Quick Read Overview of the Draft Local Plan

There are 3 main points I would like to raise
1. Not all details about your plans for the local area are on these maps so I feel it is unfair to progress this without all information given to existing residence. When I mention this I mean the change of road usage so for example Amazon can use Luton Road again. I mean that the high street will be pedestrianised so that people travelling from East Dunstable in to town will be grid locked.
2. With the proposed plans in Dunstable and Houghton Regis there is no way enough services for the amount of proposed housing. Where exactly are schools, doctors, extra hospital spaces etc going to be/come from. We also don't even have a decent high street now, never mind when other residents move in, it's a matter of prioritising both existing householder needs as well as future.
3. The amount of green belt land you are proposing to build on is unacceptable. Most of existing residence rely on this and enjoy this land and is a reason we choose to live here. Reducing it for your own purposes is unacceptable.

There is insufficient information on the proposed new town at Tempsford, i.e. locations of shops, schools, borders of land, train station, & no evidence on what improvements will be made to the road infrastructure in the area to support the new houses etc. For instance, how will the A1 be improved to cope with the increased traffic, not just in the local area but further down the commuter route into south Central Beds where it borders Herts, which can already be at a standstill at Stotfold in the mornings?

Without any detailed information it is impossible to put forward any support or objections. A concise one or two page document regarding this proposed new town is required.

Very poorly organised form. The site is incredibly difficult to navigate and very counter-intuitive. I have never seen a more ineffective attempt to get public feedback.

Firstly may I say how difficult it is to make any comment on the Local Plan!It has not been made easy for Joe Public to have their say.

We need local infurstructure first and then doctors surgery, schools, local amenities before houses not the other way around.

I moved from a town to Lidlington 6 months ago to live in the countryside. I'm very sad to hear of the plans to add 4 new villages to the Marston Vale area. I moved from Milton Keynes which been been built up and built up and is now nothing more than a concrete jungle. Adding 5000 houses will change the villages completely. Traffic will be a huge problem. We don't have the infrastructure to support such housing and this is often not considered until houses are sold. I did attend the consultation yesterday but I didn't receive many answers and was just told that more detailed plans will be available next summer. I was told by the council representative that attendees to the consultation were very positive about the changes. I find this very difficult to believe as I know the feeling in our village is very strongly against the proposals.

The proposed development of the new town at Tempsford should ensure the continued support to the Gibraltar Farm Barn with its history with respect to the SOE and RAF from WW2.

General: would prefer to have a hard copy - frequent visits to Shefford Library is annoying.
Secondly, very disappointed at the disruption between Index pages and the actual pages of the Plan.

I am objecting to the draft plan, as it seems to centre a huge amount of new villages to be created in the Marton Moretaine area to Junction 13 of the M1. I am not opposed to development, but I am at the scale of the proposed development in this area.

I am extremely concerned this will result in existing villages being "swallowed up" and losing the identity of individual villages.

I am concerned that with the additional proposed housing, the poorly designed M1 Junction 13, which is struggling to cope with today's volumes of traffic.

I object to the draft proposals for land East of Arlesey based on:
The proposal is made by a developers who does not have support of the numerous landowners involved - Arlesey is experiencing the same situation with multiple landowbners for the masterplan - the development and planned relief for high street has failed as a consequence.
With 1400 new homes under the masterplan this new 2000 homes more than doubles the size of Arlesey with some of the local plan dwellings being over 3km from the yet to be built new town centre approved under the masterplan.
CBC has a track record of failing to deliver proposed infrastructure requirements of development (the relief road promised under the masterplan for example) the local plan calls for massive infrastructure investment, making the A507 dual carriageway, an eastern relieve road and making the Ai motorway status. I don't believe this investment will be made instead there will just be houses built based on inaccurate highways traffic assessments - this has been our experience to date.
Arlesey is on the North Herts border - the plan takes no account of development in or impact on North Herts.

As a resident I feel that the Plan, while appearing to contain a lot of information, is actually quite vague. The scope for development is entirely too large and the Plan does not adequately address how much land is actually intended for development ultimately.
I also find that the provisions for complementary investment in infrastructure in the developed areas and existing areas is, at best ambiguous, at worst woefully insufficient.
In its current form I cannot support this plan, though I do appreciate the need for local development and look forward to seeing the reworking in the next consultation period.

I am objecting to this local plan because of the damage it will have on Biggleswade.
Current government policy is to avoid building on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land where at all possible. Recent Biggleswade developments have seen us lose 280 acres of agricultural land so far.
Decimation of Greenfield land is devastating to local wildlife, bad for the community and counter-productive for local farms & gardens.
You choose to not use Brownfield land with no acceptable reason as to why.
Local schools are already struggling to cope. As are our medical and transport needs.
There are major concerns regarding the lack of police presence which has lead to several recent crime spikes.
By increasing the population while neglecting the local services such as the police you risk the crimes becoming more severe and more frequent.
Your infrastructure plans are at best vague and at worst non-existent.

Regarding biggleswade south and henlow camp.
Biggleswade south roundabout was recently re-made to become the most dangerous roundabout in existence.There have been more accidents there since its re-make than there ever were before. Adding more houses and increasing use of this death trap will surely add to the toll ! Biggleswade itself is massively oversubscribed with housing already, and the local amenities are not coping. Once the houses are built, they will within a couple of years be snapped up by Londoners at massively inflated prices, thus re-creating the problem for first time buyers. Nothing you can do will prevent this ! New housing needs to made unattractive to Londoners or people working in London .

The same arguments apply to Henlow camp with the added concern that MBDA maintain and operate an explosives plant next door. I wonder will that be advertised when selling these houses !

So far Bedfordshire has successfully destroyed the area between Biggleswade and Potton , turning the whole into one massive estate, the prices already reflect purchase from outside the borough, and are certainly not affordable except by people wishing to pay a mortgage until death ! Many of these houses are specifically aimed at the better off end of the market. Your record to date then us poor in the extreme, unable to safely design something as simple as a roundabout ! I gave no confidence at all that any of the plan will be followed or that your perception of "affordable" is in any way realistic.

The jobs you mention, I presume , without reading the plethora of info, are building related , thus temporary at best .....not really an argument is it !!

The addition of yet more homes over and above those already planned will have a major impact on a small market town with minimal infrastructure. We do not have enough doctors, dentists, parking or schools to cope with the homes currently under construction.

The schools are extending but are already undersized by the time the building work is completed leading to continued stain on our children's educations. The only upper school is desperately in need of investiment as the whole school is falling apart but the are no plans to do this.

The town centre is filling with charity shops due to the lack of investment and parking. Congestion on the roads means that residents of the new estates do not go into town reinforcing the lack of trade causing more shops to close. There does not appear to be any joined up thinking between the town council and the Central Beds plan.

Communter trains are already overloaded, with shockingly poor service for the sale of tickets - rarely are both machines working This will only get worse with more homes - where are the plans to improve this?

The planning of the existing developments is poor. No pavements - parents with push chairs sharing space with speeding cars - I know this is supposed to slow the cars down but it just dangerous and stupid. New "village" areas do not work. The Saxon Gate area still struggles to get sufficient foot fall to support shops 15 years after the area was constructed. Roadways on existing phases have roads not yet adopted 20 years after completion. How can the planners allow further developments when the developers have clearly failed to stick to previous planning obligations and the planners clearly have no teeth.

I am shocked that you can add more homes when the community we live in has yet to assimilate the additional homes already built / under construction.

Biggleswade has to date provided in the region of 2000 - 3000 new homes and the infrastructure is not there to support it currently. Inadequate parking in the town centre, no Medical Centre on the East of town development, peak hours trains packed, A1 tailbacks due to high traffic volume, potential lack of pre school & primary schools places for new born children as they become of age

I object to the plan to build an additional 3000 homes in Biggleswade we need to protect our rapidly diminishing green belt. Any new developments must ensure that transport links, Trains, Roads, Schools, Medical Centres,are not added as an afterthought

Building 3000 new homes creates a potential 3000 - 6000 people looking for employment. Biggleswade Retail Park could not cope with that number even with significant development so where will they seek employment, London, further South and North stretching the Road and Rail Network to breaking point

Milton Keynes worked because it had a dedicated Development Authority and Roads, Rail, Schools, Medical Facilities, Employment opportunities were in place, during the housing build program, not an afterthought, as we have seen happen in Biggleswade

Individual-tempsford resident
1) Your plan for tempsford is based on ONE landowner ( Lady Erroll)volunteering her land for development
2) Disregard for the historical importance of the airfield 'heritage asset' (NOTE 4)and that for 70 years the land has been farmed-it is NOT a true brown field site 3) It may be 'less than 50% Flood Zone 2 or 3-WHAT IS THE STATISTIC? Tempsford has significant flooding issues including sewage problems
4) Totally inappropriate to build here as the infrastructures cannot cope. 5) Note 17 COMMUNITY-tEMPSFORD does have a DEVELOPMENT Neighbourhood Plan 6) Today,2/08/17 in Tempsford village hall at 7.30pm a crowded hall of villagers gathered to voice their concerns and assess the proposals. It was felt that this way of objecting was incredibly complicated and that many vilagers would not be able to voice their opposition as they do not passess a computer-do you realise how poor our internet connections are here too? 7) Proposal includes schools/surgeries etc-there is a public sector crisis-in Sandy surgeries are already suffering from a lack of doctors, nurses etc. Sandy Upper has recruitment problems etc etc 8)Governemt want an Oxford to Cambridge Silicon valley-so we will be IMPORTING JOBS, RESIDENTS TO THIS AREA-the scale of development for Tempsford, Sandy Biggleswade means that this will be a huge conurbation.
THIS WAY OF OUR HAVING TO REGISTER OBJECTIONS ENCOURAGES US TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS-I AM DELIBERATELY NOTING OBJECTIONS TO THE GENERAL PROPOSAL AS WE ALL NEED TO LOOK AT THE GENERAL PICTURE-THE WHOLE OF THIS AREA-BAD ENOUGH FOR TEMPSFORD BUT WHEN SEEN NEXT TO THESE OTHER TOWNS THE PICTURE IS TOTALLY HELLISH. wE LIVE IN A RURAL ENVIRONMENT WHICH YOU WISH TO TURN INTO A CITY-and development could start as early as 2019, giving us little time to object.

I write this as a protest to, in particular, the proposed building allocation around Biggleswade. Although I believe this to be a futile protest as I already think the plans are cut and dry, It seems any amount of common sense about this overpopulation of Biggleswade as expressed by many of the existing rate paying people has been totally ignored by CBC planners. We seem to be powerless as it has been dictated to the protest group that there is some obscure clause written, which allows CBC to do as they please and this cannot be changed. ALL THINGS CAN BE CHANGED!!! It just requires the will and a modicum of common sense.
However I will not be holding my breath.

In Tempsford with live between two known flood planes. With the proposed development thousands of tonnes of concrete will be laid. Nobody, regardless of previous experience has any idea of how this will change the flood plane areas. Locally we have seen a house built in the 1880's flooded buy a miss placed speed bump.

Whilst it is essential we have a plan for the development of the town this one is awful. The amount of land identified for development is way beyond what the infrastructure of the town can support and the plan does not have adequate measures in place to address this. In addition it is totally destroying the beautiful countryside in which we are privileged to live. There are many opportunities to develop brownfield sites rather than destroy our rural environment.

This plan will put overwhelming strain on local services such as schools and doctors. The local road infrastructure will be swamped with, firstly, construction traffic and subsequently commuter traffic. The whole area will change it's character from rural villages to industrial townships.

I assume you have made the 'have your say' process as opaque and difficult to do as possible to put people off. I specifically wish to object to the proposed 5000 homes in4 new villages in Marston Vale. You refer to a "growth location option lies west of Marston Moretaine, north of Lidlington and east of Brogborough. The site's boundary is the new A421 in the north, and the Marston Vale railway line in the south". Anyone with a map can see that this will swamp Lidlington in its entirety. Any suggestion of buffers between settlements will prove to be as robust and short-lived as an ashtray on a motorbike given CBC's track record of craven acceptance of developers' plans. You have by the admission of your own ward councillors deliberately kept the location vague presumably in the hope we won't notice the implications. This is over-development on a grand scale - an eco-town without the eco. Go away and think again. As your plan acknowledges Lidlington is a small village and development like this would be beyond stupid. You make vague promises about health hubs and other infrastructure whereas residents of Lidlington know only too well that developers always renege on their "promise" and CBC lets them get away with it. Your proposals beggar belief and should be torn up.

The quantity of planned houses expected is excessive given the size of the county and the quantity of developments already in progress.

The quantity of planned houses expected is excessive given the size of the county and the quantity of developments already in progress. It also doesn't factor in the impact of brexit and the effect on immigration which this large figure relies. The CPRE report puts the requirement closer to 9000 which is more acceptable and less damaging to the environment and existing communities

The consultation does not take into account pressures related to current builds on the Kings Reach /Potton Road Estates on the local rural roads, increase in crime rates (decreased police cover) pressures on fire education, health and social services from the increased population. This increases stress in the community. The amount of proposed housing from various calculations may be a 70-90+% increase on the current housing stock locally this without the supporting local not national infrastructure in place.
The local council objects to the development in my opinion rightfully protecting the local population and countryside.

This concerns the provision of GP services to existing and new population areas.

Background
1.There is a National crisis in GP recruitment, retention and retirement,and this is very evident in the numerous vacancies already existing in practices in Central Bedfordshire

2. In Dunstable - where I was in practice before I retired on 31.3.13 - there was a known shortage of capacity, both in numbers of GPs and in surgery space in 1998 (when one of the objectives of the Dunstable & Houghton Regis Locality Commisioning Pilot was a Dunstable Medical Centre).
Since then two single-handed practices have closed, with distribution of their lists to other practices, and due to many commercial sites being converted to housing, the population has increased, while the capacity of general practices has decreased.
I understand the situation to be similar throughout Central Bedfordshire.

3. Since the Health and Social Care Act 2012(HSCA2012) was implemented on 1st April 2013, provision of GP services and management of GP contracts has become the responsibility of NHS England rather than locally based PCTs(Primary Care Trusts): CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) are specifically excluded - although some have been given undefined co-commissioning powers.

4. NHS England has not commissioned any new GP practices under GMS(General Medical Services) or PMScontracts recently, and its policy is to only commission short term (5 to 10 year) APMS services when, for any reason, traditional GMS practice partners hand back their contracts.
(also note that commercial providers, such as Virgin Healthcare, have been known to walk away from contracts in the past)

Comment
1.The draft plan includes "Community Hubs" to co-locate services on one site and I assume this includes medical services such as GPs.
As a supporter of the potential Dunstable Medical Centre concept, I support this.
*However* the Draft Plan includes several new villages and it is not clear how these Hubs will be able to provide GP services to scattered populations.
(I note that Cranfield and Langford Parish Councils have commented on existing facilities being inadequate for current populations)

2.I would also note that the existing practices in Dunstable/Houghton Regis are already at breaking point and will not be able to safely absorb the significant increase in population in the Plan.

3. Existing practices with investment in surgery premises (the traditional method of financing GP surgeries) may be financially unable to relocate, due to mortgages, loans or long-term leases to which they have committed under arrangements normal prior to the HSCA2012.

4. There is no mention in the Draft Plan as to any plans for the provision of community medical services - especially GP services - for the new settlements and expanded populations in existing population centres.

I appreciate that such provision is not within the power of the Council - but the 2015 Strategic Development Plan Technical Annex said it was consulting the PCT - which had not been in existence for 18 months at that time!

5. In addition to the problems in providing GP services, it is worth noting that there is likely to be an effect on Community, Mental Health and Hospital services.
The STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plan) for BLMK (Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes) has a combined deficit of £84.5 million in 2016/17, so it is unlikely that there will be any increase in services: in fact the Plan is looking for significant savings including downgrading some services at Bedford and/or Milton Keynes Hospitals
https://www.healthwatch-centralbedfordshire.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/BLMK-STP-final-public-summary.pdf
The Plan appears to be to maintain current numbers of GPs in an ACO (Accountable Care Organisation): my understanding is that GPs have had little or no input - and nor has the LMC (Local Medical Council - statutory body looking at GP terms & conditions)

So I would like to know what measures Central Bedfordshire Council is taking/planning to take to ensure GP and healthcare coverage in the Plan, and with whom they are consulting - seeing this is outside the remit of the Council.

I am not clear which part of the Draft Plan the provision of GP medical services would relate to: please reassign as necessary

I really don't want to see our green belt eroded and used for more housing. As far back as I can remember this country has always had a housing crisis. People wnat to live in the country side and particularly villages for a reason. This planning will gradually eroded the villages which will then merge with Luton with all its problems which I dont want to see. We are a small Island with a population of over 60 million we cannot keep building and building for more and more people. Also who are we building for? We don't have the resources or infrastructure. Maybe we should regenerate the North of England where we see hundreds if not thousands of empty houses along with extreme poverty. With all the space up there that should be a better option. Create housing and jobs up there where its needed most.

I am strictly against Luton expansion toward Caddington. We already have Caddingron Woods development and I am against Cadington to become the next suburb of Luton or the land between the town and the village to be build-up. Please, keep your hands down from Caddington and build up your houses on the east side of M1.

In this overview you state that local communities want you to "keep the character of Central Bedfordshire" and "limit the impact on the countryside". It is difficult to imagine a proposal that will change the character of an area more, and have more of an impact on the local countryside, than the plans you propose for the Everton and Tempsford area. The character of this part of Central Bedfordshire will be hugely, irreversibly and detrimentally changed, against the wishes of local residents.

I object to the proposed site of Tempsford building houses where there is no inferstructure in place I live in a quiet village of Everton where we do not have a local shop doctors etc

See attachment. But in summary, the housing target is much too high and too much of the proposed development is on the eastern side of the A1 corridor.