Issues and Options
Search form responses
Results for Pavenham Parish council search
New searchPavenham PC believes that the approach proposed to be taken by the Council is both realistic and sensible. The Parish Council can see neither logic nor benefit in the reassessment of policies that have only recently been thoroughly reviewed and assessed at the Local Plan examination.
Pavenham PC supports the Council’s draft Vision although there are one or two points that we would ask the Council to consider further – a) In para. 1, the Council must be careful not to contradict the aspiration to facilitate “sustainable food production” whilst at the same time allocating sites for housing provision across areas which already play an important part in “facilitating sustainable food production”; b) The emphasis on sustainable development, green infrastructure and renewable energy is supported provided the provision of any of those elements does not act to the detriment of the areas of “valued local landscapes”; c) In the third paragraph there is a reference to “infrastructure projects”. This is a somewhat generic term and meaningless unless further clarified. To which infrastructure projects are the Council referring? The Parish Council would suggest that a “Vision” should not incorporate seemingly laudable but undefined objectives; d) The Parish Council fully supports the Council’s aspirations for the Town Centre as noted in our response to Question 8 below; e) The Parish Council also fully supports the Council’s vision for the countryside although we would suggest that at the end of the first sentence of the seventh paragraph beginning – “The borough’s countryside …..” the words “and protected” should be added after the word “recognised”. Without such an addition, the entire paragraph would be rendered meaningless and would allow the “intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside” to be recognised – and having recognised it, still allow it to be developed.
The UK as a whole is currently facing the Covid-19 pandemic – which of itself has introduced a high degree of uncertainty into the way people work, where they live, how they travel to work and how they socialise. The Parish Council does not see this current inevitable and unavoidable uncertainty resolving itself in the foreseeable future. In addition, as the Borough Council is only too aware, the Government has recently published its Planning White Paper “Planning for the Future” and related Consultation Documents. The question obviously to be faced by the Borough Council is whether the White Paper’s proposals will receive statutory recognition during the emerging plan process and at present, every likelihood is that the Government will attempt to fast track the new regime. Whilst it is appreciated that the Borough Council cannot delay the promotion of its new Local Plan – in that to do so would cause serious problems in terms of housing supply provision – the Parish Council would be interested to know whether the Borough Council intends to proceed on the basis of the Government’s current housing provision figures – or whether it intends to adopt the, at present, untested but significantly larger housing requirements announced in the White Paper? With such uncertainty, the Parish Council cannot see how the Borough Council has any choice but to select the shortest plan period available to it, namely to 2040, so as to avoid a rigorous application of housing provision figures which could be out-of-date even before the emerging Plan has been adopted.
Pavenham Parish Council is very conscious that the Borough Council finds itself in a somewhat difficult position in having to identify locations for future residential growth. As acknowledged in the consultation paper, the Council already has to meet the requirements of the latest housing allocation figures and the Government’s recent White Paper “Planning for the Future” – on the assumption that it becomes Government policy during the promotion of this Plan – which is very likely – will impose an even higher housing provision target figure on the Borough. In considering its allocations, the Council is reminded of extant policies in its current Plan, including Policy 3S (viii) which looks to “safeguarding the intrinsic character of the countryside …”, and Policy 7S which, inter alia, provides that development in the countryside must “not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside” and will not give rise “to other impacts that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, biodiversity or designated Natura 2000 sites”– all of which look to the protection of the borough’s countryside – as indeed is reflected in the Council’s “Vision”. The Parish Council would ask the Borough Council not to allocate an open countryside site for a new town settlement. It is fully accepted that this presents as the “easy option’ if the Borough Council is to meet Government targets in the short-term but the longterm planning consequences for future generations and the Borough will be dire - although as noted below, the Parish Council has some concern that this is already part of the Borough’s current strategy. With the Oxford – Bedford – Cambridge Arc fast becoming a reality, the Parish Council would suggest that the primary search areas should be the Yellow (A421 based growth), Pink (Rail growth) to the south and west of Bedford which combines with the Brown Option (Urban based growth). 3 Whilst the Parish Council will no doubt be viewed (and portrayed politically) as adopting a NIMBY attitude, it firmly believes that if the Borough Council opts for a new town settlement option, the only economically sensible and environmentally sustainable sites - subject to any new sites which emerge as part of the “Call for Sites’ exercise - are to the south of Bedford as indicated above. That said, the Parish Council would also support the Wyboston site in the east which although not originally favoured by the Council because it was felt that investment at Wyboston would be pointed in the direction of Cambridge rather than Bedford, with the arrival of the Oxford – Bedford - Cambridge Arc, that is no longer the case. In this context, the Parish Council should add that whilst politically the Borough Council is heralding as a success the fact that the Oxford – Bedford – Cambridge Arc will pass through Bedford Midland Station, it is patently clear that the hidden agenda of the Council is that by driving the line north from Midland Station as opposed to south which would have been the sensible, economically beneficial and environmentally less intrusive route, the Council/politicians simply see the countryside to the north of the town centre as providing the answer to its historic shortcomings in housing provision allocation.
Pavenham Parish Council would urge the Borough Council to promote at least two Park and Ride sites; and enhance its existing public transport infrastructure – with cycle and bus lanes; together with the encouragement electric and hybrid vehicle and ample charging points. In addition to the comments made in this response to the Parish Council’s support of the Borough Council’s proposal for the Town Centre, it should also be noted that the true potential for connectivity and growth will not be realised unless the opportunity is taken to regenerate the infrastructure at Bedford Midland Station in the context of the part it will have to play as a major transport hub for both local and national transport links. This need for regeneration will extend to both improved passenger facilities at the station and ample car-parking which probably looks to the provision of multi-storey car parks. Without such capital investment – a genuine opportunity to deliver growth will have been lost. The Parish Council also queries whether the Borough would benefit from the completion of the ring road to the north of Bedford and see also the Parish Council’s response to Question 7 below in the context of the A6 roundabout.
New employment site must be located close to the urban centre and transport connectivity. Despite promises from both Government and the Borough, the deplorable level of internet connection outside Bedford town remains an embarrassment. The Borough Council will not be able to attract new employers to the area unless it can guarantee first class internet connection to rival Oxford and Cambridge, together with efficient transport links.
The answer to this question is really a blend of all of Pavenham PC’s answers to this consultation document. The Cambridge-Bedford-Oxford Arc offers extraordinary potential for the Borough - a potential that has already been weakened by the Borough’s shortsighted promotion of a rail link which entering Bedford Midland Station, then moves north as opposed to south. The proposed route for the Arc should, in the view of Pavenham PC, have passed to the south of the Bedford urban area, thereby enabling development to take early advantage of existing connectivity from the A421 to the M1 and the A1. As it is, any development to the north of the urban area will further over-load an already congested roundabout at the southern end of the A6 (the Sainsbury’s roundabout) – and the Parish Council would add that it was less than convinced by the suggestions previously made during the promotion of the now current Local Plan by both the Council’s consultants and the would-be new town developers as to how that congestion could be avoided/mitigated. The Parish Council would suggest that a radical solution is already required.
Pavenham PC recognises the very realistic approach that the BC is taking to what should in reality be viewed as the regeneration of the Town centre. The Parish Council fully supports the Council’s aspirations for the Town Centre as detailed in the Council’s Vision Statement. As the Consultation paper acknowledges, proposals for the Town Centre are at a very early stage but Pavenham PC would offer the following comments – i) The regeneration of the Town Centre is critical for the future of the entire Borough. Whilst the Vision, the development of the “Arc” and the inevitable increase in housing provision point to a potentially economically positive future for the Borough – central to that future and at the core of all of the Council’s aspirational policies is the health and vitality of the Town Centre and its environment. This extends to amenity, appearance, safety and a host of other elements already recognised by the Borough Council. At the end of the day, the Borough Council’s objective must be to create a “new” Town Centre that is welcoming and a pleasure to visit. ii) The concept of the “old” Town Centre has gone and Pavenham PC fully supports the Borough Council’s recognition of this fact. iii) At the same time the Parish Council appreciates that with the Government’s relaxation in Permitted Development rights under the GPDO and the rationalisation of the Use Classes Order – town centre uses will need to be monitored very carefully and the Parish Council urges the Borough Council to take a very strict approach to the regeneration of the Town Centre, in terms of a robust Master Plan which looks to the future – and not the past.
Pavenham PC queries whether this is really necessary. The Borough Council has set standards in its Local Plan that have been approved by the Secretary of State and the Government is not slow to produce its own Guidance on the subject. The Parish Council believes the Council’s objectives to be clear and would query whether a degree of flexibility might actually be beneficial - thereby implicitly encouraging the introduction of innovation which goes beyond what sometimes can be seen as the “straight-jacket” of Guidance?.
Pavenham PC can see no reason for the Borough Council to go beyond what is already provided in national standards. Indeed we believe that to do so would be a recipe for confusion and contradiction. As it is, the Borough Council – and indeed the Parish Council – may soon be having to wrestle with the Government’s latest proposals for – “Building Beautiful”. The Parish Council can see no benefit in going beyond national standards.
