Issues and Options

No

Biodiversity gain should be explicitly included to ensure measurable, substantial Biodiversity Net Gain is achieved, and is monitored effectively. Ecology and ecological networks should specifically be part of the scope, to prevent fragmentation of networks. Ownership of publicly accessible Open Green Space and housing development boundaries should be included – There should be policies on the long term ownership and maintenance of all publicly accessible Open Green Spaces of all types, formed as part of new developments. By default these spaces should be owned and maintained by the authority, rather than developers, making them accountable to residents, with appropriate financial contributions from the developers to enable this.

The document talks of “high quality commercial and office spaces". There is unlikely to be significant need for office development, in the light of a historic movement away from office space (with much already being converted to residential use), Covid-19 and new home-working patterns that will continue. Further, "high quality" is now too often interpreted to include air conditioning, car parking, etc. If any further spaces are built, they should be designed to maximise passive heating/cooling, and located to minimise traffic generation. New non-residential development of 1,000m² or more floorspace or with a gross site area of 1ha or more should be required to achieve the BREEAM Excellent rating and at least a 50% reduction in carbon emissions from a 2013 Building Regulations (or future equivalent legislation) complaint base case. This reduction is to be secured on-site. The requirement should increase from 2030 to at least a 80% reduction in carbon emissions. The "vibrant new town neighbourhoods" need local employment, shopping and leisure facilities within a 15 minute walk, the full variety of housing sizes, including social rented properties (25% minimum would be a suitable level) as well as private renting and owner-occupied. The River Great Ouse valley area, and the protection and enhancement of this vital natural asset needs much greater emphasis

I agree with this plan period

The plan period is a plausible maximum with current multi-factor uncertainty (Covid19, Brexit, and climate crisis). There is a need to question the level of housing growth - The latest 2018 ONS data means that the Standard Method Calculation, as per Government guidance, gives a much reduced figure for housing need of 800 dwellings per year. The Oxford – Cambridge Arc, and the enormous associated development and population growth has not been subjected to Public Consultation or Environmental Impact Assessment, and thus it is not appropriate to take into account SEMLEP’s Industrial Strategy.

Pink – Rail growth

Qu. 4 Growth locations The Pink option is strongly preferred, followed by orange (but there would be much more uncertainty around the latter because of East West rail’s plans and Route E being stated as the most costly). The emphasis must be on quality high density housing with much higher densities using exemplary developments like Alt Erlaa in Vienna (which achieves 133 high quality homes/hectare) and the Stirling Prize winning Goldsmith Street social housing in Norwich, also relatively high density.

New primary road networks cannot be sustainable, and developments must be planned accordingly with alternative sustainable travel in mind:– a much improved station, increased bus infrastructure including direct routes like the bus/cycle/foot route between Great Denham and Queen's Park from which other traffic is excluded making it attractive and safe. There is a need for strategic development of a cycle network to link all parts of the borough to the closest town centre via cycle routes suitable for high-speed cycling segregated from traffic flows by physical barriers. This will require space for a higher number of user-friendly secure cycle storage racks that include some provision for non-standard cycles. There is a need for easy access to electric cars, EV on street charging points, and car clubs (such as in Bristol and Norwich) to reduce parking congestion. Leisure centres including pay-per-use swimming pools, community rooms, health facilities, local shops, schools are all part of the required infrastructure. Employment opportunities proportionate to and suitable for the development within 15 minutes walk of all parts of the development, as per Paris’ 15 Minute City model.

Employment sites should always be local to a relevant housing, with mixed developments, rather than developments in locations (such as Colworth Park and the A421 corridor) that put very strong pressure on workers to drive to/from work. In addition, locations with good public transport links and cycle links should be preferred for employment sites, and employment sites should include provision of secure, under cover cycle storage (including for non-standard cycles and trailers that may be used by disabled cyclists). Greenfield sites should be avoided.

The benefits can best be captured by Bedford being a highly attractive place to live for those whose employment is based in other economic centres along East-West Rail and within public-transport commuting distance. There is a need to emphasise residents’ quality of life as part of this. In doing so, the benefits to Bedford can be maximised if these workers work-from-home for a significant part of the week each week, with housing routinely being designed with rooms for use as a home-office, and within 15 minute walk of this housing local shops, restaurants, other leisure facilities and railway stations, the last where possible within 15 minute walk or failing that 15 minute cycle (by cycle routes suitable for high-speed cycling segregated from traffic flows by physical barriers). Locations to enable easy access to stations enable the commute without the downsides to the Borough of commuting-by-road (or driving to stations).

There are several key requirements to promote the health of this area which I represent in addition to those mentioned. The health of the town centre generally requires the presence of employment, and residential developments need to make provision for space for sufficient employment proportionate to and suitable for the development. In addition the town centre needs more varied leisure opportunities so it is less dependent on retail to attract footfall. To maximise its potential benefits from retail, particular emphasis needs to be placed on independent businesses, and measures should be explored to encourage such businesses. There is much scope for improved provision of cycling, including off-road cycle paths in both directions along the High Street, and for cyclists going to/from the main railway station (including from the east of the town centre). Alcohol and the night-time economy need careful handling to enable an increasing population resident in the town centre to co-exist with a vibrant night-time economy, with planning policy as well as licensing used to ensure licensed premises are not a nuisance to neighbours. This will require further residential developments to incorporate measures to ensure residents do not suffer nuisance from licensed premises (or proposed licenced premises), both while patrons are on the premises and when they are arriving/leaving.

I agree

The council should require developments to outperform the Future Homes Standard. In doing so, they should be required to have a gross energy use 30% lower than any required by the Future Homes Standard from the introduction of the plan, and 80% lower from 2030. In addition, all plans should incorporate rooftop solar unless they are within a conservation area and no rooftop solar is compatible with the conservation area. Planning policy should encourage construction with materials with low embodied carbon and high recyclability, so favouring steel construction over concrete and re-use of existing structures over demolition and rebuilding. Where possible, planning policy should encourage planting that produces carbon-capture effects through land use that are in addition to any carbon-reduction targets for the built elements. Further - in view of differential heat-capture performance of different surfaces, and the predicted increasing frequency of heatwaves, developments should maximise vegetation, including covenants on land preventing paving, use of artificial grass or otherwise reducing the area of vegetation. For all these questions, developers should be required to provide evidence that the new buildings conform to the design standards that developers say they are designed to achieve in terms of energy efficiency etc, with effective sanctions available if the developments fail to meet the required standards. Given the significance of transport emissions to climate impacts, employment opportunities proportionate to and suitable for the development within 15 minutes walk of all parts of the development.

Bedford Borough lies in an “area of serious water stress” as defined by the Environment Agency – as such there is a need all development to conform to the highest levels of water conservation. There is a clear need to go beyond Government standards, which are based around achieving carbon-neutrality by 2050. Evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that climate breakdown will have become irreversible before that date. Bedford is at particular risk of flooding and simultaneously in danger of becoming recipient of people displaced by climate impacts elsewhere. As such it is important that Bedford does as much as it can to help the planet reach carbon-neutrality as soon as possible, and should be looking to out-perform national standards. In addition, the flooding risk means that it is particularly important that the council ensures sufficient funds have been obtained from developers to assured there is long term maintenance of drainage infrastructure.