Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Object

Representation ID: 4382

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

The Saxon Centre is a disgrace: it's an ugly development that has ruined the corner of Bedford Road and Bunyan Road. That concrete wasteland in front of the shops is utterly depressing. An opportunity exists for the council to redevelop the site east of the supermarket and reinstate the original grain of the street - and the corner - perhaps with housing over retail units along the original building line.

Object

Representation ID: 4386

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

This response is about policy TC1S. Sharnbrook is wrongly included as a Local Centre: the streets are too narrow and are heavily congested at peak times. Continuing to build more houses will force people to drive through villages - especially Felmersham - to circumnavigate the bottle-neck in the middle of Sharnbrook. How can the development of hundreds of houses on the A6 square with your sustainability policy and your aims to get people out of their cars? Your thinking is not "joined-up" - you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Object

Representation ID: 4394

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

It's in your power to reduce peak-time congestion at a stroke: ban all school children from driving to school. Insist that they stay on buses or cycle to school. You could do something similar to stop parents driving their children to school.

Support

Representation ID: 4396

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

This is the future: you need to get on with it and use compulsory purchase powers to bring in vacant sites in the town centre that greedy developers and landowners are sitting on whilst waiting for values to increase.

Object

Representation ID: 4398

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

You can't square 'top-up' shopping in your car with your aims to reduce car travel: you can't have it both ways. You can't, for instance, build hundreds of homes on the edge of Sharnbrook and expect people to walk to the shops: they would drive into the village or along the A6 - either way it contradicts your policies on sustainability and creates misery for everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 4411

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

It's ludicrous to suggest that development of the Oxford Cambridge Arc can provide an "environmental net gain" on any level. Once again your aims and objectives completely conflict with one another. You simply cannot protect the environment and build all over the countryside at the same time. Whatever weasel-worded arguments are advanced in these documents the shameful truth is that the Arc will destroy - forever - our corner of the planet. I don't know how you sleep at night.

Object

Representation ID: 4412

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

This is absolutely infuriating: you cannot continue to develop - let alone develop at an accelerated pace - all over the countryside and not contribute to climate change. Your whole plan is completely at odds with current thinking as well as completely at odds with itself. No amount of "mitigation" will compensate for the development of the Oxford Cambridge Arc, all the associated infrastructure and 1M new houses. You cannot square your development policies with your environmental policies. You need to wake up to the current reality and start again.

Support

Representation ID: 4413

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

This is a good idea: get out there and buy up all those brownfield sites and redundant buildings within the current built envelopes of our towns and develop these before you attack the countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 4414

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

But to make this happen you are going to have to stop building all over the countryside and ditch your support for the Oxford Cambridge Arc: you can't have it both ways.

Object

Representation ID: 4415

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: None

You cannot put thousands of new homes out in the villages and then expect residents to shift their methods of travel. Again, your policies are at odds with each other.