Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9089
Received: 05/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Martin Warwicker
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The site is unsuitable because:
1. Willington Quarry - large, slow moving HGV's already impacting on single carriageway St.NeotsRd/Bedfordrd.
2. Coalescence - Gt.Barford is expanding westwards toward Water End with 500 houses. The large development proposed will cause coalescence between Water End and Gt.Barford.
3. Impact on Wildlife - loss of habitat will affect both flora and fauna.
4. Overbearing structures - Renhold is a rural village. Proposed R&D with 'supporting warehousing' and 'lighting' would be detrimental to the historic nature of the environment and exisiting residents.
The site is unsuitable because:
1. Willington Quarry - large, slow moving HGV's already impacting on single carriageway St.NeotsRd/Bedfordrd.
2. Coalescence - Gt.Barford is expanding westwards toward Water End with 500 houses. The large development proposed will cause coalescence between Water End and Gt.Barford.
3. Impact on Wildlife - loss of habitat will affect both flora and fauna.
4. Overbearing structures - Renhold is a rural village. Proposed R&D with 'supporting warehousing' and 'lighting' would be detrimental to the historic nature of the environment and exisiting residents.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9098
Received: 13/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Albert Gurney
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This massive business park development would be harmful to the character of the village, is inappropriate to the rural location, would be imposing to nearby housing, would dominate the rural landscape and is out of keeping in a village location. It appears to be out of scale and they are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
It would cause significant traffic congestion, is not a sustainable site, would result in the loss of BMV agricultural land, have a significant impact on wildlife and would result in unacceptable noise pollution.
I object to this proposal because:
1) The addition of a large business park at Water End Renhold would be totally alien and harmful to the character of the village.
2) The proposed development is inappropriate in the rural context and would be imposing on the nearby houses.
3) This is a rural location and these allocated sites would dominate the rural landscape and would be out of keeping. The visual impact on the local setting would be devastating.
4) There is already significant congestion at the A421 junction all day and the allocation of these sites would add to this. Traffic volumes and the village road network are not suitable for vehicles assessing these sites and they would need significant remodelling.
5) The government has recognised that the Oxford to Arc is no longer necessary and with the changing working habits is the additional formal workspace really required when there are so many vacant office and employment sites in the borough.
6) The sites are not considered sustainable locations as they are not accessible by alternative modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.
7) The site is made up of Grade 2 agricultural land, which is considered to be Best and Most Versatile (BMV) and according to national policy, should be protected from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals.
8) The impact on wildlife would be significant with the loss of habitat as the land is part of the rural countryside.
9) Water and Green End Renhold are predominantly linear with low-density built form, primarily housing. Having an massive business park, totally urban in character, would be out of keeping with a rural village. It would be impossible to retain a rural character with substantial buildings and employment units being imposed on the village. The proposals appear to be out of scale and are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
10) The sites are near to a number of residential properties so the development of these sites would lead to unacceptable noise pollution and disturbance.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9099
Received: 13/07/2022
Respondent: Miss Karen Gurney
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This massive business park development would be harmful to the character of the village, is inappropriate to the rural location, would be imposing to nearby housing, would dominate the rural landscape and is out of keeping in a village location. It appears to be out of scale and they are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
It would cause significant traffic congestion, is not a sustainable site, would result in the loss of BMV agricultural land, have a significant impact on wildlife and would result in unacceptable noise pollution.
I object to this proposal for a number of reasons:
1) The addition of a large business park at Water End Renhold would be totally alien and harmful to the character of the village.
2) The proposed development is inappropriate in the rural context and would be imposing on the nearby houses.
3) This is a rural location and these allocated sites would dominate the rural landscape and would be out of keeping. The visual impact on the local setting would be devistating.
4) There is already significant congestion at the A421 junction all day and the allocation of these sites would add to this. Traffic volumes and the village road network are not suitable for vehicles assessing these sites and they would need significant remodelling.
5) The government has recognised that the Oxford to Arc is no longer necessary and with the changing working habits is the additional formal workspace really required when there are so many vacant office and employment sites in the borough.
6) The sites are not considered sustainable locations as they are not accessible by alternative modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.
7) The site is made up of Grade 2 agricultural land, which is considered to be Best and Most Versatile (BMV) and according to national policy, should be protected from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals.
8) The impact on wildlife would be significant with the loss of habitat as the land is part of the rural countryside.
9) Water and Green End Renhold are predominantly linear with low-density built form, primarily housing. Having an massive business park, totally urban in character, would be out of keeping with a rural village. It would be impossible to retain a rural character with substantial buildings and employment units being imposed on the village. The proposals appear to be out of scale and are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
10) The sites are near to a number of residential properties so the development of these sites would lead to unacceptable noise pollution and disturbance.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9100
Received: 13/07/2022
Respondent: Miss Lynda Gurney
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This massive business park development would be harmful to the character of the village, is inappropriate to the rural location, would be imposing to nearby housing, would dominate the rural landscape and is out of keeping in a village location. It appears to be out of scale and they are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
It would cause significant traffic congestion, is not a sustainable site, would result in the loss of BMV agricultural land, have a significant impact on wildlife and would result in unacceptable noise pollution.
I object to this proposal for a number of reasons:
1) The addition of a large business park at Water End Renhold would be totally alien and harmful to the character of the village.
2) The proposed development is inappropriate in the rural context and would be imposing on the nearby houses.
3) This is a rural location and these allocated sites would dominate the rural landscape and would be out of keeping. The visual impact on the local setting would be devistating.
4) There is already significant congestion at the A421 junction all day and the allocation of these sites would add to this. Traffic volumes and the village road network are not suitable for vehicles assessing these sites and they would need significant remodelling.
5) The government has recognised that the Oxford to Arc is no longer necessary and with the changing working habits is the additional formal workspace really required when there are so many vacant office and employment sites in the borough.
6) The sites are not considered sustainable locations as they are not accessible by alternative modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.
7) The site is made up of Grade 2 agricultural land, which is considered to be Best and Most Versatile (BMV) and according to national policy, should be protected from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals.
8) The impact on wildlife would be significant with the loss of habitat as the land is part of the rural countryside.
9) Water and Green End Renhold are predominantly linear with low-density built form, primarily housing. Having an massive business park, totally urban in character, would be out of keeping with a rural village. It would be impossible to retain a rural character with substantial buildings and employment units being imposed on the village. The proposals appear to be out of scale and are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
10) The sites are near to a number of residential properties so the development of these sites would lead to unacceptable noise pollution and disturbance
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9101
Received: 13/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Ann Gurney
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This massive business park development would be harmful to the character of the village, is inappropriate to the rural location, would be imposing to nearby housing, would dominate the rural landscape and is out of keeping in a village location. It appears to be out of scale and they are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
It would cause significant traffic congestion, is not a sustainable site, would result in the loss of BMV agricultural land, have a significant impact on wildlife and would result in unacceptable noise pollution.
I object to this proposal for a number of reasons:
1) The addition of a large business park at Water End Renhold would be totally alien and harmful to the character of the village.
2) The proposed development is inappropriate in the rural context and would be imposing on the nearby houses.
3) This is a rural location and these allocated sites would dominate the rural landscape and would be out of keeping. The visual impact on the local setting would be devistating.
4) There is already significant congestion at the A421 junction all day and the allocation of these sites would add to this. Traffic volumes and the village road network are not suitable for vehicles assessing these sites and they would need significant remodelling.
5) The government has recognised that the Oxford to Arc is no longer necessary and with the changing working habits is the additional formal workspace really required when there are so many vacant office and employment sites in the borough.
6) The sites are not considered sustainable locations as they are not accessible by alternative modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.
7) The site is made up of Grade 2 agricultural land, which is considered to be Best and Most Versatile (BMV) and according to national policy, should be protected from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals.
8) The impact on wildlife would be significant with the loss of habitat as the land is part of the rural countryside.
9) Water and Green End Renhold are predominantly linear with low-density built form, primarily housing. Having an massive business park, totally urban in character, would be out of keeping with a rural village. It would be impossible to retain a rural character with substantial buildings and employment units being imposed on the village. The proposals appear to be out of scale and are clearly disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
10) The sites are near to a number of residential properties so the development of these sites would lead to unacceptable noise pollution and disturbance.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9105
Received: 14/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Tony Ploszajski
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
If any structures are placed on the proposed sites, particularly if they are storage warehouses, given the elevated topography and openness of the land, such buildings would be imposing on nearby houses and prominent within its open, rural context.
If any structures are placed on the proposed sites, particularly if they are storage warehouses, given the elevated topography and openness of the land, such buildings would be imposing on nearby houses and prominent within its open, rural context.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9114
Received: 18/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Jo Sewell
The sentence referencing distribution, manufacturing and warehousing is the biggest concern. Whilst the plan of sympathetic and environmental sites is reassuring, the concern is that once approved the tenants want large buildings or the next generation will want larger unsympathetic. With remote working is there sufficient demand? There is already terrible congestion around this area and the only way of travel will be by road. If approved the floodgates could open to further less sympathetic and considerate development in this area. There are several other sites in the vicinity. Requesting strong and long covenants to protect the sites long term.
The sentence referencing distribution, manufacturing and warehousing is the biggest concern. Whilst the plan of sympathetic and environmental sites is reassuring, the concern is that once approved the tenants want large buildings or the next generation will want larger unsympathetic. With remote working is there sufficient demand? There is already terrible congestion around this area and the only way of travel will be by road. If approved the floodgates could open to further less sympathetic and considerate development in this area. There are several other sites in the vicinity. Requesting strong and long covenants to protect the sites long term.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9128
Received: 19/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Jo Ploszajski
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
* out of keeping with surrounding landscape
*scale and height would dominate the surrounds and fundamentally alter the rural village character of Renhold
*Lead to loss of grade 2 agricultural land
* lead to loss of habitat for wildlife
* lead to additional congestion at already congested sliproads
* add noise and light pollution particularly contravening Renhold's dark skies policy
* no guarantee as to site occupant. May fall back on warehousing and distribution. There are other more suitable sites in Bedford and Kempston for this kind of development
The business park would is gravely out of keeping with the surrounding landscape and it would destroy Renhold as a rural village. It's scale and height would dominate the surrounding area as it is situated at the top of a hill. Surrounding areas are sparsely populated and would coalesce with Great Barford. It would cause the loss of prime Grade 2 agricultural land which is important for food security in the UK. And it would mean loss of habitat for many local species which has not been taken into account in the proposal. It would be unconnected to other Bedford business sites. There is already congestion on the A421 slip roads at peak traffic times causing some hazards on the A421.
It would add to noise and traffic pollution in a rural area both day and night. It is likely to lead to light pollution at night and contravene the current Renhold dark skies policy.
Bedford has a number of distribution sites elsewhere. There is no certainty that this would be a research facility, it may fall back on being distribution only.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9243
Received: 26/07/2022
Respondent: Ms Claudia Dietz
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The draft Local Plan 2040 is unsound, failing to comply with bullet points a) to e) of NPPF para 16, paras 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Furthermore, the proposed allocation is not considered a sustainable form of development and is not supported.
Misleading naming of this policy. Neither Water End nor St Neots Road, although part of Renhold Parish, have any designated Settlement Policy Areas as they are so rural. This poor naming therefore made it very unclear as to where the proposed site allocation is actually located.
The draft Local Plan 2040 is unsound, failing to comply with bullet points a) to e) of NPPF para 16, paras 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Furthermore, the proposed allocation is not considered a sustainable form of development and is not supported.
Misleading naming of this policy. Neither Water End nor St Neots Road, although part of Renhold Parish, have any designated Settlement Policy Areas as they are so rural. This poor naming therefore made it very unclear as to where the proposed site allocation is actually located.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9261
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Alison Myers
The promotion of high quality jobs is supported - the design quality and especially a height restriction for buildings will be critical. This is a sensitive area in the setting of Howbury Hall which provides a high quality feature for Renhold and the Bedford gateway.
I am concerned about the increase in traffic generation which will impact on road safety of the village lanes in Renhold and Ravensden particularly - lanes already subject to rat running and are mostly without pavements.
Rural character is important to conserve.
The promotion of high quality jobs is supported - the design quality and especially a height restriction for buildings will be critical. This is a sensitive area in the setting of Howbury Hall which provides a high quality feature for Renhold and the Bedford gateway.
I am concerned about the increase in traffic generation which will impact on road safety of the village lanes in Renhold and Ravensden particularly - lanes already subject to rat running and are mostly without pavements.
Rural character is important to conserve.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9269
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Alison Myers
I support the proposals for science and research jobs but am concerned that the scale of development will detract from the setting of Howbury Hall and Renhold as a village. The traffic implications for the adjacent villages are also a concern. Road safety is already and issue in Ravensden , where rat running and speeding cars are a hazard. Additional traffic will exacerbate this .
I support the proposals for science and research jobs but am concerned that the scale of development will detract from the setting of Howbury Hall and Renhold as a village. The traffic implications for the adjacent villages are also a concern. Road safety is already and issue in Ravensden , where rat running and speeding cars are a hazard. Additional traffic will exacerbate this .
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9277
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: GB PC
Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road should be reworded to also include separation from Great Barford:
iii. Design to respect local landscape priorities, ensuring separation from Renhold, Green End village and Great Barford residential areas, and the need for sensitive external lighting;
Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road should be reworded to also include separation from Great Barford:
iii. Design to respect local landscape priorities, ensuring separation from Renhold, Green End village and Great Barford residential areas, and the need for sensitive external lighting;
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9292
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Mitchell Wood
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
There is no need for this development at all.
Bedford is not a campus town and other sites have been allocated for this use which are not developed yet.
No pedestrian or cycle access and no bus stops near sites.
Vehicle movements would be increased at this busy junction with the A421 and affect restricted access Green End. Thus It is not environmentally viable
This development is in contravention of the key, high-level objective of the NPPF.
The planned buildings are very much out of context with the rural surroundings, in scale and depth, on land that is prime agricultural.
I would question if there is a need for these sites at all in or around Bedford. In November 2020, there were 68,916 sqm of office units and 90,760 sqm of industrial units available in the Borough. There is, already existing,72 ha of land, on 3 sites, at Medbury Farm (AD11, land west of B530 (AD17) and Bedford River Valley Park (AD23) which had been allocated for this need and work here has not been started so it does not seem necessary for any more land to be developed. T
he proposed sites are not gateway locations into Bedford as they do not abut the urban boundary of Bedford. - Water End and Green End are lanes with low density linear developments surrounded by agricultural land. The proposed sites would be out of scale and out of keeping to the size of Renhold Parish. This proposal would result in huge buildings on a site of great depth, which would be hugely imposing against the linear and rural character of this part of Renhold.
Renhold. Due to the land elevation which is higher to the North, dipping towards the A421, the development would be prominent and completely out of context within the landscape, dominating the nearby homes and countryside.
This would also change the historic landscape around Howbury Hall where there are many listed structures, not least the Hall itself. The A421has already cut a swathe through this and this further development threatens to swallow it and turn it into a bit more faceless urban infrastructure as well as covering up prime agricultural land and disrupting wildlife habitats, against the directive of NPPF 2021.
Thirdly, The sites lack pedestrian walkways and cycleways to and around them and have only a very infrequent bus service with no bus stop. This development would therefore increase vehicle numbers in the area, which is already overburdened with traffic due to the proximity of the A421. There is also the possibility of increasing traffic on Water End and Green End through Renhold as a consequence, which have restricted access due to the narrowness of the rural road structure in Renhold Parish.
The proposed associated roadside service and EV charging facilities would attract additional transiting traffic that is not associated with the proposed employment use of the land, with the whole proposed development resulting in an even greater level of pollution (noise, emission/air, light, water).
This development is in contravention of the key, high-level objective of the NPPF of ‘achieving sustainable development and the EHH (England’s Economic Heartlands, where Bedford is located within) strategy to promote decarbonisation of the transport system and to invest in digital infrastructure. Brownfield sites should be considered first before proposing development on greenfield sites. Previously developed land in or immediately adjoining the urban area of Bedford should be utilised in the first instance, with the opportunity to adapt against climate change, rather than encroaching into the open countryside.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9439
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Prologis
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Please see attached report
Please see attached main representation report.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9459
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Stephen Rutherford
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
This pushes the edge of Bedford east by approx 1 mile. It builds over a significant area of countryside.
The aspiration for this to be R&D is simply marketing and it will all become warehousing or similar.
There is ample space in the existing industrial areas without this.
This pushes the edge of Bedford east by approx 1 mile. It builds over a significant area of countryside.
The aspiration for this to be R&D is simply marketing and it will all become warehousing or similar.
There is ample space in the existing industrial areas without this.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9461
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Mr John Child
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
1. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the village.
2. There are plenty of unused commercial properties currently available to fill this need.
3. My property is listed, the proposal is detrimental to the setting of my listed and other listed properties in the area.
4. Increase of traffic through the village which is already experiencing high volumes of speeding traffic.
5. Business parks are becoming obsolete with more people working from home.
1. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the village.
2. There are plenty of unused commercial properties currently available to fill this need.
3. My property is listed, the proposal is detrimental to the setting of my listed and other listed properties in the area.
4. Increase of traffic through the village which is already experiencing high volumes of speeding traffic.
5. Business parks are becoming obsolete with more people working from home.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9475
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Christian Child
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Living in White Cottage, 52 Green End, I can appreciate the need to maintain the distinct character and rural nature of the village of Renhold. This cottage, as with other listed buildings in the area, provide a rich history to the setting dating as far back as the 18th century. For a research campus to be placed at its doorstep tarnishes its history and works to degrade a heritage this building upholds.
Living in White Cottage, 52 Green End, I can appreciate the need to maintain the distinct character and rural nature of the village of Renhold. This cottage, as with other listed buildings in the area, provide a rich history to the setting dating as far back as the 18th century. For a research campus to be placed at its doorstep tarnishes its history and works to degrade a heritage this building upholds.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9476
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Smith
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
I think this new development is totally unnecessary. You will be taking more greenbelt land. If this continues eventually there will be no green spaces left. It states in the local plan "research and development activities" this is a smoke screen. Once this site is passed, as with all developers they go back for retrospective planning BY THEN IT'S TOO LATE!!!! You need to think about the impact this extremely large site will have locally. More traffic which is bad enough already. Natural habitat for the many species who are living in this area.
I think this new development is totally unnecessary. You will be taking more greenbelt land. If this continues eventually there will be no green spaces left. It states in the local plan "research and development activities" this is a smoke screen. Once this site is passed, as with all developers they go back for retrospective planning BY THEN IT'S TOO LATE!!!! You need to think about the impact this extremely large site will have locally. More traffic which is bad enough already. Natural habitat for the many species who are living in this area.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9498
Received: 29/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Peter Norris
• Sites 761 and 764 are each over 1600m from the Bedford urban area into Renhold Parish across undeveloped rural landscape
• The sites do not physically or virtually form the basis of a Gateway
• No gaps preserving the adjacent rural scene have been proposed
• Site 761 is by far the most impactful on Renhold Village but EMP6 makes no distinction between 761 and 764
• At over 4,4 miles from the congested Midland Station EWR/MML hub the concept might be more effectively situated close to the rail stations at Kempston Hardwick and Wixams
• No Masterplan exists
The 2 sites, 761 & 764 put forward for this proposal are each at least 1600m to the Bedford urban boundary, all of which distance is through unspoiled rural land within the Parish of Renhold. The adjacent route off the A421 is a relatively intense series of slip roads and intersection roundabouts which take the attention of most drivers away from any adjacent features - including the proposed feature science campus! This should not therefore be portrayed as a Gateway to Bedford. The very general introductory paragraph includes no safeguards against the site ultimately comprising a soulless industrial area and the fact that 761 skirts the built boundary of Green End and Water End will be ruinous to the character of Renhold as a village of ‘ends’. Map 2 in the Changes to the Policies Map reference shows the clear gaps designed to separate the village ends from the 3 large estates built along Norse Road over the last 2 decades. There is clearly no attempt to introduce a meaningful gap between 761 and the village curtilage and it is difficult to accept that 761 could reasonably be considered as a development opportunity except maybe for its most easterly extent which is coincident with the eastern boundary of the parish.
The Policy statement does indicate that of the 2 approximately equal sized sites which total 44 ha, the built complex would occupy 30 ha (68% of the total) to enable incorporation of landscaping and shielding to embellish the look of the overall site whilst shielding it view amid the precious local landscape. Site 761 is far more sensitive in this respect due to its elevated centre so should at this initial stage attract limitations on roof heights and built extent to preserve the sightlines to the distant skyline currently enjoyed in the surrounding area.
The fact that the combined site would be over 4.4 miles from the proposed East West Rail/MML Midland Station would surely reduce its attraction as a ‘well connected’ upmarket science campus and could well deny the project the additional investment required to live up to the Bedford Borough Council’s vision.
Since the 2 sites in question were offered up in Aug 2020, only 764 carried any attached documentation indicating how it might be developed. For 761 there was none. Yet just weeks before this consultation was launched, equivalent documents to those pertaining to 764 were added to 761. None of these documents are however relevant to the new proposed role of the combined site and thus confuse the issue in the minds of the local communities. The Council are however guilty of failing to draw more attention to the existence of the Map 2 designation of sites 761 and 764 from the start as its existence was not revealed until the right question was asked at the Council Drop-In session on 20 July.
The public have not been able to consider anything which might have enabled a more objective view to be taken of this proposal. The lack of any type of masterplan is a serious deficiency in the portrayal of this EMP6 and any inspection of this proposal should either reject its inclusion or impose conditions that might make it less unacceptable to the affected community - as difficult as this may seem.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9518
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Mrs Judith Wootton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I wish to register my objections to building a 30 hectares business park on sites 761 and 764 at the St Neots Road/A421 junction.
• Urban Sprawl
The proposed business park is located a mile from the Bedford boundary on the A 428 on 30 hectares of prime agricultural land. The site proposed would be totally isolated from any other industrial land use on all sides and would sit unconformably in a rural, elevated setting. The nearest industrial development is over a mile away on the Elm Farm Industrial site. If developed, the business park would join Renhold with Great Barford. This not only creates an urban sprawl but uses agriculturally productive, greenfield land to do so rather than existing industrial or brownfield sites.
• Destruction of the distinctiveness of nearby villages
Renhold comprises several hamlets separated by open countryside. There are 3 new estates on Norse Road which are physically separate from the original village. Green End and Water End are two of these hamlets characterised by low density, low rise housing as well as several Grade 2 listed properties. They will be completely overshadowed by such a major and alien development changing the rural character of the area. It would also dominate the skyline as you exit Bedford or travel along the A421.
• Landscape.
The description of a campus style development with landscaping along its Green End facing side is an expression of hope rather than the likely outcome. Campus developments generally need either a major investor (Glaxo at Stevenage and Astra Zeneca in Cambridge) or an education institution producing developable technology (like Cambridge or Oxford). Bedford has neither at present. It is unlikely to develop these characteristics in the next 20 years. Once permission for such a business park is given, the developer will repeatedly request the easing of planning restrictions. Once this is done, usually to save employment at the site and generate rateable value, it will set off a downward spiral adding yet more warehouse/ distribution units to the Milton Keynes/Black Cat corridor.
• The need for increased local employment
Such development would be best achieved either at existing business parks, or close by the new settlements at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick, or in Bedford itself where the necessary infrastructure and access is already planned or in place.
• Highways
The extra traffic generated by the business park will increase flows. Both the road network and the junction are already overloaded at certain times of each day. For those working at the site, access will by car (there is little public transport at this point) along either the A421 or St Neots Road adding to this overloading.
• Safety
Renhold is a series of hamlets linked by a narrow unlit road with a single person footpath. The road is the vital umbilical for the village used by a mixture of cyclists, walkers, parked vehicles and traffic. It is lined with homes and passes by an historic church, a school and a public house Additional traffic, including trucks, already regularly spill over onto this inadequate road and use it as a dangerous rat run particularly when there are incidents on the main roads or there is congestion at the junction. This will get worse if the business park goes ahead.
• Construction
The site is located directly on a busy junction which also gives access to Water End and Green End. This will require reconfiguration which will maximise disruption and adversely affect access to these hamlets during a prolonged construction phase that may last some years. Landscaping takes a number of years to mature and become effective. In the
meantime, the local hamlets will have to endure a view of the rear of a business park.
• Water Provision
Renhold has an old water main serving its hamlets which frequently experiences bursts. There will be a significant need for water on a new Industrial site. Where will these supplies come from and what will be the impact on the fragile water supply in Renhold?
It is essential that we protect our precious green space particularly in the densely populated parts of south east England for future generations by developing brownfield and already designated industrial sites.
Bedford must remain a compact, modern town without the downside of urban sprawl, surrounded by pleasant open countryside and characterful villages.
The proposed Business Park development is driven by those who would benefit from developing a green field site and by a planning need to meet a numbers goal. This is not the basis for progress or good planning.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9540
Received: 13/07/2022
Respondent: Ravensden Parish Council
Ravensden Parish Council notes the proposal for 30 hectares of employment land on two sites at the A421 Renhold junction (Policy EMP6). Whilst this is intended to be a research campus-style development, with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, we are concerned that the proposal could readily become a standard “sheds on the bypass” scheme, of which there are many similar examples along the A421 and which the property market invariably favours in locations well-served by strategic highways.
In any event the Parish Council is concerned about the potential traffic implications of this proposal. Already Oldways Road in our Parish is heavily used as a “rat-run” for traffic between the A6 and the A421. There is little or no provision on Oldways Road for pedestrians, cyclists, the mobility-impaired or equestrians, and the road safety risks are already considerable. The key junction of Oldways Road with the B660 at Ravensden Crossroads is agreed by the Borough Council as being over capacity. The B660 Bedford Road south of Wayside Farm Park has no facilities for pedestrians, and improvements are required here if the proposed country park extension (as part of the Ravensden Park permission) is to be sustainably integrated with the rest of the Parish. Cleat Hill is prone to large volumes of traffic and has a notable speeding problem.
Policy EMP6 can only exacerbate these issues and concerns.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9544
Received: 15/07/2022
Respondent: Nicola Harper
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I would like to strongly object to the proposed plans to build on 30 hectares of land on st neots road. I live at dairy farm cottage which is opposite the site. Last year My partner and I bought our house with covenants and over ridges attached stating we could not build without paying 50% of any profits to the council,we went ahead because we wanted somewhere with land and beautiful views of the country side which in the area are few a far between. I feel this project will cause pollution to this beautiful part of bedford along with more cars and traffic which will leave the reason for building the bypass in the first place a waste of time and money. It will also ruin the skyline and lovely views I dont want to look out of my windows and see industry if I wanted that I would move to the seedy areas of london. I have children and have huge issues with them breathing in the polluted air this project will no doubt bring, along with the wildlife habitats you are destroying and the noise and disruption this will cause.The villages in and around great barford are being destroyed on a yearly cycle that seems to go on and on, why can we not keep our villages as villages? There are plenty of unused rundown industrial areas in and around bedford why are these places not the focal point for building and improving? Under the guise of bringing more people to bedford I feel you are driving out local residents and familys such as my own ,is this really a win for bedford or just an opportunity to make money? I am truly worried for our future here and I hope this email reaches someone with a moral compass that is still intact so that our voices may not only be heard but taken into consideration for once,it would be such a shame to destroy that which so many of us are grateful for.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9611
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Barry Wootton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I wish to register my objections to building a 30 hectare business park on sites 761 and 764 where St Neots Road crosses the A421 (hereafter the “junction”).
• Destruction of the distinctiveness of nearby villages
Renhold comprises several hamlets separated by open countryside along a narrow road plus 3 new estates along Norse Road which are physically separate from the original village. Green End and Water End are two of these hamlets characterised by low density, low rise housing as well as several Grade 2 listed properties. They will be completely overshadowed by such a major and alien development changing the character of the area.
• Landscape
When developed, the business park would link Renhold to new housing planned for Great Barford. This is an almost perfect definition of urban sprawl in action using agriculturally productive, greenfield sites (in this case rated BMV) rather than existing or brownfield sites.
• Sustainability
The description as a campus style development with landscaping along its Green End facing side is an expression of hope rather than the likely outcome. Campus developments generally need either a major investor (like Glaxo at Stevenage or the colleges in Cambridge) or an education institution producing developable technology (like Cambridge). Bedford has neither at present. It is unlikely to develop these characteristics in the next 20 years. Once permission for such a business park is given, it will be purchased by a commercial developer who will repeatedly request the easing of planning restrictions. Once these are awarded (to save employment at the site and generate rateable value} this will set off a downward spiral adding yet more warehouse boxes to the Milton Keynes/Black Cat corridor.
• The need for increased local employment
Such development would be best achieved either at existing business parks, or close by the new settlements at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick, or in Bedford itself where the necessary infrastructure and access is already planned or in place.
• Highways
The extra traffic generated by the business park a will impose more traffic on the road network and the junction. Both are already overloaded at certain times of each day. For those working at the site, access will be mainly by car along either the A421 or St Neots Road adding to this overloading.
• Safety
Renhold is a series of hamlets linked by a single narrow unlit road with a single person footpath. Both are hemmed in by housing. The road is used by a mixture of cyclists, walkers, parked vehicles and traffic. Additional traffic, including trucks, already regularly spill over onto this inadequate road and use it as a dangerous rat run particularly when there are incidents on the main roads or there is congestion at the junction. This will get worse if the business park goes ahead.
• Construction
The site is located directly on a busy junction which also gives access to Water End and Green End. This will require reconfiguration of the junction itself and adversely affect access to these hamlets during a prolonged construction phase that may last some years. Landscaping takes a number of years to mature and become effective. In the meantime, the local hamlets will have to endure a view of the rear of a business park.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9624
Received: 27/07/2022
Respondent: Ms Julie Robertson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This is a green field site. Brown field sites should be considered first for development.
A large business park in this location, as proposed, is in complete opposition to the rural lifestyle of Renhold, which has a distinct character and a dark skies policy. At the Water End/Green End part of the village, close to the proposed site, there is only low-level housing and open rural views. A development of this nature would introduce buildings which would be out of scale and out of keeping with the area, imposing on nearby residents and would introduce light and noise pollution.
The Water End junction of the A421 already has congestion issues making it hard to enter and leave the village at certain times of the day. Queues into and out of Bedford are the worst they have ever been. This proposal would result in additional traffic for much of the day resulting in more queueing, making access to the village even harder. It is also inevitable that additional traffic would use the village road to access the site. The village already has a much-increased volume of traffic since the A421 development despite restrictions on access times, and has had to install traffic lights and speed cameras to deal with the resulting issues from that. With no street lights and narrow footpaths (mostly on one side of the road only) additional traffic is a danger to pedestrians in Renhold.
There are currently vacant commercial and office buildings in the Borough. I would question the need for more new premises of this nature (and there are a number of other proposals in the Local Plan as well) when the change in working practices over the past two and a half years has seen a decrease in office occupancy and an increase in home working. With this likely to be sustained, or the trend continue, I would be concerned that this development would stand empty, or if undeveloped, be allocated for additional housing (also not appropriate for this location).
This development would result in the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, which according to national policy should be protected from inappropriate and unsustainable developments.
The area has a rich diversity of wildlife, which would suffer loss of habitat and the effects of light and noise pollution.
This development would also contribute towards a loss of distinctiveness from other villages, especially with the nearby proposal for houses along St Neots Road in Great Barford.
Oxford to Cambridge arc including this area no longer valid.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9692
Received: 26/07/2022
Respondent: Historic England
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary there are a number of assets nearby. These include a number of grade II listed buildings, in particular 52 Green End immediately to the north of the site and other listed buildings in Workhouse End and a cluster of listed buildings associated with Howbury Hall to the west of the site. To the south of the A421 lie a number of other grade II listed buildings as well as a series of scheduled monuments including Howbury Ringwork and medieval trackway, several barrows, a henge and Hengi form monument. Any development of this site has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets and their settings.
A heritage appraisal has been prepared for the site. However, the appraisal doesn’t make any recommendations for the site in terms of mitigation and enhancement measures. The heritage appraisal should be reviewed to include recommendations for the site.
We broadly welcome criteria v, vi and vii. However, vii should be amended to include specific mitigation measures and enhancements informed by the revised heritage appraisal.
Comment
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9723
Received: 26/07/2022
Respondent: Historic England
For some sites an HIA has been prepared but is incomplete. Some are still marked Draft. Others only complete 2 or 3 steps of the 5 step methodology for HIAs set out on page 5 of the HE Advice Note 3 – Site Allocations in Local Plans:
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-andsite-
allocations-in-local-plans/ Some do not identify impact (step 3), others do not consider maximising enhancement, avoiding harm and mitigation (step 4), others do not determine whether the proposed site allocation is appropriate in light of the NPPFs test of soundness (step 5).
These include sites EMP6, EMP7 and EMP8.
In these cases, please ensure that the HIA is complete and that any recommendations have been used to inform the policy wording in the Plan.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9792
Received: 23/07/2022
Respondent: Mr Peter Solomon
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I am disappointed that this form is so technical and impossible for a layman to fill in properly. You have spent the money to post a map in every house, boasting “Have your say”, but this form is the only way to do so.
In your plan you propose “Strategic employment” (i.e. an industrial estate) at the junction of the A421 and A4280. There are already a large number of these estates around the borough – there is no need to disfigure Renhold Water End with another one. In addition, with the abhorrent Great Barford West development devouring land west of Barford, and this coming from the east, you intend to destroy the beautiful vista across to Barford and absorb Barford into Bedford itself. Please put your monstrous warehouse units and distribution centres somewhere less sensitive – e.g. around Wixams,
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9799
Received: 24/07/2022
Respondent: Miss Claire Barker
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Government’s concept of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc which included Bedfordshire has been discarded.
I object to the inclusion of this large employment development allocation – 30 hectares across two sites – which would directly impact on the village of Renhold as the sites are located at Water End and St Neots Road thereby this development would fall within the village as the houses in Water Lane are located beyond the sites. This would result in a commercial development (as the policy makes provision for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution elements) on agricultural land within a village thereby directly impacting on the houses in St Neots Road, Water Lane and Water End. Therefore the development cannot be designed to ‘ensure separation from Renhold’ and the new buildings would be prominent in this open rural setting.
I consider the location of these two sites to go against the Local Plan’s objective of focussing new growth first in the urban area with all suitable sites within the urban area boundary being allocated. The Local Plan should be including brownfield sites and land adjoining the urban area – not proposing sites on open countryside.
If development is granted the villages of Great Barford and Renhold will draw closer as 500 homes have been approved in St Neots Road, Great Barford.
The proposed sites would not meet the Local Plan’s objective of creating sustainable communities when the location’s accessibility will rely on the use of the car as it is too far to walk (and for many to cycle) from Bedford Railway Station.
This development of these two sites would result in the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. The Government advocates the protection of Grade 2 agricultural land from significant, inappropriate and unsustainable development. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have highlighted the importance of food security so we need to protect good quality agricultural land.
Renhold comprises of five Ends which gives it is distinctive character and by creating a large business park at Water End this would have an adverse impact on the village character. The scale of the proposals would create an ‘urban built environment’ which would be disproportionate to the size of the Parish.
As the owner of Hill Farmhouse in Water Lane which is a Grade II listed building I am very concerned that such a development would have a detrimental impact on the Grade II listed properties in the area and the heritage assets including the Howbury ringwork and Medieval Trackway. Water Lane is a very special rural location which runs down to the River Ouse. I understand that some of the land has ridge and furrow.
Water End and St Neots Road/Water Lane have already been adversely affected by the bypass which has increased community severance and the level of traffic and noise.. These levels would significantly increase during the construction phase and once the sites were completed. The A421 junction is congested at certain times of the day. The roads through the village have already experienced an increase in traffic volumes and it has had to bring in measures to prevent speeding. The village has also introduced a weight limit. A development of the size proposed would have enormous implications for traffic management and road safety in the village.
In summary the approval of this policy would adversely impact on the village of Renhold. A site of this nature should be located in an urban location already allocated for employment use.
Support
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9806
Received: 24/07/2022
Respondent: Alexandra Delger
Proposed new modern research campus at Water End
I welcome these proposals to bring higher-end business occupiers and skilled staff to the area. Clearly it makes sense to site the park in an area with such good future transport links.
Object
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission
Representation ID: 9832
Received: 28/07/2022
Respondent: Pippin Enterprises Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I object to the inclusion in the plan of Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road.
[a] The use of land at the junction of the A421 at Water End Renhold may be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to allocate a site that is split by the A421, requiring a duplication of access and main services. For reasons that follow, the allocation of a larger Site 764 might be supported, but the allocation of Site 761 is not supported.
The following comments all relate to Site 761.
[b] Renhold is essentially a linear village comprising a number of ‘ends’ separated by green gaps. Site 761 essentially would join Green End and Water End, so compromising the character of this part of the village.
[c] Site761 would be a scale of development that would dwarf the residential properties at Green End and Water End that it wraps around, destroying their rural character.
[d] Access is suggested from the roundabout at the A421 junction. More detailed work by the landowner I have seen shows that there is insufficient room for another significant access off the roundabout, and if the proposal proceeds the intention will be to close the existing access into the village, to create a new access into Site 761, and take a new access into the village from within the site. Hence, the only access into the village from the A421 will have to be through whatever development takes place on Site 761. This would be totally unacceptable, again compromising the essential character of Renhold.
[e] Whether Green End remains as an access from the roundabout or a new access to the village is provided through Site 761, the development will generate significant volumes of traffic, the nature of which will only be known when the type of development is finalised.
Renhold already has traffic problems, with the route through the village, including Green End and Water End being used to bypass Bedford by traffic from the west wanting access to the A421. Measures such as the traffic lights at Church End, where the road is too narrow for 2 lanes of traffic, average speed cameras between Green End and Church End, and a ban on through traffic in the morning and evening rush hours have already been implemented to try to reduce the scale of the problem. The proposed developments at Sites 761 and 764 will greatly increase the risk of traffic through the village, and it’s difficult to identify any further measures, short of closing the route somewhere, that could address this. If access to Green End is taken through Site761 as seems to be being suggested, this will effectively direct traffic from within Site 761 towards the village, compounding the traffic problem.
[f] Site 761 is earmarked for ‘a modern research campus-style development, primarily for research and development with elements of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution’. Apart from the scale of development being inappropriate whatever use is finally developed, the suggestion from sites elsewhere along the A421 is that warehousing and distribution uses predominate. These bring a scale of development that would be totally inappropriate on Site 761, perhaps not to such a great extent on Site 764. These uses would also seriously exacerbate the traffic problems through the village when drivers ignore the restrictions, as they do already. If EMP6 remains in the plan the terms ‘warehousing’ and ‘distribution’ should be removed from any suggested development types.
[g] If Site 761 is deleted from the plan, Site 764 could be extended as a replacement, with development extending eastwards on the south side of the A421. Such development would be remote from existing residential properties, would require only one access off St Neots Road, and would not compromise the A421 access into Renhold.
[h] The allocation of Sites 761 and 764 seems to reflect land ownership. Surely it is not good planning to allocate development in this way, when a better solution in this location can be found by allocating a site across 2 or more ownerships on the south side of the A421.