Issues and Options
Search form responses
Results for Colmworth Parish Council search
New searchYes, we agree with the scope of the review, ie growth and infrastructure, but we would place more emphasis on improving infrastructure which is by far the more urgent challenge within Bedford Borough. Transport infrastructure needs to be significantly improved, the cost of doing so will be substantial and so the location of the larger elements of housing growth may best be considered with the results of an infrastructure review determining what can actually be achieved within the early years of the plan period.
Yes, we agree in principle with the vision, but it is very generic and very general, stating simply that pretty much everything will be improved. However, there are no specific commitments or targets, timescales or measures by which success or failure may be determined.
Yes, plans become increasingly speculative as time periods extend. One argument in favour of a longer plan period would be if it generated additional funding for significant commitments such as infrastructure, but we are not aware of any such benefit.
We support: Brown, Urban-based growth. We believe that the housing requirement is so high that further significant growth to Bedford and Kempston is unavoidable. Environmentally it is a priority as it maximises potential for public transport, walking and cycling. The urban extension to Rushden is also supported but the urban extension to St Neots is not supported as the roads from that area to Bedford are all unclassified and unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. Yellow, A421-based growth. This also is a priority as it has significant transport benefits given capacity within road infrastructure, it ties in very well with existing strategic employment sites, minimizing commuting, and has significant housing capacity including unused brownfield land at Stewartby. The A421 would certainly be part of the Oxford- Cambridge Expressway. Pink, rail growth. This makes sense making use of anticipated rail growth locations. We do not support: Orange, EastWest Rail northern station. We believe this is totally unrealistic, EWR stated they have no budget for this and it would extend journey times. Moreover, the amount of E-W commuting is very low compared to N-S commuting to London which this station would not serve, most new residents would drive to work or Midland station. Grey, Dispersed growth. This is the antithesis of planning, totally unresponsive to resources, opportunities or challenges. It represents development without regard to local needs, infrastructure or policy. An element of dispersed growth will be delivered by the Call-for-sites exercise, but for the most part growth should be planned. Red, new settlement-based growth. All the proposed new settlements are based in the open countryside where infrastructure, facilities and services are limited and unable to properly support such large growth to local areas. None of the proposals include sufficient facilities and services to be considered stand-alone communities, all will lean heavily on rural neighbouring communities and overload rural road infrastructure. The weakest of the proposals is the Wyboston site which has no brownfield contribution and would impact severely on local unclassified roads that are incapable of upgrade. NPPF Para 77 states “In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.”
We recommend a bolder plan that seeks to address Bedford’s key infrastructure problems, the A6 and Bedford Midland railway station. The combination of the EastWest Rail project and the Local Plan 2040 presents a unique opportunity to reposition Bedford as a modern, sustainable and desirable community for decades to come. We propose that 1. Bedford Midland railway station be relocated to the junction of the A6 and A421 near Elstow 2. The EastWest Rail route be switched south of Bedford saving £6-800 million. 3. The now-redundant stretch of rail line from the A421 to Bedford St Johns to be repurposed for use as a “people mover” between the new station and a location at or near River St multi-storey carpark. This would use maybe driverless electric units similar to those seen in theme parks. Alongside would be a cycle lane. The route would go from the new station, follow the rail route to St Johns and then elevate from there to head to River St. The route would also link to South Wing Hospital and Borough Hall and could also be extended to the bus station. 4. The A6 to have a new spur from Clapham to the A428/A4280 roundabout near Bromham Water Mill plus dualling where possible to provide a more reliable fast route from north of Bedford down to the A421 at the A428 roundabout near the Police HQ, thereby improving access from the north of the Borough to the new rail station, employment areas around the A421 and destinations south, west and east. This package resolves the problem of poor access and inadequate parking at Bedford Midland railway station, reduces road traffic passing through the town centre, creates a rail hub/interchange with North/South and East/West routes and connections, and provides easy pedestrian movement and safe cycle access between the town centre, the railway station, the hospital and Borough Hall. It means we no longer need a separate Wixams station, it frees up land at Bedford Midland station for housing and it brings additional footfall to Riverside and the Harpur Centre creating a new focus for the town centre. While it will be expensive to deliver there will be savings of between £600- 800 million from rerouting EastWest Rail and so that should be a source of adequate funding. It improves infrastructure around the A421 justifying significant new housing in that area. The improved A6 capacity opens up more of north Beds for growth, supporting the potential urban expansion near Rushden and by cancelling Wixams station it is easier to justify a new northern station on the north/south route somewhere between Milton Ernest and Wymington.
We believe that the major employment sites should be close to major roads and major housing areas, minimising commuting. Businesses with frequent movement of large vehicles should remain close to road arteries and not be allowed to operate from typically cheaper sites in rural areas where the road network is inadequate.
The town centre plan needs to deliver more to make Bedford town centre an attractive place that people want to visit for shopping, restaurants, culture and leisure. That is currently a distant dream as we have been losing key retail names too frequently and the town is dotted with tatty empty shops. While we need to encourage public transport usage we cannot ignore the fact that most people rely on the car and so parking needs to be more accessible. If we start with an infrastructure plan (see Q5) and develop Riverside, the river area and the Harpur Centre we can make the town more attractive and attract more retail, leisure and other popular facilities.
See Q5 and Q7 above. By moving the railway station to a more accessible location and creating a best-in-class transport hub and infrastructure there will be less traffic brought into the town centre and people would be able to move easily between the rail and bus stations, the hospital and town centre without need for cars or taxis. Only when you make it easy to move around will people ditch their cars, park on the outskirts of town making the centre a more pleasant and desirable environment. Increase footfall and the retail and leisure will return and grow.
We have no developed view on this but we do see a risk of increasing house prices if housing policy is driven by an environmental brief beyond national requirements.
As with Q9, any above-scale focus on building standards, whilst theoretically laudable, will make local housing more expensive when applied generally. However, there may be merit in considering small showpiece developments of very high spec houses that introduce the best of new technology, eg seeking to be carbon-neutral or self-sustaining.
