The application last June for 15 houses on the paddock between Church End and Great Denham was withdrawn following much local opposition.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 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
Five bedroom contemporary house proposed for site of former Biddenham sewage pumping station:
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 email@example.com quoting the reference and your full name and address.
Closing date for responses: 11 February 2019.
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
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
- Preserving the physical presence, visual appearance, character, and integrity of the gap between the site and the Bromham boundary; and
- 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
- Its part presence in flood zones 2 and 3a which will place an unnecessary burden and worry on future occupants of dwellings constructed here;
- The presence of a narrow and dangerous access onto Bromham Road;
- 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
- 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
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:
- 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.
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
The rubble has been removed so the entrance looks a lot better
I hope to meet on that this week but may have to go with the usual arrangement again this year
There is a meeting in the meadow for all interested at 10am on Friday May 12th.
The borough are happy to meet up to discuss the start of a Cowslip meadow project and to consider our plans
click for details: Cowslip Meadow Management Plan 2017 v1
the Cowslip Meadow is cut …
The grass in the cowslip meadow should be cut next week by Ray the farmer
Hello all – Sorry to have been quiet again
The Parish Council are right behind our ideas for managing the cowslip meadow, I am pleased to say after the meeting tonight
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
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.
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
28th July 2016
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
The Biddenham Society
Local Plan 2035 Consultation Planning Policy Team
Bedford MK42 9AP
30 May 2017
RESPONSE TO BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL’S 2035 LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- the continuation of Biddenham as a semi-rural village as demonstrated by trees, open grass areas, wildlife and its local community spirit;
- the provision of space for the community’s residents and families for play, leisure and relaxation;
- a natural break in the ever-increasing presence of housing; and
- protection against continued over-development.
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
34 Church End
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org or by post to:
Local Plan 2035 consultation
Planning Policy Team
Bedford Borough Council
You may have read in the pre-Christmas press of the government’s ambitious plans for the Oxford to Cambridge corridor in which Bedford sits squarely in the middle. An expressway is to be built to speed up road transport, and there is even talk of recreating a train route between the two university cities. However, even if the funds can be found to complete the line from Oxford to Bedford the prospect of continuing the link to Cambridge must be a bit of a pipe dream. And anyway, if there is an expressway how many are likely to abandon the car or the X5 to pay through the nose to join a one carriage train stopping at loads of country halts?
Nevertheless, good news for Bedfordshire and Bedford. Or is it?
We can of course wax lyrical about being at the hub of a world-leading technological corridor, and I expect it will be great for house prices – that is if you are selling not buying. But it will surely worsen the lot of those young people in Bedford struggling to take their first steps on the housing ladder. It may be hard enough now, but if we become a new Silicon Valley, future parents might anticipate many more grown up children camping out with mum and dad – for ever!
But have no fear: the government is on the job! Odds on you are unaware of the existence of a body called The National Infrastructure Commission, which recently consulted all the councils within the corridor, including of course Bedford Borough. No doubt you are even less aware that the leaders of these councils, including the Mayor of Bedford, signed up to a paper which calls for an additional 1 million homes to be constructed in this corridor over the next 35 years, with the aim of supporting a further 1.6 million people.
To give you an idea of scale, a million new homes is equivalent to a city 50% larger than Birmingham, or ten giant towns the size of Northampton, or several hundred more Biddenhams. Houses, houses, everywhere; but from where are the people coming to fill them all?
However you look at it, the Borough of Bedford will have to take its share, and it would therefore appear that those of us who live in Biddenham will be faced with a never-ending battle to prevent the village’s absorption as a suburb of an expanding Bedford conurbation. For the foreseeable future, we will have to keep at bay the vultures circling around our few remaining green spaces, in the hope that we can retain the open fields and pass the baton on to our successors to continue the fight, for you can be sure the threat will never go away.
At the moment, as recorded in the last issue of The Loop, we await the public consultation stage for the borough’s next local plan, which will first identify agricultural and other land recommended to be reclassified for building purposes. The process has been delayed as a result of late bids to establish large scale housing areas (in effect new towns) elsewhere on the Bedford fringe. These are being considered together with many other bids from developers in which Biddenham – once again – features large, notwithstanding the huge construction projects already committed for Great Denham and north of Bromham Road. Nothing is sacrosanct to money-grabbing land owners.
Being rather uncharitable, we must hope the chosen areas for meeting the borough’s housing targets go elsewhere, and the remaining spaces on the edges of our village (such as the substantial land area west of Gold Lane) are left intact. If not, stand by for a tough struggle to retain the distinctiveness and attraction of where we live. But it is worth fighting for – isn’t it?
This will be my 74th and last column for The Loop, nine years after the first in the January 2008 issue of what was then the Biddenham Bulletin. During this fairly lengthy period I have tried to alert readers to the never-ending attempts by developers – small and large – to spoil our village, and in doing this I have rarely pulled my punches, applying the lash even-handedly to all, including any of my own erring friends or neighbours! There will be some, I am sure, who will be relieved at the news.
Throughout I have been conscious that my policy of ‘naming and shaming’ miscreants does not sit comfortably in a church-sponsored publication, and I recognise this has frequently placed successive editors in difficult positions with the PCC. I would like to thank both Jean and her predecessor Rosemary for the tolerance they have shown over the years in doing all they could to accommodate my comments and observations, which many others may well have deemed unacceptable in the context of this particular publication.
The time is perhaps overdue for me to dispense a modest dollop of largesse and make our editor’s life a little easier by closing my Biddenham Loop folder. My thanks to all those who have taken the time and trouble to contact me in person or by e-mail to respond to, or comment on, issues I have raised. Most, not all, have been positive, but you can’t please all the people all the time (as many have said, probably including Donald Trump), and as part of my purpose has been to energise residents to talk about such matters I can feel satisfied some progress has been made.
My best wishes to readers, and to the continued success of the excellent Loop.
Founded in 1965 by a group of concerned residents, The Biddenham Society remains committed to the continued preservation of the beauty, history, character and heritage of the village.