Policy EMP6 Business Park, Land at Water End and St Neots Road

Object

Representation ID: 10165

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Janet Leydon

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to this application as it is very clear that precedent is a valid reason for refusal of planning permission.
In a major determination (LGR 1975 211) the High Court Judge said: 'In all planning cases it must be of the greatest importance when considering a planning application to ask oneself what the consequences in the locality will be; what are the side-effects which will flow if such a permission is granted? Insofar as an application on site A is judged according to the consequence on site B, C and D, in my judgment no error of law is disclosed but only what is perhaps the most elementary principal of planning practice is being observed.'
Please reject this application as the consequences for Renhold would be dire if this development in open countryside were to be approved.

Object

Representation ID: 10167

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to object to this proposal for a Science Park in the ru1·al village of Renhold.
The sites that youhave chosen on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF should be protected from significant, inappropriate or unsustainable development proposals
Development here would result in loss of wildlife and habitat.

It would also have an adverse effect on the wider ecological network, and would fail to conserve and enhance the natural environment, as required by the NPPF 2021.

Comment

Representation ID: 10172

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Jim Henson

My Objection to the proposed Campus & possible warehouse/manufacturing at Water End & St Neots Road, Renhold

From a traffic point of view the effects of this development will be horrendous for Renhold along every stretch of road. We already have "speed watch" teams trying to assist the police, who do not have time to monitor vehicle speeds. It is very dangerous to park on many parts the village roads, as visibility is not good around bends, and an increase in through traffic will make this problem far worse.

The project is sanctioned, then by way of mitigation there must be an agreement to the effect that no HGVs from the Water End site are allowed to turn right into Water End and hence through Green End and the rest of the village. An HGV ban would, of course, be preferable .

There must also be an agreement between the BBC and Police that the TRO is regularly enforced and ideally this should be with the installation of combined Average Speed and Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, to replace the aging ASCs currently in place.

Without these restrictions the "old village" will become a traffic nightmare and destroy the village nature of our roads to the detriment of all who live there.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that it will not be possible to mitigate the effects of the necessary lighting for a 24 hour facility of warehousing/ manufacturing, and that there will be noise day & night

Object

Representation ID: 10173

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: M Colgrave

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

My Objection to the proposed Campus & possible warehouse/manufacturing at Water End & St Neots Road, Renhold

From a traffic point of view the effects of this development will be horrendous for Renhold along every stretch of road. We already have "speed watch" teams trying to assist the police, who do not have time to monitor vehicle speeds. It is very dangerous to park on many parts the village roads, as visibility is not good around bends, and an increase in through traffic will make this problem far worse.

I firmly believe that it will not be possible to mitigate the effects of the necessary lighting for a 24 hour facility of warehousing/ manufacturing, and that there will be noise day & night.

Comment

Representation ID: 10176

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: - Getzer

I am writing to object to this proposal for a Science Park in the rural village of Renhold.
The land that you have identified comprises green fields elevated with its highest points located in the north and gradually falling towards the bypass and beyond to the south­ east.
Any development on the land would be prominent within the open and rural landscape context.
Whilst the proposed allocation is supposedly intended for R and D, it also makes provision for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution elements.
If this were to be given the green light, it would be a blot on the landscape-a monstrous carbuncle.
Please cancel this project and protect our ever diminishing countryside for generations to come.

Comment

Representation ID: 10178

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Francis Wilmington

I write to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal

This proposal will lead to the intensification of use of an access and access road which is substandard in terms of visibility and layout. The village roads are already crumbling. Traffic is limited by a TRO and Average Speed Cameras as it is so often used as a rat run. This proposal would therefore further prejudice highway safety and convenience.
Please conduct a site visit and see for yourselves the problems that a Science Park or Warehouse Distribution Centre and the traffic and mayhem that this proposal would generate would cause to an already congested junction and a nonexistent infrastructure to support such a vast development.
This is arable land. Please do not concrete over it.

Object

Representation ID: 10181

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Jackie Davis

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal for a Science Park in open countryside which comprises the precious green gap between Water End Renhold and the roundabout leading to the A421 and the A4280.
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.
Take a look at the wildflower verges and the sheep grazing in the field and think long and hard before concreting over it, as biodiversity once lost, will not be recovered in our life time.
You have a duty to leave a lasting legacy for future generations-a legacy of which you can be justifiably proud.
If you decide to go ahead with this you will be damned for an eternity.

Comment

Representation ID: 10185

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Ms M Dobke

The plans for a science park in Renhold are ill thought and illogical.
Renhold is one of a few remaining tranquil rural communities in North East Beds with no street lights and star lit skies and your proposal would destroy this forever.
The local highway network at these proposed locations are already exhausted and at capacity
The proposed allocation would result in a significant increase in traffic movements and associated pollution, detrimental to the local area, in particular the Parish of Renhold and the adjoining rural road network.
Water End road is restricted to access for cars and motorbikes between the peak hours of 7.00 to 9.30am and 3.30 to 6.30pm primarily to restrict the volume of traffic using the village as a "rat-run" to and from the A421 bypass.
There is also major congestion at peak times around Renhold Primary School and the Church and whenever there is an accident or a build-up of traffic heading for Bedford.
Your choice of location is ludicrous and your ambition to put Bedford on the map by sacrificing arable fields and rural life is unforgivable.

Object

Representation ID: 10187

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I write to object to the proposed Development at Water End & St Neots Road, Renhold

This will add more traffic to the already existing rat run and will cause severe problems to villagers. It will be impossible to stop traffic from the Development using the village roads. The amount of traffic was already enough for a Traffic Restriction Order to be put into place, any increase is not acc ept able .

The land stands proud of the village, and is totally unsuitable. There will be no advantage to villagers, but many disadvantages.
Brown fields should be considered, not farming land

Comment

Representation ID: 10188

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

You cannot continue overexploiting the natural world
As an elected body I understand that, when proposing sites for development you have to: AVOID HARM, MITIGATE and ENHANCE ON SITE
Core areas of existing high value for nature must be protected and you will need a conservation action plan to ensure their survival. The arable fields in Renhold are a much cherished environment where rare species survive and flourish.
You will, no doubt say that you will offset the damage that your proposal causes for 10% biodiversity gain, but all offsetting means is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for the uncertain hope of reconstructing them else where .
Do you realise that it will take at least 140 years for any site to be as good as it once was? Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will be enough local land in Renhold for fair and adequate o f fset t ing.
You are undervaluing nature and overvaluing economic benefit. Please remember that GDP is not the sole measure of economic success and sustainability.
I object in the strongest possible terms to this opportunistic and speculative application for a pie in the sky Science Park which will simply morph into yet another warehouse distribution centre. Look around you and please find another location where infrastructure and public transport links either already exist such as at Kempston Hardwick or where they will soon exist as at Little Barford.

Comment

Representation ID: 10189

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

You cannot continue overexploiting the natural world
As an elected body I understand that, when proposing sites for development you have to: AVOID HARM, MITIGATE and ENHANCE ON SITE
Core areas of existing high value for nature must be protected and you will need a conservation action plan to ensure their survival. The arable fields in Renhold are a much cherished environment where rare species survive and flourish.
You will, no doubt say that you will offset the damage that your proposal causes for 10% biodiversity gain, but all offsetting means is the certain destruction of habitats in one place for the uncertain hope of reconstructing them else where .
Do you realise that it will take at least 140 years for any site to be as good as it once was? Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will be enough local land in Renhold for fair and adequate o f fset t ing.
You are undervaluing nature and overvaluing economic benefit. Please remember that GDP is not the sole measure of economic success and sustainability.
I object in the strongest possible terms to this opportunistic and speculative application for a pie in the sky Science Park which will simply morph into yet another warehouse distribution centre. Look around you and please find another location where infrastructure and public transport links either already exist such as at Kempston Hardwick or where they will soon exist as at Little Barford.

Comment

Representation ID: 10190

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: W Node

Renhold is a rural village. It is not part of Bedford and it does not want to be the sacrificial lamb in your attempts to put Bedford on the map.
We will have none of the gain and all of the pain if this application were to be successful.
You have clearly not thought things through...

Significant engineering and modification works will be required to the A4280 St Neots Road, the A421 slip roads, Water End and the link road between the two roundabouts and relevant access points.
This would result in the urbanisation of this part of the Parish, which is characterised by agricultural fields, waterways and lakes to the south; and limited built form - primarily in the form of modest houses and scattered agricultural buildings.
Please stop, reflect and find a more suitable location where there is infrastructure in place that can support this ambitious pipedream.

Object

Representation ID: 10191

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: S Coles

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to this proposal for a Science Park in Renhold as it would not meet the policy criteria appertaining to Settlement Policy Areas.
Criterion i) requires the development to be sensitive to the form and character of the village . The application does not meet this criterion.
Criterion ii) requires the character and scale of the proposed development to be compatible with local building styles This development is not compatible .
Criterion iii) requires comparability in form and dwelling densit y. Clearly the proposal fails on this count too.
Criterion iv) requires there to be no adverse effect on the setting. The proposed development would have a very severe detrimental effect on the vicinity of Green End and Water End with loss of amenity by reason of loss of privacy (being overlooked) and visual amenities and noise, pollution and disturbance.
Please do not allow this project to gain any further traction as it is not needed and, most certainly, not wanted.

Comment

Representation ID: 10192

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Thank you for the opportunity as a resident of one of the villagers, Renhold, that will be directly impacted by this proposed development to express my concerns and fears.
The village of Renhold is comprised of 5 ends [Saiph End, Church End, Top End, Green End, Water End] and three new estates to the south. This area has a distinctive character and the addition of a large business park at Water End would be totally alien and harmful to this character. The sites are rural locations, between the built form of Renhold Green End and Great Barford, and is sparsely populate d. As such, any development on these allocated sites would dominate the rural, open landscape and be out of keeping with the landscape and country feel of the area.

The land is elevated with its highest points located in the north and gradually falling towards the bypass and beyond to the south-east. Any development on the land would be prominent within the open and rural landscape context .

Any structures and associated infrastructure constructed on these proposed sites, particularly large distribution and warehouse units, would be of an unacceptable height and scale, thereby imposing on the nearby residential units which is prominent within its rural landscape context, particularly given the elevated topography and openness of the land . The proposals would be visually intrusive on the local landscape, harmful to its character and qualities.

The allocation would result in an urban built environment of significant depth, which would neither complement nor be compatible with the linear character of this part of Renhold and would contribute to unacceptable urban sprawl.

Water End and Green End are predominantly linear with a low density built form, consisting primarily of residential housing, surrounded by agricultural land. The proposals would be out of keeping, out of scale and clearly disproportionate to the size ofthe Parish.

Loss of wildlife, their habitat, the wider ecological network, and valuable landscaping (trees and hedgerows), will have a serious detrimental impact on the ar ea, and is in direct conflict by failing to conserve and enhance the natural environment, as required by the NPPF 2021.

These concerns might appear trivial, but with the ever increasing risk of climate change and the reduction of natural fauna and flora, this would accelerate the problem, instead of securing the naturalness of the area through green conservation.

I appreciate you making the time to consider these concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 10193

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Amanda Quince

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please note my objections in regards to the above proposed policy for the following reasons -

1. Renhold is a small rural village on the edge of a large town. Therefore such a massive development of this nature would completely destroy the distinctiveness of the village by allowing it to be built almost adjacent to a row of cottages at the end of the village. This is despite the land owners attempts to persuade residents that he would build a small copse type woodland area to offset the huge development beyond the tiny trees that would be planted to hide the eyesore. This would be so inadequate to even be taken seriously enough to form any sort of 'buffer'. I'm sorry, but this is just laughable. The impact on Renhold would simply be devast at in g.

2. I would also raise my significant concerns around what the landowner seems to feel the village or local surrounding area is lacking by proposing to add 'sweetener's' into the proposed development by saying the plan would include -
• A farm shop ... {we have one already close-by on Wilden Road, so a stone's through away)
• Wild water swimming ... {we have this at Box End)
• A running track ... (we have an international athletic stadium in Bedford)
• Tennis courts ... {we already have this on Goldington Road at Riverside in Bedford)

3. The domination of this proposed development would devour the landscape forever around Renhold and Great Barford for generations to come. Visually, it was look horrendous from a driver's perspective too and no-one would really believe that at the end of this huge potential sprawl would be a small rural vill age.

4. We already have significant traffic congestion on the A421 junction point with the resulting impact would just mean a hell of a lot m ore. That would then have a knock on effect for Renhold village with a massive increase in traffic flow on our village roads to try and avoid the inevitable log jam at the A421 junction. I would like to also point out that the land owners suggestion to build a new road into the development would do absolutely nothing in terms of alleviating any traffic flow issues. None whatsoever.

This entire proposal is ill thought out, it lacks any perceived benefits to the village or surrounding area for that matter. Put simply, Renhold village would suffer immensely should this proposal get off the ground. It is on far too much a grand scale to even be fully contemplated and understood to comment on with any degree of authority. There are clearly no benefits to this scheme other than the landowner making a considerable fortune in the process.
I implore you to decline this development in any shape or form.

Object

Representation ID: 10194

Received: 17/08/2022

Respondent: D Nicholas

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to object to this outrageous proposal for a Science Park in Renhold.

The village of Renhold currently comprises of 6 ends [Salph End, Struttle End, Church End, Top End, Green End, Water End]

This is its distinctive character and the addition of a large business park at Water End would be totally alien and harmful to this character.

The sites are rural locations, between the built form of Renhold Green End and Great Barf ord, and they are sparsely populated.

Any development on these allocated sites, particularly the one at Water End which is on raised ground, whether it be for a 'pie in the sky' science park or, as is more likely, a warehouse distribution centre, would dominate the rural, open landscape and be out of keeping with the character and unique identity which is so prized by the village residents in the most recent Neighbourhood Plan survey.

Please listen to the electorate and cancel this project with immediate effect.

Object

Representation ID: 10195

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

What on earth is the point of a new Research Campus at Water End? There cannot be a worse place to build such a site. The few houses there are of historical interest to local historians, and to sacrifice them for a project of such questionable value seems totally thoughtless.
All we will get in return for this is noise, pollution, and an escalation of traffic, which has long been a problem in Renhold. We are already threatened with a new railway line close to our village. Builders are queuing up to build vast new estates, which will no doubt be needed should this vanity project get the go ahead. Your proposal for a "Science Centre" is totally inappropriate here, and seems to be being planned for no other reason than to boast of unnecessary "progress".
Please see sense, and avoid the wrath of everyone who lives here.

Comment

Representation ID: 10196

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: M Flynn

I am broken hearted by your proposals in Renhold. You seem intent on totally destroying what is a beautiful village. Water End, essentially a small collection of dwellings, will be sacrificed for a 30 hectare project that is unnecessary, poorly planned and clearly in an inappropriate area.
Why not put this development at Kempston Hardwick or Little Barford where there will be significant new settlements with all the infrastructure that is needed to support such an idea rather than cementing over beautiful green fields that are needed to support food production, health and wellbeing of residents and biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 10197

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to object to this shocking proposal for a Science Park in Renhold.
Any structures and associated infrastructure constructed on the proposed sites, particularly large distribution and warehouse units, would have an unacceptable height and scale.
They would be imposing on nearby residential units and prominent within its rural landscape context, particularly given the elevated topography and openness of the land.
The proposals would be visually intrusive on the local landscape, harmful to its character and qualities.
You must ask yourselves these questions, 'Do we really need this development or is it just blue sky thinking gone crazy? Is this the right location for development? What legacy are you creating for future generations by destroying the rural way of life chosen by the people who live here?
Please stop this from happening. Be realistic. Without a Cambridge or Oxford postcode, this project, if it really is for a cutting edge science park, is already dead in the water.

Comment

Representation ID: 10198

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

I am writing to you today to express my concern about the proposed science park development adjoining the village of Renhold .
There is no need for a science-campus proposal in this location. Bedford is not a science or research location like Cambridge or Oxford. The sites are not gateway locations into Bedford as they do not abut the urban boundary of Bedford. Instead, the northern site adjoins the settlement policy area of Renhold's Green End (a small nucleus of residential units), and the southern site does not adjoin any settlement policy area .

Significant engineering and modification works will be required to the A4280 St Neats Road, the A421 slip roads, Water End and the link road between the two roundabouts and relevant access point s. This would result in the urbanisation of this part of the Parish, which is characterised by agricultural fields, waterways and lakes to the sout h; and limited built form - primarily in the form of modest houses and scattered agricultural buildings
The local highway network is already exhausted and at capacity- the proposed allocation would result in a significant increase in traffic movements and associated pollution, detrimental to the local area, in particular the Parish of Renhold and the adjoin ing rural road network.

Water End road is restricted to access for cars and motorbikes between the peak hours of 7.00 to 9.30am and 3.30 to 6.30pm due to width/weight/on-street parking restrictions around Renhold Church and Primary School.

The sites are not in sustainable locations with lack of footway and cycleway provision and infrequent public transport connection with lack of bus stops. Alternative modes of transport, including walking, cycling and public t ransport, should be promoted, however, the sites' access would be clearly dominated by vehicles due to their proximity to the A421, therefore failing to meet the key, high-level objective of the NPPF of 'achieving sustainable development'.

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, resulting in an even greater level of pollution (noise, emission/air, light, water).

Please seriously consider the implementation of the science park at this location.

Comment

Representation ID: 10199

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Trevor Miller

To whom it may concern

This project at Water End and St Neots Road in Renhold does not support The England's Economic Heartlands' strategy to focus on decarbonisation of the transport system by harnessing innovation and supporting solutions which create green economic opportunities; and promote investment in digital infrastructure as a means of improving connectivity, in order to reduce the need to travel.
Furthermore, they fail to:
1. Support the delivery of low carbon transport by working towards reduced congestion, digital connectivity, and a net zero carbon system by 2040
2. Promote connectivity and accessibility in new development, and link new and existing communities
3. Support opportunities for active travel and green infrastructure
4. Promote and support infrastructure development which reflects the ambitions of the three preceding principles.
Please look again at these plans for Renhold, accept that they are in the wrong place and agree that they contradict your agreed focus on decarbonisation.
You must be bold enough to cancel it. After all, you are supposed to be representing the people who currently live in Renhold; none of whom are seeking employment in a white elephant that is a 'Science Park' which, in reality will simply morph into a Warehouse Distribution Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 10200

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: - Palmer

Please stop and think about what you are suggesting here...

There is no need for a science-campus proposal in this location. Bedford is and never will be a science or research location like Cambridge or Oxford.
In November 2020, there were 68,916 square metres of office units and 90,760 square metres of industrial units available in the Borough.
Instead of allocating more 'strategic road network1 employment sites, you should focus on managing and encouraging the development of the 3 already allocated sites, land at Medbury Farm (ADl 1, land west of 8530 (ADl 7) and Bedford River Valley Park (AD23), totalling 72 hectares, where development has not yet started.

Object

Representation ID: 10203

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ian McIver

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Re: Local Plan 2040 - EMP6 - Water End and St Neots Road proposals (Sites 761 & 764)
We wish to register our objection to these potential developments as follows:
If they were to be permitted, would lead to a huge increase in traffic movements to and from the sites at the already congested A421/A4280 junctions where it is not unusual to see cars stationary in the inside lane, waiting to join the exit lane(s).
Such an increase in traffic movements would clearly lead to conditions even more detrimental to highway safety and convenience and, I suggest, great danger to road users.
Please examine any background traffic modeling data held by the proposed developer and the police and if such independently assessed traffic modeling data is not available (and we have not seen any independent in-depth analysis to date), please ensure that it is required to be provided by a completely independent, competent organization and that the results are taken into account when deciding the outcome of any application to proceed with the proposed development.
Whilst considering the traffic loading at the adjacent A421 Junction, it is clear that the whole roads infrastructure through Renhold is totally inadequate for the extra traffic that the proposed development would of necessity bring to our Village. Also, Renhold is home to a number of ancient and listed buildings which would inevitably suffer from the huge increase of heavy traffic that the proposed development would entail. Our roads and especially our footpaths are quite simply unsuitable for the traffic types and loading that the proposed development would bring to our Village.
We note also that the proposed developments include areas which are recognised as of Historic interest. We do not accept that a major development such as is proposed is consistent with such historical knowledge and in our view this alone is reason enough to reject all notion of the proposals.
You will also be aware that parts of Renhold are currently subject to either a T.R.O. or a Weight Limit. It would be necessary to retain and fully enforce these restrictions otherwise the very nature, not to mention the fabric, of parts of our ancient Village will literally begin to fall into decline. It seems to us that retention of these restrictions whilst upgrading with modern Vehicle Activated Registration Number photographic Cameras installed to ensure 100% compliance with the regulations during all of the development phases and indefinitely thereafter would be essential.
We note that whilst the proposal is presented as a high-quality research and development ‘Science Park’, it also includes provision for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activities. These latter activities would surely be wholly unsuitable for location in the ancient and rural village of Renhold in terms of its impact upon the community and the local landscape.
The sparse information available at this stage clearly shows that the proposed development would totally dominate the landscape in the area, would lead to coalescence with Great Barford and would be totally out of keeping with the nature of our community. Furthermore, there is no apparent need in our community for the level of employment the suggested development would bring to Renhold or the locality.
No mention or provision is made regarding facilities (shops, schools, health, housing, etc.) that would be required to support the large number of personnel associated with such a development.
We are also very concerned about the loss of habitat for the natural wildlife in our area. We love Renhold in part because we delight in the fauna we see when walking on the footpaths and by-ways in our village. The proposed development can only have a negative impact on this aspect of our rural existence and we plead for the refusal of the proposed developments in favour of the future existence of wildlife in our Village.
Our Village has a long-standing ‘dark skies’ policy which would be totally ruined by the development as proposed. We are proud of this policy which both reduces power consumption (and thus, ultimately, greenhouse gas generation) and sets Renhold apart from the ‘Urban Sprawl’.
Another aspect for consideration is the noise generation that would result from the proposed development if it were to go forward. We villagers enjoy quiet nights, which would be lost to construction traffic and then a huge increase of ‘commuting’ traffic if the proposed development were to go ahead.
Coming to the current working method of ‘Working from Home’, it cannot be sensible to develop centres of concentrated employment as is the nature of the proposed development. Large offices and workplaces are surely dead in the water and a thing of the past given modern technology and communications methods which facilitate instant communications and on-line meetings without the need for ever-larger gas-guzzling motor vehicles which serve only to worsen global warming, serious climate change, desecration of the countryside and worsening public health due to more and more pollution and less and less exercise for individuals.
Still speaking of travel, the proposed development is distant from the main public transport facilities (such as they are) and this only substantiates the expectation that more and more road traffic will be experienced by the rural village of Renhold on a daily basis.
Again, our rural community being built over (as would be required by this proposed development) will lead to a further loss of arable land and/or green areas which would serve to feed our population and at the same time serve as a ‘sink’ for the (previously mentioned) general increase in CO2 pollution. Please let us have more green space and less tarmac and steel sheds!
We note with interest that the ‘Oxford/Cambridge Arc’ proposal has been dropped by Central Government. Please see this proposed development as a ‘last gasp’ of that behemoth and decline its acceptance in order to align rural Bedfordshire and the North Beds villages with this change in Government Policy.
When all is said and done, please recognise this application for what it is - speculative, opportunistic and of little or no economic or environmental improvement value to the existing inhabitants of Renhold and, indeed, North Bedfordshire Villages in general.
We desire to continue to live in the green, beautiful, quiet and historically important rural village community that is Renhold and we strongly suggest that such developments as this are found suitable locations on a brown-field site as has been suggested by central governments and key environmentalists in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 10204

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Jill Moubarak

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Re: Local Plan 2040 - EMP6 - Water End and St Neots Road proposals (Sites 761 & 764)
We wish to register our objection to these potential developments as follows:
If they were to be permitted, would lead to a huge increase in traffic movements to and from the sites at the already congested A421/A4280 junctions where it is not unusual to see cars stationary in the inside lane, waiting to join the exit lane(s).
Such an increase in traffic movements would clearly lead to conditions even more detrimental to highway safety and convenience and, I suggest, great danger to road users.
Please examine any background traffic modeling data held by the proposed developer and the police and if such independently assessed traffic modeling data is not available (and we have not seen any independent in-depth analysis to date), please ensure that it is required to be provided by a completely independent, competent organization and that the results are taken into account when deciding the outcome of any application to proceed with the proposed development.
Whilst considering the traffic loading at the adjacent A421 Junction, it is clear that the whole roads infrastructure through Renhold is totally inadequate for the extra traffic that the proposed development would of necessity bring to our Village. Also, Renhold is home to a number of ancient and listed buildings which would inevitably suffer from the huge increase of heavy traffic that the proposed development would entail. Our roads and especially our footpaths are quite simply unsuitable for the traffic types and loading that the proposed development would bring to our Village.
We note also that the proposed developments include areas which are recognised as of Historic interest. We do not accept that a major development such as is proposed is consistent with such historical knowledge and in our view this alone is reason enough to reject all notion of the proposals.
You will also be aware that parts of Renhold are currently subject to either a T.R.O. or a Weight Limit. It would be necessary to retain and fully enforce these restrictions otherwise the very nature, not to mention the fabric, of parts of our ancient Village will literally begin to fall into decline. It seems to us that retention of these restrictions whilst upgrading with modern Vehicle Activated Registration Number photographic Cameras installed to ensure 100% compliance with the regulations during all of the development phases and indefinitely thereafter would be essential.
We note that whilst the proposal is presented as a high-quality research and development ‘Science Park’, it also includes provision for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activities. These latter activities would surely be wholly unsuitable for location in the ancient and rural village of Renhold in terms of its impact upon the community and the local landscape.
The sparse information available at this stage clearly shows that the proposed development would totally dominate the landscape in the area, would lead to coalescence with Great Barford and would be totally out of keeping with the nature of our community. Furthermore, there is no apparent need in our community for the level of employment the suggested development would bring to Renhold or the locality.
No mention or provision is made regarding facilities (shops, schools, health, housing, etc.) that would be required to support the large number of personnel associated with such a development.
We are also very concerned about the loss of habitat for the natural wildlife in our area. We love Renhold in part because we delight in the fauna we see when walking on the footpaths and by-ways in our village. The proposed development can only have a negative impact on this aspect of our rural existence and we plead for the refusal of the proposed developments in favour of the future existence of wildlife in our Village.
Our Village has a long-standing ‘dark skies’ policy which would be totally ruined by the development as proposed. We are proud of this policy which both reduces power consumption (and thus, ultimately, greenhouse gas generation) and sets Renhold apart from the ‘Urban Sprawl’.
Another aspect for consideration is the noise generation that would result from the proposed development if it were to go forward. We villagers enjoy quiet nights, which would be lost to construction traffic and then a huge increase of ‘commuting’ traffic if the proposed development were to go ahead.
Coming to the current working method of ‘Working from Home’, it cannot be sensible to develop centres of concentrated employment as is the nature of the proposed development. Large offices and workplaces are surely dead in the water and a thing of the past given modern technology and communications methods which facilitate instant communications and on-line meetings without the need for ever-larger gas-guzzling motor vehicles which serve only to worsen global warming, serious climate change, desecration of the countryside and worsening public health due to more and more pollution and less and less exercise for individuals.
Still speaking of travel, the proposed development is distant from the main public transport facilities (such as they are) and this only substantiates the expectation that more and more road traffic will be experienced by the rural village of Renhold on a daily basis.
Again, our rural community being built over (as would be required by this proposed development) will lead to a further loss of arable land and/or green areas which would serve to feed our population and at the same time serve as a ‘sink’ for the (previously mentioned) general increase in CO2 pollution. Please let us have more green space and less tarmac and steel sheds!
We note with interest that the ‘Oxford/Cambridge Arc’ proposal has been dropped by Central Government. Please see this proposed development as a ‘last gasp’ of that behemoth and decline its acceptance in order to align rural Bedfordshire and the North Beds villages with this change in Government Policy.
When all is said and done, please recognise this application for what it is - speculative, opportunistic and of little or no economic or environmental improvement value to the existing inhabitants of Renhold and, indeed, North Bedfordshire Villages in general.
We desire to continue to live in the green, beautiful, quiet and historically important rural village community that is Renhold and we strongly suggest that such developments as this are found suitable locations on a brown-field site as has been suggested by central governments and key environmentalists in the past.

Comment

Representation ID: 10210

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

I am horrified by your proposals around Green End. You seem intent on totally destroying what is a beautiful village. Water End, essentially a small collection of dwellings, will be sacrificed for a project that is unnecessary, poorly planned and clearly in an inappropriate area.
Will they have to close the A421 round-about? How much extra traffic will this entail, especially with heavy lorries? There is A TRO with restricted access through the village at certain times. Will that be ignored? We already have huge parking problems around the school, which no-one seems able to solve. This will make things far worse.
The powers-that-be have no idea of the chaos they are planning. 500 new houses at Great Barford, a new railway line, and now this! I can see NOTHING positive for our village in this. It seems that the authorities are only interested in the urbanisation of Renhold, and have no feelings for a very happy rural community.
PLEASE think again, and cancel the project before wasting even more of our money.

Comment

Representation ID: 10211

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Sir or Madam

My Objection to the proposed Campus & possible warehouse/manufacturing at Water End & St Neots Road, Renhold

From a traffic point of view the effects of this development will be horrendous for Renhold along every stretch of road. We already have "speed watch" teams trying to assist the police, who do not have time to monitor vehicle speeds. It is very dangerous to park on many parts the village roads, as visibility is not good around bends, and an increase in through traffic will make this problem far worse.

I firmly believe that it will not be possible to mitigate the effects of the necessary lighting for a 24 hour facility of warehousing / manufacturing, and that there will be noise day & night.

Object

Representation ID: 10212

Received: 17/08/2022

Respondent: SM Salerge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I wish to express my opinion that I do not feel that the site at Water End/Green End, Renhold is suitable for an employment development and I object to the proposal.

It is already dangerous to walk along some of the narrow pavements in Renhold. In some places there are no pavements. The village roads were never built to take the huge increase in the volume of traffic which was a result of Bedford Bypass, let alone a further increase. The parking outside the school causes real problems for not just through traffic (which still occurs despite a Traffic Restriction Order) but for villagers trying to access their own homes.

Loss of any farming land is not what is needed in England at this time. This country needs to make itself self sufficient.
This is not a suitable site for such a scheme

Comment

Representation ID: 10213

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: B Landman

This opportunistic project at Water End and St Neots Road in Renhold does not support The England's Economic Heartlands' strategy to focus on decarbonisation of the transport system by harnessing innovation and supporting solutions which create green economic opportunities; and promote investment in digital infrastructure as a means of improving connectivity, in order to reduce the need to travel.
Furthermore, it fails to:

1. Support the delivery of low carbon transport by working towards reduced congestion, digital connectivity, and a net zero carbon system by 2040
2. Promote connectivity and accessibility in new development, and link
new and existing communities
3. Support opportunities for active travel and green infrastructure
4. Promote and support infrastructure development which reflects the ambitions of the three preceding principles.
Please look again at these plans which threaten Renhold and its rural village way of life.
Please accept that youhave chosen the wrong location for this kind of development and agree that they contradict your agreed focus on decarbonisa tion.
You must be bold enough to cancel it. After all, you are supposed to be representing the' people who currently live in Renhold; none of whom are seeking employment in a great white elephant that is a 'Science Park' which, in reality will simply morph into a Warehouse Distribution Centre, however noble the intentions of the landowner.

Object

Representation ID: 10248

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Tippett-Wilson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

• Renhold is an ancient village that comprises of 5 ends (Salph, Church, Top, Green and Water) as well as three new estates. It has a distinctive character that attracts people to the settling in the village. Having an enormous business park totally urban in character would be out of keeping. It would not be possible to retain a rural character with substantial building and employment units being imposed on the village.
• The Neighbourhood Plan also includes development of 500 houses along St. Neots Road in Great Barford. The cumulative impact of such housing and potential employment development, being in such close proximity to one another effectively merges Great Barford and Renhold. Implementation of the local plan as it stands will effectively destroy the distinctiveness of local villages.
• The impact of noise on local residents is a concern – particularly during construction and operational phases.
• The local area is abundantly rich with wildlife. Wildlife habitats will be obliterated with the development planned. We (humans) do not have the right to destroy habitats of our fellow earth residents, a sentiment particularly relevant now when we understand the impact to the environment when we disturb wildlife habitats.
• There is already significant congestion at the A421 Great Barford junction with queues regularly extending beyond the slip road onto the A421 at peak times. Traffic volumes will increase but the village road network is not suitable for the increase in traffic. Access onto nearby village roads would require significant remodelling of the roundabouts and junctions, with all the additional disruption and delays that the modification works would entail. Bedford Borough Council has recognised the importance of restricting traffic through Renhold by implementing measures to reduce traffic e.g. access and speed restrictions/cameras. A large employment land allocation will alter the traffic fundamentally which is at odds with Bedford Borough Councils past objectives.
• The COVID pandemic brought about a fundamental and lasting change to working patterns.. Most people now work from home and businesses are embracing this behaviour and closing offices. What is the demand for a business park at Water End?
• Many warehouses have been build along the A421 which has blighted the landscape. Surely enough have been built and the countryside, villages and wildlife can enjoy what remains?

Object

Representation ID: 10318

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: C U Wellington

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to lodge my objection to application for a Science Park in Renhold.
My reasoning is simple. This proposed development would run counter to the stated Policy that in villages, development will be limited to development within the existing village envelope and would contribute to, and respect, the individual character of the village.
Clearly, this proposed development fails on three counts: a) it steps outside of the current built up area, b) it would be completely at odds with your policy which prohibits building in open countryside and c) it would re move an important green gap that is so characteristic of the separation between each of the 'Ends' in the village.
Please take my objection seriously and reject this application.