Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 10461

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Shortstown Liberal Democrats

My response to the consultation addresses those policies and sites most relevant to Shortstown and has been informed by the views expressed by residents of Shortstown and sent to us. We start by making comments on the national context in which the Local Plan is being prepared.

National

The number of homes and employment sites Bedford Borough Council (BBC) is required to include in the plan is set by the national government. BBC has built many new homes and employment sites over the last 25 years – it was recently named as the faster growing area in the East of England, so it seems that those Councils who have got on and built – and people need homes, are then required to build many more. Residents rightly feel that BBC has provided the genuine local need and feel that the number of new houses demanded by government is too much. Yet the council is in a Catch 22, as unless the government’s planning inspector signs off the plan as compliant with those numbers developers can pretty much do as they wish. And the council has no real option to successfully challenge the numbers set by government as they government insists council’s must use their data set that gave rise to the numbers! Another Catch 22.

People need homes and they need affordable homes. What we understand to be affordable is that the cost should be a low factor of the average household income, but that is not the case with the houses being built across the country. To bring home ownership within the grasp of a significant proportion of households needs a national rethink of the system. What is doesn’t need is a planning free-for-all on the incorrect belief that it is local council planning permission that is holding up house building. Nor does it need the sort of free-for-all on home extensions recently proposed by the government. Residents care about their local environment and ill-thought out, unconstrained extensions would undermine the original plan for Shortstown’s various areas which include well-spaced homes, and put greater strain on infrastructure and services.

The level of national ambition on climate change is profoundly disappointing and this is particularly critical as a energy and resource-efficient or net zero home reduces energy bills and reduces fuel poverty – as long as the benefit of reduced energy and water bills is not passed on as increased ‘green rents’ and ‘green mortgages.’ These do nothing to reduce fuel poverty as they simply allow landlords and mortgage providers to charge more.

Bedford Borough Council

In the early 1990s Shortstown was a village of 500 homes. In the 30 years following it has grown to its current size of 1,800 homes with development ongoing. The development of the old RAFA Club into a shops, the provision of a Village Hall, playing field, MUGA and skatepark, new village centre with a shop, café, children’s centre, new school (primary) and long-awaited medical centre have all been very welcome.

The Local Plan 2040 proposes 1,150 additional houses for Shortstown – overall a 6 times increase over 30 years! The majority view expressed to me is that Shortstown cannot grow further without adequate provision of infrastructure (road, cycling, walking) and services (education, health) – as despite being named as a Key Service Centre (Policy TC1(S)), the services are struggling to serve the population as it will be when the currently planned sites are built out.

Comment

Representation ID: 10462

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Shortstown Liberal Democrats

While this site provides the opportunity to improve active travel (cycling, walking, scooting) to the planned Wixams rail station (planning consultation just closed) that will be a stop on the Bedford-St Pancras line, there is a great danger of coalescence between Wixams and Shortstown which should be resisted.

Comment

Representation ID: 10463

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Shortstown Liberal Democrats

We are particularly concerned about coalescence with Elstow (and Cotton End) and request that the land between HOU17 and Elstow and Shortstown and Cotton End have a protected designation to avoid coalescence.

Following the recent consultation by Gallagher Developments at the Village Hall we received a lot of views from residents. Many did not welcome the proposal to develop this site.

Almost all of those who contacted me mentioned poor road infrastructure as a major concern:
• The A600 north and south of Shortstown is already heavily used and this proposes approximately 4,000 additional traffic movements per day (2 vehicles per house, each vehicle makes 1 journey out and 1 journey in per day), which the current road infrastructure cannot support.
• The additional traffic will lead to a lot of congestion and we saw recently with the A600 resurfacing work that any closure that is not catered for with reasonable alternative routes (? where would they be – there is just 1 road in and out) this could be catastrophic for emergency vehicles. When the A421 is shut for incidents it causes lengthy diversions through Shortstown.
• As an estimate there would 1,000 to 2,000 additional movements through Cotton End where children have to cross the already busy road to the primary school.
• Can there be a link to the A421 to the north?
• Risk of rat-running through residential areas in Shortstown.

Other concerns which we share:
• Lack of services for existing population e.g. GPs
• Lack of services – buses that run early in the morning and late at night
• Years of construction disruption including the construction traffic (HGVs)
• Coalescence
• Loss of a village feel
• Impact on wildlife and habitats
• Potential negative impact on Shocott Spring due to increase footfall, litter, dogs mess etc
• Loss of valuable farm-land
• Potential loss of light and privacy (due to over-looking) for homes in Evans Croft and Flintham
• School provision – should a secondary school be provided
• Proposed location of school need A600 could leader to traffic backing up on to the A600
• Play parks – two proposed are very small, would benefit from a play area for older children as in Wootton

Comment

Representation ID: 10464

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Shortstown Liberal Democrats

As a brownfield site this site is a good candidate for development. It is a shame that it has come forward for development so late in development of land to the east of Shortstown as then it could have been more integrated into the overall design. Hopefully good design will ensure this site looks and feels like a part of the neighbouring development, not a separate afterthought.