level of their provision to a new development scheme because it incorporates fire safety and/or crime prevention design measures. Appropriate new infrastructure for the police and other emergency services is therefore always required.

This is why sustainability of a development to the police and other emergency means two things. It firstly means schemes that both passively (through design measures) and actively (through infrastructure provision) preserve community safety. If a building or place does not provide these things, there can be no quality of life for the people who will reside, work or visit there, leading ultimately to an unsustainable development.

This is not only the view of our organisations. We are sure you will agree those who purchase properties on a development, who may bring up families there, or for whom it may be a place of work, will want to know that it is a safe environment underpinned by emergency services providing effective and efficient services. It is not only in the interests of the continual well-being of the new residential and/or business community that has been created, but also to protect those in existing communities that will border the development in question. Conversely, there would be great anxiety amongst all these people, new and existing, if the emergency services network was stretched to beyond capacity.

Turning to what is meant by ‘infrastructure’ in this context, the Council’s IDP takes the view that police infrastructure is purely new buildings or works to existing buildings. However, in an police and other emergency services context (and as BP showed in the infrastructure plan it submitted to the Council), infrastructure includes


• Vehicles of varying types and functions as needed to cover the development in question e.g. deployment for emergency response, patrol or follow-up for incidents.

• Personal equipment for officers and staff e.g. workstations, radios, protective equipment, uniforms and bicycles;

• Radio cover e.g. base stations, hardware and signal strengthening equipment;

• CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras;

• Mobile IT technologies e.g. body worn cameras and smart tablet computers; and

• Firefighting equipment such as Fire Lances and thermal imaging cameras.

This may seem an unnecessarily expansive definition, but what constitutes ‘infrastructure’ in any given case is what would not be otherwise directly needed by the emergency services but for the new development.

It is a view shared by the Government. Under Schedule 11 (204N(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the emergency services are classified as infrastructure and the Bill also states that this encompasses facilities and equipment.

This is why we consider that in the absence of references to planning for police and emergency services infrastructure in Policies HOU1 – 19, they are unsound in the context of paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10520

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Roger White

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I attach my objections to the proposed 2000 house development at Kempston Rural. In addition, to make you aware, I have alerted CPRE Bedfordshire and Richard Fuller MP. I have put on record, that barely seven days notice before closing objections is hardly the smoothest democratic way of advising residents in the area of an impending development of this magnitude, Why now? and what such short notice?

This is Kempston Rural not Urban.
2000 homes signifies approx 4600 people, what preparations will be in place for medical care etc; before people move in?
2000 homes could be 2000 cars on the road. Doubts that infrastructure could cope.
Kempston Rural not in groups 1,2 or 3 in 2032 plan, why include now?
The development will drive existing wildlife further away, site adjacent to Buttons Ramsey forest area.
The proposed site also opposite Buttons Ramsey has ancient Ridge and Furrow feature, a bridleway/footpath.
The housing development will destroy this amenity currently enjoyed and used by many walkers from the Town and Urban areas of Bedford. Why destroy fresh untouched 'valuable for health' countryside, when there are known to be adequate BROWN sites available.

Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10522

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Alvina Farrow

Number of people: 247

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Registered petition obo 247 people.

Borough Plan 2040 Proposed Housing Development

Kempston Rural has already been disproportionally affected by development over the last 10 years. The national increase in population over that period was fractionally less than 6%. Bedford Borough increase was 17.7%. Kempston Rural had an explosion over 50% in population since 2011.

We the undersigned residents of Kempston Rural would like to express our opposition to the planned increase in population and destruction of our communities as detailed in the Proposed Local Plan 2040.

We ask that our remaining green and beautiful countryside is preserved for generations to come. "Once it's gone it's gone!"

Instead of just bowing down to the dictates that are put in place by remote and unelected officials, we ask that Council show some courage and refuse to accept the destruction of our great Borough.

We understand that to some extent the authorities hands are tied by the national planning legislation. We have been lead to believe that the questions are set by the Planning Inspectorate. We ask that you remind them that they are our public servants.

This petition has signatures of more than 50 residents. We therefore instruct you as our unitary authority to take our objections forward as part of the public consultation. A failure to do so would be undemocratic and a failure of the authority to represent the people it serves.