Comments on Regulation 19 Consultation for CBC Local Plan February 2018 1. Transport Infrastructure Strategic transport initiatives are well documented in the plan and the need for them to be in place before development as essential. There is insufficient detail (or none) about the next level of roads such as A507, A6 etc and also local transport bottlenecks. The A507 is very congested at peak times in several places. In particular it is often at a standstill between Henlow Crown roundabout and Arlesey roundabout. Recent developer surveys have shown the Crown roundabout is over-capacity on all four arms at peak morning & evening periods. No additional development should be permitted which impacts on this roundabout until this issue is addressed. It is of particular concern that CBC Highways team ignore incremental development if under a quite large percentage increase. This ignores the combined impact of smaller developments over time on road capacity and is a deeply flawed approach. It needs to be changed. If the proposed Arlesey development is to proceed no mention has been made of improvements needed to the A507 between Arlesey and A1(M) J10 or to widening Arlesey railway bridge. CBC traffic modelling contained in the transport appendix identifies some hotspots, but the proposed mitigations are insufficient and the widespread suggested use of traffic signals rather than roundabouts will further urbanise the rural environment in many places. Local traffic improvements which are needed in Arlesey ward include • Henlow Clifton Rd/Crown roundabout to A507/Crown roundabout. Carriageway widening and/or removal of Clifton Rd roundabout. Developers traffic surveys for current developments already show that all four arms of this roundabout are overloaded at peak times before any more developments in the vicinity are allowed. • Bird-in Hand roundabout Stondon/Henlow Camp will become overloaded at peak times if all proposed developments to be taken forward in the area are permitted and there is large development at Henlow Camp. • Arlesey western relief road (part of current Masterplan) needs to be completed. • If mixed use development (or any development) at RAF Henlow proceeds, then improvements are needed to the dangerous B659 road between Henlow Camp & Henlow village including provision of a safe cycle route to Arlesey Station and Henlow village and improvements to pedestrian walkways including a safe crossing of the A507. • No discussion or suggestion is made regarding controlling traffic volumes on the A600 between the “Bird-in-Hand” (B659/A600) and the “Airman” roundabouts (A600/A507) even though daily traffic movements must be limited to >10,000 to satisfy operating requirements of local industries. This alone means that any substantial residential development on the RAF Henlow site is rendered impossible without very major additional road and intersection development. • Completion of safer routes to school access especially from Arlesey to Henlow Middle School and Samuel Whitbread. Also from Henlow village to Samuel Whitbread and onward to Shefford. • Cycle way provision from Stondon/Henlow Camp to Shefford. • Cycle way provision from Stondon to Arlesey railway station. 2. Settlement Coalescence. The statements and associated policy to protect against settlement coalescence in Northern Central Bedfordshire are are much too weak . In the event 5-year land supply is lost at any time during the plan then the policy will have almost no protection against the joining of villages in the North. (The South is able to benefit from Green Belt). The definition of important countryside gaps enshrined as policy is welcomed (and indicates increased protection from Regulation 18) to protect our village heritage in the North and using public funds/S106 to provide protected green gaps. It is very disappointing that the Green Belt study has not looked to define new Green Belt in the North – undoubtedly a missed opportunity. The proposed important countryside gap between Clifton and Henlow is supported but it is insufficient and should curve north and eastwards to protect against ribbon development to the north of Henlow village and mitigate coalescence between Henlow and Langford. Separation of Clifton and Shefford (now only one field in places) is also welcomed but requires expansion southwards. Additional gaps should be considered in any revision to separate Henlow village and Henlow camp, also Henlow village and Arlesey. Local people want much stronger protection of these gaps and may well be prepared to support development in villages if separation can be guaranteed to remain. 3. Policy SE4 • RAF Henlow. I am very supportive of the mixed-use approach to the site and the opportunity to develop High tech businesses such as Blue Abyss. More detail is needed on the impact of both business and additional housing on the south side of the airbase on the local road network and other infrastructure including health. There is strong local support for the CBC approach and policy SE4. There is also much wider support to ensure that the airfield remains operational as part of the opportunity to develop the science hub. The need for a “keep-out “zone that covers much f the airfield as opposed to the entire site supports the CBC policy SE4 as does the existence f important listed heritage assets across the whole site. 4. Site NLP268 • I strongly support the allocation of Site NLP268 on the North side of Henlow Camp next to Derwent School. The location as noted in the site assessment is sustainable and can be brought forward at an early opportunity. 5. Site HAS46 & HAS47 • If these sites are to progress a route through the two sites from Station Rd, near to the golf club through to A600 should be required to provide an alternative route to Station Rd for traffic from the development. 6. Site SA3 • There is some local concern about this site and Arlesey Town Council have provided a specific submission however if this site is to move forward it is vital that the infrastructure including the North/South Road is provided before significant construction commences and also that improvements to the A507 are completed. • More consideration for sustainable transport to Arlesey station needs to be included as parking is already constrained on the East side. • Station improvements are needed to provide much better disabled access (lifts, ticket machine on both platforms) and should be a condition of further development not just in Arlesey but in the whole Arlesey station catchment area. • The proposed country park needs further definition if it is to create acceptance of the development, prevent coalescence of Fairfield and Arlesey and create more than a thin green ribbon. A proper park must be a result if the site goes forward. .