Category Archives: Open spaces

Green Spaces, Housing, Open spaces, Roads

Development off Gold Lane: road names

2 Comments

The development by dandara on the land off Gold Lane is now progressing rapidly and extensively across the site. The rate of build looks to be nearing the stage where dandara could well be turning its thoughts to the naming of the roads within the development.

The process of road naming is, we understand, initiated by the developer submitting an application to the Borough Council. The Borough Council does make it clear on their application form that a developer needs to engage with the local parish council, and in this case the Borough will engage with Biddenham’s Parish Council and promote the Parish Council’s preference back to the developer.   As yet no application has been made by the developer, dandara.

The Parish Council can make a suggestion to the Borough before an application is submitted by the developer (and also make the same suggestion to the developer). 

Villager Peter Applewhite has prepared a paper setting out a rationale for the names that might be adopted for the roads within the development off Gold Lane, names that would preserve and celebrate the history, characteristics and nature of Biddenham, names that would resonate with villagers who have long strived to retain the rural character of the village.

The paper is addressed to dandara and Peter sent it to the developer earlier in the year. More recently he circulated it to the Parish Council, which will consider it at the 18 January 2022 meeting: the Parish Council’s meetings are open to the public who have an opportunity to ask questions as an early item on each agenda. The Parish Council has kindly posted a copy of the paper on its web site.

The paper describes the one substantial and significant feature of Biddenham’s long history yet to be celebrated and remembered in road names: that is its agricultural and farming heritage. And this development being built on former agricultural land, is effectively the last substantial opportunity to do that.

For many centuries, indeed for the great majority of its existence as a settlement, Biddenham was a self-contained rural farming community where villagers both lived and worked. But today there are no working farms left in the village and very little and steadily diminishing agricultural land.

The paper proposes that it would be most appropriate, indeed quite remarkable and wonderful, therefore when choosing road names for this development to remember and celebrate the village’s agricultural and farming heritage.

It is hoped that the paper will inform and help the decision making process as and when road names are being considered: the development off Gold Lane is the last substantial opportunity to remember and celebrate Biddenham’s agricultural and farming heritage over the most extensive period, stretching over many, many centuries, of its existence as a settlement.

Whether the developer will look favourably on this proposal is not known and cannot be taken for granted. But it is hoped dandara and both the Parish and Borough Councils will recognise the significant contribution such naming would make to preserving for future generations such a substantial part of Biddenham’s heritage.

A thought, one former feature of the village still close to many hearts is the dovecote, which stood by what is now the village pond, formerly the Manor carp pond, for some 260 years. Whilst restored in 1932, sadly it was demolished early one morning without warning in 1966, a sad loss of a unique part of the village’s heritage. The dovecote provided eggs, meat and fertiliser and the pond provided fish. Wouldn’t it be great to see at last the dovecote remembered and celebrated, in the name of a road which would be not too far removed from where it once stood.

A final thought. Wouldn’t it be great too to record on information boards in the development (perhaps by the play areas which residents will visit and stay a while) this substantial and significant feature of the village’s heritage remembered through the road names chosen, as it is hoped will be the case, combined perhaps too with information about the archaeological discoveries from the earliest days of the settlement made on site before construction started.

 

 

 

 

Church End Paddock, Open spaces

CHURCH END PADDOCK DEVELOPER BACK FOR A FIFTH TRY!

The application last June for 15 houses on the paddock between Church End and Great Denham was withdrawn following much local opposition.  Now the developer is back with a fresh application to construct 5 dwellings on the site, following the success of another developer (on Appeal) to build 249 properties west of Gold Lane. Once again this application must be vigorously opposed, not just to preserve one of the few remaining green spaces in the village, but also because it will close the vital gap with Great Denham, and with its new housing will affect the historic character of this part of the village.

The planning reference is 19/02538/FUL and the closing date for comments is 27 December 2019. The full plans may be viewed by following the instructions below.
1. Click on the link TO VIEW AND COMMENT ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
2. Type in 19/02538/FUL and click on the Search button.
3. For the plans click on Documents followed by View Associated documents
Biddenham Society, Green Spaces, Housing, Open spaces

Church End paddock threatened again

Gallery 1 Comment

The Biddenham Society (founded 1965)

Church End paddock threatened again

Blakeney Estates Ltd (Mr O Doyle) has served notice in the local press that the proprietor intends to apply for planning permission to construct 15 dwellings on the 2.5-acre paddock between nos. 21 to 41 Church End and the golf course, demolishing the existing property of 21 Church End to provide access.  This will be the developer’s fourth attempt in the last ten years to build on the site, all previous applications having been refused and the subsequent appeals dismissed.

The paddock is one of the few remaining green spaces in the old village, and is separated from the golf course and its housing by a popular public footpath running from Manor Road to The Branston Way.

This developer has a long history of back land development all over Biddenham.  Many residents will be unaware of the extent of this, as the properties are often not easily visible from the public highway.  Unfortunately, the outcome has been to obliterate many of Biddenham’s remaining green spaces, as well as having knock-on effects on the routes of underground water courses.  

When the formal application is submitted, the society will once again be objecting to the development, and we urge residents to do likewise.
Tony Wood, Chairman

Please Note:

The formal planning application has now been received.  The planning reference is 19/01350/MAF and the closing date for comments is 23 July 2019. The full plans may be viewed by following the instructions below.
1. Click on the link TO VIEW AND COMMENT ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
2. Type in 19/01350/MAF and click on the Search button.
3. For the plans click on Documents followed by View Associated documents
Biddenham Society, Bromham Bridge, Open spaces

former Biddenham sewage pumping station – Demolished!

Five bedroom contemporary house proposed for site of former Biddenham sewage pumping station:

Surprised that Biddenham has a defunct sewage pumping station? Although in a popular spot, few will have noticed it as nature has virtually reclaimed the territory.

First question – where is it? Just off Bromham Road, by the bridge, close to the kissing gate entrance to the river valley park, and behind the heritage trail notice board and the small ‘fishermen’s car park’. Despite being within the flood plain, many would see this as a highly desirable spot for a house, but to approve the application would indeed be a travesty.

There are no existing properties on the south side of this lengthy section of Bromham Road. and once off the road the walker is surrounded on all sides by delightful open countryside and the panorama of the river valley. The area is of significant heritage and archaeological interest, as emphasised by its inclusion on the Biddenham Heritage Trail which passes along the western boundary of the site, and the proximity of the historic Bromham Bridge. A new property in such an outstanding area of amenity would be a visual aberration, and anathema to the rural setting. Access from the site is extremely dangerous, producing a major blind spot for all traffic travelling east from the bridge. The society is therefore recommending rejection.

To view plans: go to www.bedford.gov.uk/searchplans and click the link ‘To view and comment on planning applications’. Enter the planning application number 18/03253/FUL   and click Search – Documents – View associated documents.

To submit comments: register on the above site and submit on the internet, or send by e-mail as a pdf attachment to planning@bedford.gov.uk quoting the reference and your full name and address.

Closing date for responses: 11 February 2019.

Tony Wood
Chairman

Housing, Land north of Bromham Road, Open spaces, Photos

New Roundabout on the Bromham Road? …

maybe not, but a good view of (& from) the old Golf Club!

A P P L IC A T IO N N o 2 0 / 0 2 7 6 1 / F U L T Y P E : F u ll P la n n in g A p p lic a t io n

P R O P O S A L : D e v e lo p m e n t o f n e w r o u n d a b o u t o n B r o m h a m R o a d , t o r e p la c e t h e a p p r o v e d r ig h t h a n d t u r n la n e a n d g h o s t is la n d a p p r o v e d u n d e r 0 1 / 0 2 1 9 9 / E IA

L O C A T IO N : L a n d A t F o r m e r O u s e V a lle y G o lf C lu b B r o m h a m R o a d B id d e n h a m B e d f o r d s h ir e

1 . V e h ic u la r

a ) T h e u p d a te d T ra n s p o rt S ta te m e n t is in a d e q u a te . It le a n s o n th e p re v io u s s tu d y p e rfo rm e d in 2 0 1 4 b a s e d u p o n e s t im a t e s a n d s u p p o s it io n a s t o t h e im p a c t o f t h e G re a t O u s e W a y

(o p e n e d s u b s e q u e n tly in O c to b e r 2 0 1 4 ) a n d o th e r re s id e n tia l d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e a re a .

(Transport Statement 2020 section 2.1 states, “existing highway network… remains unchanged”).

A n e c d o t a l e v id e n c e s u g g e s t s t h e e x p e c t e d r e d u c t io n in t r a ffic a lo n g t h e B r o m h a m R o a d h a s n o t m a t e r ia lis e d . A d e t a ile d p h y s ic a l s t u d y o f t r a ffic flo w s t h a t n o w e x is t is n e c e s s a r y . T h e q u e u in g o f v e h ic le s d u rin g p e a k h o u rs o n th e b y p a s s h a s le d to v e h ic le s u s in g th e B ro m h a m Road (and likely any proposed development link road) as “rat-runs” with excess speed when p o s s ib le a n d s ig n if ic a n t q u e u in g ( w it h a s s o c ia t e d p o llu t io n ) a t p e a k h o u r s s t ill a lo n g – t e r m

c h a ra c te ris tic o f th e a re a . T h is is p rio r to th e a d d itio n o f th o s e th a t w ill b e h o u s e d a n d

c o n n e c te d o n th e la te s t p h a s e o f d e v e lo p m e n t.

T h e e x is t in g B r o m h a m R o a d is w it h in a 3 0 – m p h z o n e , t h o u g h d u e t o p e r s is t e n t a b u s e o f t h a t lim it re c e n t re p re s e n t a t io n s w e re m a d e b y u s (a n d re je c t e d ) t o in c re a s e t h a t lim it t o

4 0 m p h . C o n s e q u e n tly , b e tte r e ffo rts m u s t b e m a d e to p ro v id e c la rity o f th e lim it to d riv e rs ( n o t a b ly im p r o v in g t h e a lm o s t n o n – e x is t e n t s p e e d lim it s ig n a g e ) . A d d it io n a lly , m a k in g t h e e n try a n d e x it p o in ts to th e ro u n d a b o u t m o re a c u te b y lo c a tin g it fu rth e r in to th e

d e v e lo p m e n t la n d w o u ld b e a g o o d w a y to c a lm tra ffic s p e e d s .

b ) A s t h e r o u n d a b o u t w i l l s e r v e e x i s t i n g a n d a d d i t i o n a l n e w r e s i d e n t s , i n c r e a si n g t h e f e e l i n g t h a t t h is is a r e s id e n t ia l a r e a , it w o u ld b e a p p r o p r ia t e t o im p o s e s iz e a n d w e ig h t r e s t r ic t io n s on Heavy Goods Vehicles “except for access”. So, brewery deliveries and X5 coaches could

s t i l l b e p e r m i t t e d , b u t o t h e r H G V s t r a v e l l i n g t o d e s t in a t i o n s f u r t h e r a f i e l d s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d to use the Great Ouse Way.

c) Please could any surface or re-surfacing utilise modern low noise materials to reduce the noise level of passing traffic.

2 . P e d e s t r ia n

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r F u l l P l a n n i n g P e r m i s s i o n s e c t i o n 5 . 3 0 s u g g e s t s e n h a n c e m e n t o f b o t h pedestrian routes and facilities. None is specified. The statement focuses on the

development, but not how it is connected to the existing environment. For example, at or near the roundabout there is no facility to cross the Bromham Road safely for a pedestrian from the existing Biddenham village.

T h e e x i s t i n g s u b – s t a n d a r d p a t h a n d k e r b s h o u l d b e b r o u g h t u p t o a s a fe r m o d e r n s t a n d a r d .

3 . C y c lin g

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r F u l l P l a n n i n g P e r m i s s i o n s e c t i o n 5 . 3 2 m a k e s n o s t a t e d e f f o r t t o i m p r o v e

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham Society, Conservation area, Housing, Open spaces

BEDFORD SOCIETY LOCAL PLAN 2035: CONSULTATION

The Biddenham Society

BEDFORD BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2035: CONSULTATION
The Biddenham Society has submitted the following objections to Policies 19 and 23 (which relate to tracts of land west of Gold Lane and on the north side of Bromham Road close to the bridge) of the draft 2035 Local Plan, and has requested the policies are withdrawn.

Policy 19
This area of land is currently protected by Policy AD43 (Urban Open Spaces and Gaps) of the Borough’s Allocations and Designations Plan.  Policy AD43 identifies urban open spaces as those ‘which have particular importance in maintaining the function, character and identity of the urban area’.  It specifically highlights the need to preserve ‘visual breaks to safeguard local distinctiveness including views (particular areas of importance around Elstow and Biddenham have been identified as gaps)’.
It further states that ‘Development will not be permitted on land designated as urban open space and gaps unless it can be demonstrated that the reasons for designation are not compromised or that other material considerations outweigh the need to retain the urban open space and gaps undeveloped’.
This policy (AD43) supports the most recent inspector’s report on this area which relates to an application from Wimpey Homes Holdings to ‘Allocate 18.61ha of land at Gold Lane, Biddenham for some 350 new dwellings on 10ha of net developable land with generous landscaping’ (May 2001 Inspector’s Report on the Bedford Borough Local Plan, page 116 section 4.2.27).  He concludes that ‘Development of the scale proposed would seriously diminish the visual attraction of the village edge’, and that ‘By extending north-westwards over what is now a relatively wide rural landscape, it would much diminish the separation between this fringe area of Bedford and the nearby village of Bromham’.

The Biddenham Society suggests that the rationale for creating Policy 19 to supersede Policy AD43 of the Allocations and Designation Plan for this area is unsound for the following reasons:

  1. The Inspector’s conclusions are as valid now as they were in 2001. In the intervening period the only change on this site has been the replacement of a single derelict barn at the end of Duck End Lane with a new dwelling, otherwise the entire area is in exactly the same condition as before, and remains undisturbed agricultural land.
  2. Whilst the current proposal in Policy 19 is to develop only 160 dwellings compared to the 350 on which the inspector ruled, his conclusions are equally valid when applied to this lesser number. Firstly, a smaller development will still impact significantly on ‘the visual attraction of the village edge’ as he states, and secondly, confining 160 dwellings to the north-east of the site does not negate the inspector’s concern of closing the gap with Bromham by extending the village north-westwards.
  3. The development of 160 dwellings in Proposal 19 is certainly in conflict with the existing Policy AD43, and it is difficult to conceive how one could dispute that this development would have a serious negative effect on ‘maintaining the function, character and identity’ of Biddenham. Further, the local authority cannot argue that ‘other material considerations outweigh the need to retain the urban open space and gaps undeveloped’ as Bedford Borough has many more sustainable and brown-field sites that could be developed for the 160 properties proposed here.
  4. Proposal 9 is also flawed on practical grounds. There is no safe vehicular access to and from the section of the site identified, with any chosen exit onto Gold Lane raising the prospect of a significant increase in traffic through the centre of the village. Local schools are not equipped to handle the increased numbers of school-age children which will result from new housing of this magnitude, the education service already being under pressure to cater for the extra demand resulting from the large building programme north of Bromham Road.

The Biddenham Society therefore urges Bedford Borough to delete Policy 9 from the 2035 draft Local Plan.

Policy 23
This area of land is currently protected by Policy AD42 (Local Gaps) of the Allocations and Designations Plan, and by Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Core strategy and Rural Issues Plan. The proposed Policy 23 to the new Local Plan seeks to set aside important geographical and environmental factors which the borough previously considered to be sufficiently significant as to be worthy of inclusion as ‘red lines’ in the planning framework.  These include

  1. Preserving the physical presence, visual appearance, character, and integrity of the gap between the site and the Bromham boundary; and
  2. Defining the site as open countryside within the context of Settlement Policy Areas, with future development only being permitted if consistent with national policy, in particular PPS7: Planning and the Countryside.

There have been no changes to this area of land since the above two plans were approved, the most recent application for development (16/00737/MAO) being withdrawn following widespread opposition, including from the planning authority.  It is therefore difficult to understand why there should be a reversal of policy as the earlier objections still apply, especially when the relatively small number of dwellings that can be accommodated could be built on more suitable sites available elsewhere in the borough.

In addition to the above it is clear there are several other sound reasons why this particular site is unsuitable for housing development.  These include

    1. Its part presence in flood zones 2 and 3a which will place an unnecessary burden and worry on future occupants of dwellings constructed here;
    2. The presence of a narrow and dangerous access onto Bromham Road;
    3. Causing increased traffic flow across the ancient Bromham Bridge in one direction, and onto the Bromham bypass via a hazardous junction in the other direction; and
    4. The destruction of the beautiful vistas to and from the bridge and the mill.

The Biddenham Society therefore urges Bedford Borough to
delete Policy 23 from the 2035 draft Local Plan.

Dr Tony Wood      Chairman

Open spaces

Planning application to build 250 houses west of Gold Lane

You still have time to object to 250 houses being built on the land west of Gold Lane in Biddenham, if you haven’t done so already. It’ll take you less than 30 seconds. Just click here:

http://www.have-a-say.co.uk/1800140MAO

  • Anyone who hasn’t objected, please do so now;
  • if you have objected, please encourage all the other adults in your household to object using this quick and easy method; and
  • please forward the link to family, friends and anyone you know in Biddenham, the local area or even further afield.

Please pass this on to them via text, Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook and any other social media you use. Or, of course, email too if you are not connected to social media.

Thank you very much for caring about Biddenham, its environment and our historic village pond.

Conservation area, Cowslip meadow, Open spaces

Cowslip Meadow project – August 2017

Latest updates:

October 2017

Unfortunately The Borough have not had the grass cut yet and tell me they have a three year contract for cutting so we have to wait to try to change the regime. I hope it will get baled but i have my doubts

In the meantime we can continue to cut paths now it is dry at least for a bit

I am busy all this week but will try next week but if anyone can arrange to get the mower out it would be good
There is better news in the churchyard extension it has been cut and cleared of most of the grass
I have purchased some flower seed and plant plugs so we can go ahead and get these in some time soon
I hope to arrange a work aftenoon in the churchyard to scarify and plant plugs and seed

Chris

August 2017
The rubble has been removed so the entrance looks a lot better

We are getting another estimate for grass cutting.
I hope to meet on that this week but may have to go with the usual arrangement again this year
I will also once again get estimates for some fencing for behind the nettles and a wooden gate to the right of the metal gate.
We can then tidy the nettle bed
We could also have a seat put there perhaps in memory of Steven
Still trying to get the churchyard grass cut slow progress as it needs to be DRY

Chris

April 2017
There is a meeting in the meadow for all interested at 10am on Friday May 12th.

We will be discussing with The Borough how we can manage the meadow as a community group.
Cutting paths, interpretation, improving the entrance and managing the field as a hay meadow are amoung the items for what we hope will be a fairly light regime
A management plan has been written
We hope the local schools might be able to take an interest
We have already cleared much of the ragwort but there is more to do

Chris Jones

March 2017
The borough are happy to meet up to discuss the start of a Cowslip meadow project and to consider our plans

I think we should meet in the barn some time
Maybe a day and evening session and get it into the Mag and The blog so that we make an impact
We already have the new mower
The Borough will help us with much good advice
I will try to find a suitable date probably in the week of Monday May 12th @ 10 – 11 am

click for details:  Cowslip Meadow Management Plan 2017 v1

December 2016

the Cowslip Meadow is cut …

5x4a4913e 5x4a4911-2e 5x4a4917e 5x4a4915e 5x4a4914e

18th October:
The grass in the cowslip meadow should be cut next week by Ray the farmer

This will include the churchyard extension grass
The PC have the money for the mower so i will go and order it this week
Then there will be training for the mower and strimmer to cover the PC insurance
The next thing is to tidy up the churchyard shed for putting the mower in–will let you know
Once Ray has cut the grass he should be along to bale it and we can discuss where they go with him!
Then I hope we can proceed with some ideas at a meeting.
We are on the Biddenham blog and the new web site when it goes live.
Best wishes, Chris

21st September:

Hello all – Sorry to have been quiet again

I think The Borough are about to get the meadow grass cut having been through their tendering process. I will phone/email them about it tomorrow
The PC hopefully are proceeding with buying the mower to use in the meadow.
When we have the mower I will call for vols and arrange training with The Borough
I have the list of plants in the meadow from David G.
We need then to look at ideas for a display panel in the entrance and an improved look to the gateway
Ron has put us on The Biddenham blog and we should be on the revised Biddenham Website via Joe Warren
The pond team are unlikely to want to extend their work into the meadow but i will ask informally at the next pond Committee meeting
Chris

7th September:

Hello all
The Parish Council are right behind our ideas for managing the cowslip meadow, I am pleased to say after the meeting tonight

Next step is to proceed to purchase the mower so we can be trained to use it and the strimmer by the Borough
I will also try to get the grass cutting by the contractor moved on apace
I will try to put a note together for the show on Sunday to give out
You will find me mostly on the pond stand.
Thank you for your support
Please pass this on and i will need to start compiling a supporters list
Chris

20th August:

A meeting was held with Bedford Borough staff in the field when a group of us met to plan the way ahead

The Borough who own the field are quite prepared for a community group to manage the field with wildlife objectives in mind but need clear plans from us

To that end a group of us have successfully removed much of the ragwort growth. If there is ragwort in a field there is no chance ever of moving the grass as a hay crop and thus helping to maintain biodiversity

The next stage is to meet with the borough volunteer officer to discuss how we could apply to set up a friends group.

To do that you will need to register your support so there should shortly be a page on the Biddenham village web site for you to do that with an email address

Look out for the date and time of a meeting in September when you can come along to ask questions or register your interest. Details will be posted on the Biddenham Blog the web site and in the notice boards

There are various models for Friends conservation groups which we can discuss at the meeting

The field is quite safe from housing development but without management input would probably revert to scrub then dense woodland in a few years thus reducing rather than enhancing biodiversity

Chris Jones

10th August 2016

Thanks to those who came to the field meeting.
We decided to try to remove ragwort from the Cowslip meadow and will assemble to make a start on this  Saturday the 13th at 2pm see how far we get. We have the backing of the Borough in this if we clear some parts at least in the future we can have a look at a cutting regime for parts of the site.

To keep paths clear it might be an idea to take up the offer of a Mower from John and Roger. This can be kept in the church shed I hope by agreement with the PCC and used elsewhere as can the strimmer training on each to be organized

We will set up another meeting with the Borough volunteers coordinator to discuss further where we go next. Meeting probably  in early Sept

We hope the grass will get cut again and baled but it is unlikely to be removed. The Borough will clear the entrance and put a barrier back

See some of you on Saturday
Please pass on, Chris

28th July 2016

ragwort
Ragwort


Next Friday (5th August) I have a meeting with the Borough in the meadow at 10am please come if you can.
Thanks to those who came to help remove ragwort from the churchyard extension.  I am trying to arrange a conservation cut. To cut the cowslip meadow will entail removal of the barriers at the entrance as well as another ragwort session.
Please pass this on, Chris

19th July 2016

I have been trying to establish whose responsibility the field is at the Borough.  Until then we cannot go ragwort pulling or make any other plans. I have been on the phone again to Simon Fisher who seems to be in charge. The lack of communication is blamed on the river festival. I also want to get arrangements on the go to cut the grass in the meadow at some point. if we can remove the ragwort we might be more likely to get the grass/hay moved off

I have two quotes for a grass mower which i will pass on when we can arrange a meeting with the Borough
In the meantime we should practice by pulling the ragwort that has got into the churchyard extension. I am away until Monday and busy most of next week but suggest any volunteers meet at the new churchyard on Wed July 27th at 10am – it shouldn’t take long there isn’t much.
Thanks to all for your interest
Biddenham 2035, Biddenham Society, Conservation area, Open spaces

The Biddenham Society – response to 2035 Local Plan Consultation

The Biddenham Society

        (founded 1965)

Local Plan 2035 Consultation Planning Policy Team
Borough Hall
Bedford MK42 9AP
30 May 2017

 RESPONSE TO BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL’S 2035 LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION

 Introduction
The Biddenham Society compliments the authors of the Local Plan 2035 on addressing in a thorough and even-handed way the wide range of complex issues involved in determining the possible locations of the additional 8,103 houses it is suggested are required in the borough. We are pleased that the proposals do not bring forward several of the Biddenham sites submitted by developers, and we look forward to continuing our constructive involvement in ensuring these remain free of development in the future.

The society is, however, disappointed that sites 691 & 29 (Gold Lane) and 25 (Land to the rear of 94-122 Bromham Road) have been suggested as suitable for development, and we give below a number of reasons why we hope the borough will reconsider these two recommendations and remove them from the proposals.

Open Spaces
In the late 1980s the open spaces within the current Biddenham settlement area represented approximately 30% of the village land area.  In 2017, less than 30 years later, the comparable figure is just over 4%. This rapid erosion has been the result of creating the Deep Spinney Estate to the south of Bromham Road, coupled with granting change of use to housing for many of the village’s paddocks.  Sites 691 & 29 together with the remaining fields west of Gold Lane provide essential counterbalancing open space along the western boundary which helps to offset some of this loss.

Biddenham’s heritage
From 1086 to the twentieth century Biddenham was largely a farming and rural community, with six farms still existing in the early 1900s. By the end of the 20th Century, all the farmhouses and outbuildings had either been demolished or converted to modern residential accommodation, mostly in sympathy with their original purpose, so they continue to contribute positively to the overall character of the village.  The farmland between Gold Lane and the western by-pass is now the only working link to Biddenham’s heritage, and the loss of any portion of this to housing would be detrimental to the character and history of this beautiful village.

Other factors
The proposed development of sites 691 & 29 will remove part of the natural break between Biddenham and the Bromham by-pass.  Site 25 lies in the flood plain of the river and if developed will reduce the gap between the Biddenham and Bromham settlements.  Safe vehicular access to and from both sites could well prove problematic, especially for site 25 where, on the basis of two cars per household, over 50 vehicles could regularly use the narrow semi-blind access to Bromham Road, the splay of which cannot easily be increased owing to the private ownership of the adjacent land.

The society is concerned about the consequences for local schools of increasing the population of Biddenham by a further 187 dwellings, especially for the proposed St James’ CE Primary School. There could also be repercussions for the village’s historic 300-year-old pond from properties constructed on the Gold Lane site. The pond relies on run-off from the surrounding fields to maintain the water levels necessary to support wildlife, and if these proposals are implemented its survival could be threatened.

Over-development
During the last 30 years the area inside the Biddenham Loop has contributed more than its fair share towards successive borough building targets, resulting in the loss of vast tracts of agricultural land and open amenity spaces. The Deep Spinney Estate and the on-going Great Denham development will together have added in excess of 2000 dwellings when the latter is completed, with the construction of a further 1300 or so properties recently started north of Bromham Road.

This is a housing contribution of substantial significance which has had a considerable effect on the character and nature of what was originally a rural village.  In this context, it would seem a small but important gesture of recognition for the borough to relocate the 187 dwellings proposed for Biddenham in this consultation, and thereby help preserve its beauty and character for future generations to enjoy.

In the spirit of giving constructive feedback, the society has suggested (see Appendix) some amendments to the published document.  These include alternative proposed sites for the 187 dwellings currently allocated to Biddenham.  We would also urge the borough to re-examine the basis of its calculation that a total of 19,000 new homes will be required in the borough by 2035, an assumption which leads to the suggested 8,103 shortfall quoted in this consultation.  To the society this appears a considerable over-estimate of need when taking into account the many factors involved. Reducing this total to a more realistic figure would relieve some of the pressure on areas like Biddenham which have already made a major contribution towards housing growth.

Green space
The Society is concerned that only a single site from the several submitted for Biddenham has been accepted for designation as a Green Space.  We would respectfully question whether the deciding criteria have been correctly applied in all cases, and would urge the council to offer the facility for any applicant village to submit further evidence in support of a particular site if it is felt an injustice has occurred. This issue is particularly important for Biddenham in view of the very few open spaces remaining in the village. We can confirm that to varying degrees all spaces submitted support:

  1. the continuation of Biddenham as a semi-rural village as demonstrated by trees, open grass areas, wildlife and its local community spirit;
  2. the provision of space for the community’s residents and families for play, leisure and relaxation;
  3. a natural break in the ever-increasing presence of housing; and
  4. protection against continued over-development.

Summary
The Biddenham Society is generally supportive of the content of the consultative document, and of the methodologies adopted in reaching its recommendations.

However, we believe the time is now right for the borough to recognise the significant contribution made by the parish of Biddenham over the last 30 years towards the borough’s successive housing targets, and the detrimental effects this has had on the open and amenity spaces of what was formerly a rural village.

These effects have been compounded by the on-going construction of thousands of new dwellings to the south and north of the village.  Despite this, Biddenham has managed to retain many valued aspects of its heritage – celebrated in 2015 by the creation of a heritage trail funded by the national lottery –  which are enjoyed and appreciated by residents and visitors alike.  The village is truly a jewel in the crown of the Borough of Bedford, and we wish it to remain so.

The number of new dwellings proposed for Biddenham in the consultative document will make only a small contribution towards the borough’s residual new-build targets but –  in the case of areas 691 & 29 in particular – will result in large negative consequences for the village following the reclassification of specific fields from agricultural to residential use.

We therefore ask for the stated Biddenham sites to be declassified from the plan as potential development areas.

Dr Tony Wood

Chairman
34 Church End
Biddenham
Bedford
MK40 4AR

 APPENDIX

Site amendments

Having examined the sustainability and other listed factors for the various sites listed in the document, the Society suggests the borough may wish to consider the following site amendments.

  1. To extend the number of houses in the new developments at Lee Farm Sharnbrook (site 622), Thurleigh Airfield (site 630), Land at Twinwoods (site 608 listed under Milton Ernest) and Wyboston Garden Village (site 659) to make up for the 187 houses removed from the Biddenham sites.
  2. To include the areas of either 133 or 134. The exclusion of these areas was to enable sport facilities that “are supposed to be provided” with concerns about access. The Biddenham Society recommends that the allocation of one of these sites, adjacent to an area already developed in Great Denham, would leave the other to be developed for sport. Access is available from the roundabout on the A428 towards the bottom of Figure 1 below.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 – Access to sites 133 and 134

 

 

3.  To extend the proposed developments at other sites which are already included for large scale development at Bromham, Salph End, Sharnbrook, Clapham (Opt.2) and Roxton.

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham village pond, Conservation area, Housing, Open spaces

Bedford Local Plan 2035

Bedford Borough Council is preparing a local plan that will set out how much growth there should be in the borough in coming years (housing, jobs and associated infrastructure) and where it should take place. Current planning policy documents look up to 2021 and the new local plan will extend that period up to 2035. It will also include policies that will be used to make decisions on planning applications.

The Council has asked for comments on the consultation paper it has issued about the new plan, together with a number of supporting evidence documents. The consultation period ends on 9 June 2017.

In the Borough Council’s consultation paper an area of land off Gold Lane, Biddenham, and within sites numbered 29 and 691 in the documentation is shown as a potential development area at this stage: that area of land is not immediately adjacent to the village pond. But in a supporting document, the current draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), the whole of the land in sites 29 and 691 is shown as being suitable, available and achievable for development.

Our village pond is not served by streams or springs and relies on precipitation and run off from adjacent fields for its water, and importantly the entire area surrounding the pond is currently wildlife friendly. Developing all the land in sites 29 and 691, particularly the field to the north of and by the side of the village pond, between the pond and Duck End Lane, would have a significant and substantial practical and aesthetic impact on the pond.

It would threaten the pond’s very survival and the survival of the wide range of wildlife it supports, including rare and protected species, by adversely impacting both run off water to the pond and also the pond’s setting in the presently attractive open and wildlife friendly landscape around it, thereby reducing the scope for and ability of wildlife to migrate to and from the pond and thus the opportunity for sustainable healthy breeding through genetic diversity with other populations.

The Friends has submitted comments, in a letter to the Borough Council, concluding that given the need to protect and conserve our natural environment, not least species protected by the law, wildlife corridors, and sites of local importance, and to safeguard the future of the village pond, its wildlife and the open wildlife friendly landscape in which the pond sits, it is seeking:

  • at the very minimum, the removal from the threat of development of the field by the side of and to the north of the pond and its retention as open space, that is to its reassessment and recategorisation as land not suitable, available and achievable for development (as was categorised land to the west of that field at Stage 2 of the availability assessment); and
  • more substantially, the removal from the threat of development of the whole of the land in sites 29 and 691, south of the A4280, and its retention as open space, and similarly therefore its reassessment and recategorisation as land not suitable, available and achievable for development.

Please do support your village pond by writing to the Borough Council’s Planning Department with your comments. You can send your comments by email to planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk or by post to:

Local Plan 2035 consultation
Planning Policy Team
Bedford Borough Council
Borough Hall
Bedford
MK42 9AP

Thank you.