Issues and Options

No

Odell PC is currently preparing a Neighbourhood Plan in consultation with residents of the village which has helped us to prepare this response. In addition, we are aware that Central Government has issued proposals that will, if passed into legislation, greatly reduce the involvement of local parish councillors and residents in planning decisions. This makes it more important that any Local Plan is agreed with the Parish Councils and passed by the Borough Council in a full meeting of Borough Councillors.

Brown – Urban based growth , Yellow – A421 based growth

1. One of the main influencers for the revision to the Local Plan is the impact of the Oxford/Cambridge Arc and the requirement for additional development along the Arc. We are of the view that any development along the Arc must be part of the requirement of 1,305 houses to be built annually. It should not be in addition to the quota handed down from Central Government and the Borough should oppose any increase to the annual target above this level. We do appreciate that the required figure is still not definite and that the 1,305 is a maximum. 2. Growth along the Arc, as proposed, will put a strain on the existing road network and other infrastructure, which rural areas in particular will not be able to sustain. Any new development should only be located where there is sufficient road capacity to carry the resulting additional traffic, both north-south and east-west towards Milton Keynes and Cambridge. Its location should also be decided upon with regard to the effect of traffic on B roads and minor unclassified roads. Congestion, traffic levels and road safety within the villages is already of extremely serious concern and further development, especially to the north of Bedford, will exacerbate the problems with the current infrastructure. 3. The proposals for additional development in the Local Plan 2040 should therefore be located along the A421 and near the A1 / A428 south of St Neots. This gives the opportunity for further development of the Wixams area, of brownfield sites south of Bedford and in the Wyboston Area, which will benefit from a new station on the east-west rail link and the new A428 dual-carriageway from the A1 Black cat roundabout towards Cambridge. 4. There are 6 proposed areas of growth in the Borough’s consultation paper. Of the six, four favour development in the north of the Borough. We are seriously concerned about the impact of any further development along the A6 corridor, given the current inadequacies of the A6 and the major traffic delays during peak periods to get into Bedford or onto the bypass. Bedford’s single-carriageway bypass and its roundabouts are already heavily congested and it’s unable to carry current levels of traffic. This will increase as a result of development north of Bedford already included in the current Local Plan 2030. Odell Parish Council is firmly opposed to any major development along the A6 corridor north of Bedford because of the already overloaded road infrastructure into Bedford and because of the increased traffic it will generate through Odell heading east / west towards Cambridge and Milton Keynes from the existing villages and new development north of Bedford. 5. Sustainability will be one of the main criteria that the inspectors will consider when assessing the Borough’s proposed Local Plan 2040. It is a major risk that the inspectors will reject the Borough’s proposed Plan on sustainability grounds if it were to include any major development north of Bedford, over and above the several hundred homes already included in the Local Plan 2030. Most of the recent road infrastructure investment and all of the future planned road and rail investment will benefit the town itself and areas in the south and east of the Borough. The additional development required in the Local Plan 2040 should therefore be located where the additional road and rail infrastructure investment has or will provide the necessary transport capacity. In particular, development should be located where there are dual-carriageway roads, such as the upgraded A421 and A428 towards Cambridge and where the new or upgraded stations on the East/West rail route are located. 6. The proposal of large-scale development at Thurleigh and Colworth will have a major impact on the village of Odell. It will create additional demand on the road infrastructure that already exceeds its capabilities and will also damage the environment and air quality. 7. We welcome your comments that completed Neighbourhood Plans will be taken into account when finalising the Local Plan 2040 and endorse the plans for Bedford Town Centre.

In conclusion, the main concerns of Odell Parish Council are that developments are not made in areas where infrastructure is already overloaded and does not meet demand. Brownfield sites must be developed in the first instance and development in rural areas is only considered in areas where the necessary transport infrastructure has already been provided or will be in place. Where at all possible the rural environment must be preserved and any development should be sustainable and in line with carbon emissions targets.

No

Odell Parish Council strongly objects to a number of proposals in the consultation document. The fundamental issue is that the plan appears to have been developed without a strategic vision related to the wider infrastructure needs and the recognition that Bedford is now a substantial commuter location serving London employment needs. The proposed medium and larger sites for housing development will generate substantial additional demands for road and rail transportation and this is particularly critical to the villages of North Bedfordshire. One example of this is that it appears highly illogical that the plan shows a much reduced allocation for the regeneration of the former Stewartby Brickworks with growth estimated at only 100 dwellings in the revised Local Plan period, compared with 1,000 in the period 2035. This is a brown field site, in relatively close proximity to the A6, A421 and the M1 and the opportunity to generate improved roadways. Use of this site for the original number of dwellings could significantly ease the proposed disproportionate allocation of new houses on the urban areas. The proposal to accommodate 600 new homes in Sharnbrook and adjacent villages unacceptably impacts further on the already existing significant traffic constraints within the infrastructure of Sharnbrook itself and will also have a very damaging effect on the adjoining villages, including Odell, with significant traffic using small village roads to access the A6 or A428.

The A6 coming from North Bedfordshire into Bedford is already completely overloaded in the morning at peak time with traffic queuing back at least 0.5 miles from the Sainsbury Roundabout along Paula Radcliffe Way and also extensively along Great Ouse Way. The latest proposals regarding road improvements to address this issue are wholly inadequate and far more radical solutions need to be considered, including a potential park and ride facility with a dedicated lane for the shuttle buses that would be required. The bus station and rail station need to be adjacent to each other to provide an integrated transport solution, facilitating optimum use of a Park and ride/shuttle bus facility. The arterial roads from Sharnbrook, passing through Odell and Harrold between the A6 and the A428, have existing congestion problems, particularly in Harrold where historical road widths and extensive roadside parking creates single lane passage. Further traffic is likely to be generated from the 2030 plan which will exacerbate an already unacceptable and challenging situation. With the growing volumes of traffic likely to emerge from the plan and years beyond, a more radical solution needs to be sought. Rail commuting has grown enormously over the past 25 years and because of the ease of getting to London this expansion will inevitably continue. Thameslink trains, the only ones available at peak hours have been extended to 12 carriages to accommodate this traffic growth. The car parks in the vicinity of the station are full by 8:30/8:45am on most working days, Monday to Friday, essentially resulting in any one arriving by car after that time not being able to use the train for their journey, and probably causing them to reconsider rail travel from Bedford in the future. The Council has been advised on two previous occasions, in response to earlier local plan consultations, of a solution that was implemented at Farnham Railway station in Surrey whereby the car park was extended to a multi-storey facility whilst still maintaining the use of the majority of the car park during the building process.

The Odell Parish Council is disappointed that after so many years of development, the Local Plan 2030 and the earlier Plan to 2035, that Bedford Borough has failed to address the fundamental challenges of a growing town, including its rural locations, in a more rigorous strategic manner and produced a plan that is fit for the future.

Yes

We acknowledge the need for an early review of Local Plan 2030 following the Inspectors recommendation, however, there are a number of matters still awaiting resolution which could have a significant impact on the level of growth required in the Borough, for example, how the growth associated with the Oxford to Cambridge Arc is to be distributed along with the current consultation and review of the standard methodology to resolve the housing requirement via the Planning for the future white paper. There is great concern that these unresolved matters could have a significant impact on the direction of the new Local Plan and, in particular, on the housing figures required for the new period. At the time of this consultation, the preferred route for East - West Rail will be from Bedford Midland station travelling eastwards through Ravensden towards Tempsford and onto St Neots. This proposal does not include a new station in the Borough of Bedford. Therefore, there is no support for urban growth in North Beds as there is no current or proposed road or rail infrastructure available and this would mean that traffic to Bedford, Kettering, Northampton and Milton Keynes would be along the A6 or along rural roads which are narrow and inadequate to accommodate any increase in traffic. Those routes are already used as a rat run for both domestic and large commercial vehicles, damaging the rural road surfaces and in some cases undermining the foundations of the stone cottages close to the road. More policies should be developed that relate specifically to the rural area, which forms a very large part of the Borough, as these policies are vague and very much open to interpretation.

We believe that there is a need to specifically refer to and protect the Borough’s main asset, the River Great Ouse and the Great Ouse Valley , in the vision given it traverses the landscape creating beautiful landscape views and is a haven for wildlife, particularly given climate change challenges and solutions are likely to be centred around the river. There is also no mention of improved road infrastructure in the north of the Borough which at the moment is served only by the A6. This is a totally inadequate road and cannot cope with the amount of development currently envisaged in the north of the Borough. In addition, little consideration has been given to the safety and environmental impacts on the communities that live astride the A6. This is particularly important for Milton Ernest. It is essential that traffic generation is not thought of solely in terms of road capacity and convenience for road users - the needs of residents must be given at least an equal priority There is also current or proposed rail infrastructure available for the area so this would mean that car-based commuter options are the only viable option for the area. The villages in the north of the Borough already suffer from ‘rat-running’ by drivers either travelling into Bedford town for access schools/station or to reach main arterial road networks leading to other areas. The A6 already cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling into Bedford or on to the Great Ouse Way. We could not support the development of any of the large developments proposed in the document along the A6 corridor.

I agree with this plan period

Agree with plan period 2020- 2040. The longer the plan period is, the more challenging it can be for communities to respond to social, economic and environmental changes. The fact that local plans need to be reviewed at least five years in accordance with the National Planning Policy, reinforces that the shortest plan period is preferable.

Orange – East-West rail northern station growth

The Parish Councils consider that a combination of Brown (Urban- Bedford Town and St Neots/Wyboston/Wixams only), Yellow (A421 based growth) and Pink (rail) focused growth would provide the optimal solution for both protecting the character and landscape of the open countryside particularly the Great Ouse Valley and utilizing existing sustainable transport networks to places of work and leisure. There is no support for urban growth in North Beds near Rushden as there is no current or proposed road or rail infrastructure available and this would mean that traffic to Bedford, Kettering, Northampton and Milton Keynes would be along the A6 or along rural roads which are narrow and inadequate to accommodate any increase in traffic and are already used as a rat run for both domestic and large commercial vehicles, damaging the rural road surfaces and in some cases undermining the foundations of the stone cottages close to the road. East Northants is also planning a minimum of 2,700 homes as part of the Rushden sustainable urban extension in the east of the Town, alongside the A6/John Clarke Way over the next 15 years as well as further housing at Rushden Lakes as part of that development. Due to its proximity to Northants, any considerable development proposed in Northants that’s will “border” any significant house builds in Bedfordshire cannot be examines in isolation. Any proposed expansion on either side of the county borders and the expansion to Rushden will substantially impact on traffic on the A6, without any further urban development at Wymington. We consider the combination of Brown (Urban- Town Centre and St Neots/Wyboston/Wixams), Yellow (A421 based growth) and Pink (rail) would offer a number of advantages most of which are set out in the option appraisal - support for services, facilities and businesses in urban areas, particularly Bedford town centre; greatest potential for residents to make sustainable travel choices (walking, cycling and public transport); increasing development density improves public transport viability; best use of brownfield and under-used land; reduces need for development in open countryside; more employment uses within centre will improve viability and create direct benefits of other associated business uses such as retail and leisure; ease of access to employment areas with good connectivity is important; high-tech employment development in balanced communities with the option to live and work locally; Increased employment opportunities in the urban area and sustainable methods of transport for those residents in most deprived areas. There appears to be a lack of sites proposed in the south of Bedford with only new growth proposed at Wixams which sits within two Local Authority boundaries. It is particularly surprising not to see an option for more development at the former Stewartby Brickworks site (which is brownfield land) as it is capable of delivering a significant number of homes and potentially a new settlement. Orange (East-West rail northern station growth) At the time of this consultation, the preferred route for East - West Rail will be from Bedford Midland station travelling eastwards through Ravensden towards Tempsford and onto St Neots. This proposal does not include a new station in the Borough of Bedford with any new growth along this corridor having to travel either into Bedford to the existing station or to the proposed new station in the St Neots/Tempsford area. There is no support for urban growth in North Beds as there is no current or proposed road infrastructure available, in the absence of a rail station and connection, so this would mean that all traffic to Bedford, Kettering, Northampton, Milton Keynes and Cambridge would be along the A6 or along rural roads which are narrow and inadequate to accommodate any increase in traffic, which are already used as a rat run for both domestic and commercial vehicles. For this reason, this growth option does not provide any real benefits and will cause significant harmful visual and landscape impacts on the surrounding rural area and use valuable agricultural land.   Grey (Dispersed growth) During the current Local Plan period (2020-2030), many of the villages are either required or choosing through neighbourhood plans to deliver significant housing growth. For example, the Key Service Centres of Sharnbrook and Great Barford will see a 50% increase in the number of households where as Clapham and Bromham will see the number of households increase by 25%. In general terms, the growth in all rural areas over the next 10 years will be considerable. Much of the housing growth in the rural area is generally located on greenfield land which not only results in the loss of important agricultural land but also results in harmful visual and landscape impacts in the open countryside and its associated settlements. Also, a dispersed growth option is unlikely to create sustainable economic growth perpetuating car reliant modes of travel.   Red (New settlement-based growth) The New Settlement based growth is opposed (apart from at Wyboston) for the following reasons - The long lead times meaning that homes and associated development take a number of years to complete often beyond the plan period; Significant investment is needed early on to prepare and plan the location and to create the necessary infrastructure for a new settlement. The need for this ‘upfront’ investment takes time. Excellent public transport is essential to the success of a new settlement and this proves often difficult to deliver due to investment requirements and the multiple public transport providers involved; New settlements sometimes involve complicated land assembly which is critical to providing appropriate supporting infrastructure in a timely manner. Recent Inspector’s letters relating to proposed new settlement allocations in local plans Tendring, Colchester, Braintree (15th May 2020), Uttlesford (10th January 2020) and the Inspector’s report for Hart (10th February 2020) identified a number of issues that needed careful consideration – The high-level delivery assumptions are often biased and play down risks; There is greater potential for stalled or undeliverable housing; Housing development is more likely to be watered down in terms of quality and principles post allocation due to under estimated infrastructure and other costs. The Borough should not allow developers to return to previously agreed permissions to allow them to reduce commitments made in their initial s.106 agreements through viability studies (which are generally confidential and not made available to the public) to provide fewer benefits for the community than agreed when the initial permission was granted.; The potential need for greater public sector investment post site allocation to compensate for biased assumptions which would be poor value for money compared with other growth options put forward in the pre-allocation process. The Borough Council should not therefore under-estimate the requirement to carefully and sensibly demonstrate that there is reasonable prospect that a new settlement proposal can be delivered. Without robust but proportionate evidence on delivery, infrastructure and viability that objectively tests the positive and negative impacts and takes account of any consequences new settlements should not be supported. In any event, if, as it is anticipated, the number of additional dwellings needed is low (see ‘Other comments’ at the end of this response in relation to the calculation of housing growth), then a new settlement would not be the optimal way to deliver additional housing growth.