Bedford Local Plan 2035 - housing without rail infrastructure?

Bedford Local Plan 2035

Simon Barber
to planningforthe., me

Simon Barber <simon4barber@gmail.com>
to:		planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a member of the English Regional Transport Association (ERTA ),
which,as you may already know,is a voluntary membership-based, 
pro-public transport improvement association with its main projects initially 
in the Bedfordshire and surrounding regional areas but its remit has since 
increased since several of its projects have a nation-wide positive benefit and 
impact. The reason for writing is that I am responding to your consultation on
the Bedford Local Plan 2035 which was recently launched and apparently closes 
next month. I now have the following concerns:
Site 4(Bedford St.John's Old Station/Goods Yard) - 
The 32 dwellings proposed on that 
site should not go ahead since  ERTA wishes to re-instate the old station as 
part of the East - West Rail Link on the section between Bedford and Cambridge.
This section of the East - West Rail Link must be completed by 2035 at the 
latest and must also include Sandy(connection with East Coast main line).
Site 9(Land south of Cardington Road,Bedford) - This development should allow 
accessibility to Bedford St.John's station as mentioned above.
Sites 416/417(Lower Farm Road, Bromham -Oakley) - In conjunction with the 120 
dwellings and adjacent employment sites,the proposed rail station should be 
located to the north of that road to allow for a flyover needed for re-instating the old 
Bedford - Northampton railway where much of the old track-bed survives.
This track-bed should be protected to allow for the potential re-opening of that line 
that will bring enormous benefits to Bedford, including the reduction of weekday 
peak-hour traffic entering the town.Furthermore re-opening that line should 
be sooner rather than later and should also be included into the 
East - West Rail Link.
Site 640(Church End, Willington) and Site 687(Grange Estate, Willington) - 
Both these would sever the old trackbed and Sustrans cycle-way. 
A bridge cannot be built due to no island column being allowed for 
a rowing lake. The reality is that if there is a plan for a railway 
going forward we could say "contaminated soil can be removed by rail 
when the Bedford-Cambridge line gets rebuilt."  We must start 
putting the rail first and lake second. The lake and the surrounding 
land  proposed by Charles Wells for redevelopment is flood -plain. 
The path to Kempston gets perennially closed as flood water exceeds 
the path, and Charter Walk should be restored to the public as a 
right of way and also be made up for cycle access. Furthermore there 
are wildlife habitats currently with rushes and small ponds for 
spawning,and should your plans go ahead that habitat will be lost 
and/or compromised.  . Otherwise  we will not have a rail route 
into Bedford from the east by 2035,and we have had enough of Network 
Rail delaying the western  section of the  East - West Rail Link.


I also have several other reasons for not supporting the Rowing Lake 
proposal.
1. There is apparently already a good rowing 'lake' in the town, 
plus the river.
2. There will be less space for the rowers as compared to the river.
3. Apparently there could be a potentially better site for a lake at 
Stewartby or East Bedfordshire.
4. The Rowing Lake will be a major traffic generator, bringing more 
congestion and mayhem on the roads which we could do without.
Furthermore,going back to rail proposals,ERTA calls for  new stations at Kempston 
Retail Park(which suffers severe traffic congestion) on the Marston 
Vale line,which will be incorporated in to the East - West Rail Link 
and also Wixams on the Thameslink/Midland Main Line to serve the 
adjacent new housing developments and will also relieve congestion 
at Bedford Midland Road,including its car park.Network Rail must 
also be flexible on level crossings and bridge adaptations.
I would finally like to add that the proposed Oxford - Cambridge 
Expressway will bring no benefit at all to Bedford .This new road 
would affect  Green Belt areas,and it would also be an incentive to 
build more housing and will not solve traffic congestion at all,and 
in fact,the road will bring in more traffic which is already 
increasing with the significant housing growth in between these two towns.
This increase in traffic will in turn increase CO2 emissions and 
also air pollution(a serious health emergency), both with which 
the Government is pitifully complacent.
ERTA website: https://ertarail.com/
Yours faithfully,
Simon Barber
Email address: simon4barber@gmail.com

Speed up delivery of local rail links not speed up speed!

Rail Magazine has both a Heathrow rail link from the south article and extension of Borders Rail to Carlisle = good = rail/less road reliance. However it seems we have a media blackout beyond local letters pages and that every rail scheme except what we want is being pursued the length of the country. I will write in to the Bedford Local Plan as an individual, the central issue is loads of houses urban and rural, throwing loads of cars onto existing roads, urban congestion/sky high parking demand/cost and trade offs and didley rail agenda - the railway needs to be done and dusted by 2035 and it will only, if done, be started by then, let me spell out:

1. Oxford-Bedford 2024, that's 40 miles ish of wire brushed relaid track on an existing rail course with stations and some form of rolling stock = 2 trains per hour hardly intensive - X5 timetable should be the normative template from day one - contrast HS2 120 OOC-B'ham 2026 - just 2 years after opens. In short Oxford-Bedford should be do-able much earlier especially now we have a bypass of Network Rail to do the works - so why the delay? Technicals and legals must be pitted with HS2 the same but more and yet it is to be done and dusted asap in relative terms. Plus we're getting a new £3.5 billion road - not needed - the aim should be to take volume-capacity via the rail corridor incrementally to X5 + x8 X5's to a train-load x 4 per hour = modal shift (passenger and freight). Something is deeply wrong I feel, but am on the outside looking in and even a planner said at the Harpur Centre "some of our questions are not being answered".

2. Bedford-Cambridge. My view is Bedford-Sandy is enough minimally and the Ickleford curve for a start to be opened same time as 2024 Oxford-Bedford for a basic through route/relieve into, across and out of London freight + passenger services:

a. Stevenage - Bedford (Thameslink integration/stock use)

b. Bedford-Cambridge (new)

c. Peterborough-Bedford (Thameslink/stock use)

Then 2024 do across to Shepreth to relieve Hitchin-Royston

Then look at options for bypassing Cambridge (freight). Having visited Trumpington Meadows and seen the curtain of housing across the trackbed going in, compulsory purchase and returning to rail looks a bridge too far!

3. Oakley and Sharnbrook and Wymington are needed MML/electrification which should also have a plan for making consistent 9'6 freight clearance for London-Bedford-Northampton-DIRFT container relief to West Coast = more trains for MK Central.

4. Ampthill and Wixams needed - they serve different catchments and demand centres. Flitwick has poor road system, overload from Olney, MK, M1 and Marston growth areas and south of Wixams infill - Ampthill with western Steppingley access could mop up these wider commuter/growth catchments. Bedford-Olney-Northampton would stem it further out.

5. Retail Interchange Kempston - 19, 000 population Kempston, 000's of cars to Retail Park/parking demand and long queues per day - the station informs more footfall and spend, alternate access and town centre may also benefit indirectly.

6. New Bedford Midland with Midland Road pedestrian isle for town gateway access 'clean and green' Bedford, not congestion, fumes, smoking on narrow pavements and high volume everything 'harmogenised' without cohesion = relative chaos in growth context.

7. Tracks into and through Bedford from St John's need sorting with 3rd under A428 Bromham Road which needs widened bridge span or third span inserting, can be done I believe.

In sum, Olney is easier than Cambridge now for recovery/reopening purposes. We do need a Cambridge rail link but ideas of going via Twinwoods, St Neots, Cambourne and new towns to Chesterton seem daft as you still need - at great cost and upheaval to get to the Newmarket lines for the East and you are entering Cambridge from the north and West?

I feel Bedford is the junior to Milton Keynes is it all, the Consortium seem MK centric than shared coexistence focus inclusive? It should all be done by 2026 if HS2 can, so should these. Otherwise it is going to be gridlock, congestion, fumes and parking issues galore. Bad for business and the environment but where does the supreme buck stop to address? Dft, Parliament, The Monarch?!

Tailbacks down St Cuthberts from Lurke Street Lidls are becoming more common-place. Could a Lidals be allocated to Goldington/Brickhill to spread the load and give more options off the radial road system and/or bypass? There is a plot of land on corner of Caxton Road/Goldington Road corner - near Hatters, likewise field off Cleat Hill/Woodlands with a through bus lane for Grant Palmer to serve? Personally I know many middle class people prefer Lidls to some other supermarket chains and as many new houses will be semi's more Lidls seems logical to avoid town centre proliferation of tailbacks? Plus safer walking and cycling options.

Finally, the path from Newnham Rail Bridge - Beach Pool-Tesco needs drop down kerbs, widening for cycle-pedestrian access share, more litter bins and cycle racks. Path to Tesco is a dumping ground for fly tipping and rats are in the bushes having regular food deposited. Is it time to ask Mr Tesco to work on a joint improvement plan?

Northampton town centre and Bedford have common issues and only the rail link can properly address them going forward.

With all the housing promoted in the new Bedford Local Plan 2035, it will all be heading to urban areas for work, education and commuting, will demand land take for more parking and put pressure on families as travelling to and from venues takes longer and commuting ever more for the £'s to make the costs-incomes meet.

We need an inquiry as to:

1. Why is East-West Rail taking so long to deliver

2. Why the defined route to Cambridge is not being done with more haste and land protected amidst development growth

3. Why Bedford-Cambridge via Shepreth is not being done at one and the same time as Oxford-Bedford so 2024 is a 'finishing date' than 'start up date'?

4. There is no excuse not to speed up as we have a mechanism from Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for bypassing Network Rail schedules.

Likewise Bedford-Northampton should be being pursued alongside East-West as integral to it and also the benefits in cutting emissions of a Luton/Airport-Coventry arc via Bedford and Northampton spinal core missing link agenda. 

Everyone is seemingly sworn to silence including local media and that is not in the public interest. The public want the railways restored and our elected representatives must put grist to the mill to find means and ways for delivery sooner than later - our town centre economies depend on such for sustainability. To just crest of the wave 'let the market decide' is akin to putting a bet on the horses - flimsy prospects - only sustained effort and push can inform delivery vehicles are found to deliver what we need in a timely manner. There seems no excuse.

Hope of interest,

Richard Pill

Bedford Borough Plan - where's the rail infrastructure?

There is a consultation in the Harpur Centre on the Bedford Local Plan 2035. See www.bedford.gov.uk/localplan2035. Email: planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk 
Check those houses at Bromham and relation to a clear access for Cobbler Line trajectory. 
Closing date is 9th June.
Questions via 01234 718300. Things we want is as follows:
a. Station at Oakley north of Lower Farm Road.
b. Retail Park Station on the MVR not MML!
c. East-West Rail sooner than later with Bedford-Sandy being delivered same time as Oxford-Bedford ideally - what are we getting for £10 million allocated?
d. All build results in road saturation and progressive gridlock. Same style houses being rolled out Bedford, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Cambridge... this results in ever more cloning of towns/residential estate areas.
e. Unless there's a more focused and coherent plan for the rail projects a-c by 2035 not after 2035, we will have a short fall of footfall and spend, informing closed shop syndrome and spiraling diminishment of traditional town centres, more out of town pressure to pander to the car. Empty properties abound domestic and commercial and more directives to fill and amend those first before green field expansion should be looked at.
f. Bedford-Northampton should be progressed with East-West not addendum to it/afterthought.
g. Network Rail must be flexible on level crossing and bridge adaptations, Cardington Road Bedford and Bridge Street Northampton need rail accessibility to be retained.
h. Wixams and/or Ampthill should be pursued together or incrementally, both serve differential markets - Wixams declutters commuting into Bedford for rail, Ampthill declutters Flitwick off the M1/A507 and all south of Wixams e.g. Marston Moretaine/A421 development corridor.

Get Bedford Moving Campaign

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Re: Making a case for a new Northampton-Bedford Rail Link Booklet

I am writing to you to let you know that this booklet is now available. It is £4.50 + £1.27 postage (UK) making a total sum of £5.77. If you order 10 copies you get them at a discount price of £4.00 each making a total cost including postage (UK) of £52.70. Payment should be made to ‘ERTA’ and sent to Richard Pill, ERTA, 24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK40 2LT (01234 330090). All proceeds go to the ERTA funds to enable it to continue to advocate better public transport.

The booklet seeks to highlight key aspects the rail link would address and why it is worthy of an 11th hour act to save it from obliteration at the hands of piecemeal development which with the railway would be more sustainable. The balance between development aspirations and the wider effects and need for better public transport infrastructure (local rail) to inform a better equilibrium.

It is hoped that support for the rail link will rise as a result of the booklet being widely read and appreciated and further studies commissioned to build the case further and court Network Rail GRIP attention. It should be both integral to East-West Rail and the Luton Airport-Northampton-Coventry arc. Taking a parish pump approach, it is a useful addendum to the localism agenda suitable for libraries, archives and general reference.

I attach a poster of the front cover and quote ISBN number of 978-0-9957682-0-8

ERTA is seeking more free/low cost stalls to promote our causes and sell our meager array of booklets and magazines mainly. All events and fixtures we attend will get a listing on our website to help boost patronage if wanted. We do not have a budget for outlay so can only reciprocate in kind. For example an exchange of flyers. Please contact Simon Barber (details below) with enquiries and offers alike.

I am doing media services for ERTA in a non Executive Committee role. I am advising behind the scenes. Really would welcome more local interest in our calls for Kempston Retail Park Station and footbridge, Bedford-Northampton and indeed news for hastening East-West Rail. Our officers are keen to attend meetings and make common cause for more of what we wish for. On the matter of developments at Flitwick, our concern is the wider traffic magnet draw to a poorly configured road system. Should Flitwick have a bypass? Where should it go? Our call is for a study into how an Ampthill Station could be provided as the scope of regional draw centered on Flitwick is off M1, Milton Keynes, Olney and Wixams as well as plenty of new housing for commuters going in around Froghall Road for example joining the two towns together finally. This is happening now, Flitwick has just one access bridge over the railway and the Froghall Road is restricted width and height clearances. Please see http://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.co.uk/ and click the link for more information of what is proposed.

Only by people joining ERTA and offering to help in some shape or form can our voice be stronger and bring the powers that be to consider more seriously what we table. Some has scoffed at reopening part of the Great Central, but when one considers HS2, it would be much less cost/intrusion/impact environmentally and over a 20 year scale of growth, given M1 and West Coast Main Line are at capacity now, something has got to give. 

Bedford lost Allens, Texas Instruments, London Brick, Cutler Hammer, Pre-Star, Britannia Igranic and Meltis in terms of making things and in it's place we have ratio-wise a bundle of retail/warehouse jobs, caring sector jobs and a few research and administrative jobs but swathes of public sector and civil service local offices and outlets have closed or shrunk or gone elsewhere - Milton Keynes, St Albans, Cambridge and London. To commute costs, takes time and basically one is looking at a 12 hour day away from home-life. Our town centre is ailing, welfare (and it is spent locally and immediately) is being cut and deconstructed bit by bit leaving a precarious economic and social situation. That other towns suffer the same, doesn't make it any easier when one gets people coming along suggesting getting employment is easy, again they release people to the market, they don't shoe-horn them into employment and there's a huge gap. Therefore having access to cheap, affordable, abundant and comprehensive public transport, safe segregated cycle ways and properly maintained pedestrian rights of ways is essential for smooth operations.Don't believe the myth that bus passes are hand-out subsidies as Bus 2020 The Case for the Bus Pass by Greener Journey's (www.greenerjourneys.com) says "Each £1 spent on the bus pass generates at least £2.87 in benefits." Clearly Unions, Management and Elected Representatives who rail against and begrudge filling off peak more - need to look at this report and consider whether their prejudices are ideological or factual? Shame to remove or cut a bus service when more bus passes could ensure better levels of all day usage. The off peak savings help boost spending elsewhere, so all gains.

Hope of interest.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA

Flitwick Station and Retail Expansion

This development should raise concerns: 
http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/news/april/flitwick-regeneration.aspx 

I suggest you write and object and cite that looking at Ampthill would be better:

1. this development will act as a major traffic generator informing demands for parking and resulting in more congestion.

2. We need a crossing from the footbridge over the road to the Swan Pub

3. Bus shelter to Ampthill needs cleaning, better information with RTI or similar and later buses linking the station and the town of Ampthill which is expanding too

4. Flitwick deals with traffic from a wider area- M1/Milton Keynes, Olney and Wixams for a start and the town will be over-run with cars.

5. Ampthill offers relief from the Steppingley Road side off the A507 and could offer more parking capacity for the area generally

6. this development puts more pressure on Froghall, Road which has a bridge height restriction

7. Station platforms at Ampthill need to be staggered for land-access issues with entrances and exits both sides of the MML and via a foot/cycle exit south of industrial estate into Froghall Road for Redbourne School and East Flitwick which aligns to Froghall Ropad and A507 roundabout now - all spaces being filled in with developments. Options need to be kept open. For solidarity and further support please see Twitter @ReopenStations or contact 

Membership, Recruitment, Administrator and Finance Liaison Officer: Mr Simon Barber, 20 Fitzherbert House, Kingsmead, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6HT

T. 0208 940 4399 E. simon4barber@gmail.com 

Retail Park, Kempston - call for a new station to serve it.

Retail Park, Kempston - call for a new station to serve it.

The Retail Park, Kempston has grown to three sites since inception in the early 1980’s. Today it commands a considerable patronage, the majority of which come by road to work, shop and enjoy leisure at the site. There was a view to develop a station but for some reason the idea was dropped, it was resurrected in about 2004 but a handful of objections led to it being shelved. Since then the Retail Buildings have screened off residential Kempston and shrubbery on the residential side has been allowed to grow considerably.

           

The Railway which runs adjacent to the original site is that of the Bedford-Bletchley alias Marston Vale Railway. This line has seen remarkable growth in patronage over recent years but still remains more busy during peak periods am/pm and less-well-used during off peak times – the lion’s share of the day.

Ampthill Road (A6) feeds a lion’s share of the traffic into the B530 which served the Retail Park sites. These roads and those arteries to and from them radially, get bunged up with traffic, a lion’s share of which is due to the popularity and success of the Retail Park, as a wide range of traffic from about 15 mile radius seeks to access the venue. The demand for parking outstrips supply per volume and so congestion, tail backs and some frustration is keenly felt. Standing traffic emits fumes and exhaust and residential areas have to breathe that standing traffic’s air.

The Solution to alleviate the problem of success is to provide more and better options for more people from more diverse reaches and ranges to use the Retail Park and access it. ERTA calls for and has long called for, the provision of a station adjacent to the Retail Park on the Marston Vale Railway with a footbridge cum cycle-bridge over the two tracks to enable Kempston residents to walk and cycle to the Retail Park, freeing up parking spaces.

The railway is due to be incorporated into the East-West Rail project which means the audience to the Retail Park would increase considerably and use sustainable transport to get to and from it and the surrounding area. Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford is a population catchment of some considerable numbers of people given connections at Bletchley, Bicester and Oxford let alone from the Bedford direction. In other words the railway station would quickly pay for itself and the benefits on and off the railway would be keenly felt.

Key Benefits of Pursuing the Station

·      More customers for the Retail Park

·      Greater reach and range of shoppers

·      Easier access for work and shopping

·      More parking spaces for others to use

·      Integrated East-West Rail reaches and ranges

·      Both sides bus and rail integration: No. 42 south-side, No.1 Orchard Street Parade.

·      Boost Access to Kempston Town Population of over 19, 000 people according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kempston.

·      Benefit by bridging the two-way transport access with Bedford Town Centre

·      Cutting queues of congestion around the Ampthill Road/B530 Junction, helping everyone live, move and breathe easier.

·      Choice with more joined up networks and integrated links, putting people first.

Public and Community Call to Action

Only by a growing membership can ERTA’s voice be stronger and exercise influence to get local politicians to support this station initiative. Please add your voice by joining ERTA today and get involved in helping to take this campaign forward, building a team of local people who care and want to make a difference.

Join ERTA and help us realise this essential piece of local infrastructure to help communities thrive and cope better amidst the clamour of development and its wider impact. See https://ertarail.com/ And let the journey begin!

 See our dedicated web-page: https://ertarail.com/retail-park-station-bedford-bletchley-railway-kempston/ and vote with your feet – join ERTA!

In any case contact: English Regional Transport Association (ERTA)

Second Officer, Co-London Coordinator and Northampton – Olney- Bedford Corridor, Stations and Field Officer:

Mr David Ferguson,

T. 020-8876-3340 E. daferguson1212@gmail.com

https://ertarail.com/

Get Bedford Moving Campaign

Get Bedford Moving Campaign

So the Borough Council is bidding for £millions for a scheme to address traffic and capacity issues along Ampthill Road? It is my conviction at least that this scheme will not cut congestion but will probably result in squeezing the cycle-pedestrian share paths to cycle lanes on a widened road-way? Much of this traffic is bound to and from the Retail Park at Kempston and what that needs is a station on the Bedford-Bletchley Railway with a cycle-footbridge linking Southfields Kempston with the Retail Park. This would give more options, open up the area to more footfall and spend but also create more parking spaces. The Retail Park's expansion is running out of land and more growth generates more road traffic and it needs somewhere to park. Meanwhile local residents get the emissions from exhausts on all sides and on that score alone the Council should be seeking means and ways to reduce car and other traffic by nurturing alternatives from walking, cycling and better public transport.

Buses deliver dollops of footfall and spend wherever they go and have bus stops for dropping off. Places like Black Tom, Tavistock Street, Prebend Street and the High Street do not have buses and those which serve the railway station are scant during the day.

These glaring gaps could be rectified and the smaller shops benefit from the new trade they would bring. Likewise pedestrianisation of the High Street and Midland Road West would extend the town centre footfall and flow and make for a better shopping experience as more buses bring more footfall and spend to a broader area. Pandering to the car means land used for ever more parking which cannot be used for housing or business purposes. All that traffic spills onto an ancient town road system which was never designed to cope with it all. 

It is ironic that Government can find £55 billion for HS2 and £3.5 billion for a new road but for poor old East-West Rail and Bedford-Northampton we have a 6 year wait for Oxford-Bedford and well into the 21st century for the other two, if creeping development allows a route to be recovered. Yet as Bedford, unlike Milton Keynes is not adjacent to a motorway, we need these rail links more to bring sustainable footfall and spend to our ailing town centre. Quangos at £millions are invisible, lack-lustre and a waste. We need locally elected, accountable and visible people able to bang the tables of Whitehall for a fairer deal for Bedford - to balance our transport and moral leaders can lead by voting with their feet than giving the signal car-lifestyles are justified. I would suggest not if they impinge on the reasonable chances of others and that is the equation which is yet to be squared. Join us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/877055242435042/