Object

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Representation ID: 10143

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roebuck Land and Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy HOU19 ‘Little Barford New Settlement’
The policy states:
“… land at Little Barford is allocated as a new settlement to create a landscape led beautiful, healthy and sociable community located in close proximity to the proposal for a new station on the East West Rail line delivering at least 4,000 new homes and in the region of 4 hectares employment.”
The policy is not capable of being implemented if this line is not delivered. In particular, Limb xix would be impossible to meet should the route or new station not materialise.
The justification for this policy is wholly reliant on the EWR scheme but does not include any safeguarded route based on the latest information. The Preferred Route Corridor E option should at the very least be referenced in the Draft Plan and the land safeguarded if it is to be advanced/adopted before the EWR scheme has progressed to a detailed stage. The extent of the search area within Route Corridor E is not acknowledged (it includes the entire site). Within this corridor, the latest non-statutory consultation held in June 2021 identified five potential route alignments and 4 potential station locations which have an impact upon the future masterplanning of HOU19. The proposed trajectory is not reliable, and it is difficult to see how any masterplan framework could be approved before the EWR scheme has proceeded to/through its DCO process which is several years away.
It demonstrates the fact that it is not possible to evidence that the proposed quantum of development can be achieved within the allocation boundary or delivered within the plan period.
[See attachment for insert.]
Whilst a non-statutory consultation, EWR did consult on two Preferred Route Alignments 1 and 9 which are reproduced below. Both would have different, but significant impacts upon the land available for development, general connectivity and the ability to deliver multiple road crossings over/under the existing east coast mainline track and any proposed EWR track to create internal connections within the proposed allocation to create an integrated new community.
[See attachment for 2 inserts.]
These extracts highlight that the section affecting the proposed allocation HOU19 is not yet crystallised and is dependent upon the selection of one of the potential preferred options of one of the two St Neots South station locations (St Neots Option A) over one of the long standing Tempsford options further south (Tempsford Option A). The final strategy or any other option/alignment that may need to be considered is subject to further investigation, surveys and consultation before the detailed DCO application can be made.
The future route alignment around St Neots is also heavily dependent upon the location of the proposed new Cambourne rail station further northeast within South Cambridgeshire District. Again, the link between either of the two St Neots based options versus the two Cambourne based options further east (Cambourne North or Cambourne west) directly affect the position of any rail line across the proposed allocation.
As the output of the second non-statutory consultation is currently under review, EWR is not yet able to confirm the date for the announcement of the final route or future programme. The project timetable has already slipped considerably.
The above diagrams illustrate the dramatic impact that all of the current route options may have upon future development considerations around Little Barford. Based on the current programme for the replacement BLP, and the Council’s stated urgency to submit a plan by January 2023, a future review of the emerging BBC local plan (i.e. beyond 2040) may be a more realistic timeframe for considering rail based growth in this location – i.e. once the parameters are confirmed.
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvement Scheme
In relation to the A428 improvements, these are still at Inquiry, with a decision expected in August from the Secretary of State, which should be available at the examination of this Local Plan, providing more certainty in the delivery of this scheme. At the recent examination it was suggested that delivery of the scheme is currently approximately one year late due to the pandemic etc and as such it is likely to open in 2025/2026.
The plan in general, and Policy HOU19 does not reflect the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvement scheme. The eastern boundary of the proposed allocation HOU19 should be shown as the safeguarded route and impacts considered on the extent of land available for development. The section that lies within the proposed allocation is reproduced below for ease.
[See attachment for insert.]
Should the DCO be approved (decision due by 18 August 2022) this includes Compulsory Purchase Powers to permanently take land for the scheme along with temporary land take for a given period of time. It further demonstrates that it is unlikely that all of the proposed allocation is available, or deliverable and this land should be excluded and the scale of development adjusted accordingly. We consider the any part of the route that falls within Bedford Borough boundary is shown as safeguarded within the policy map, potentially supported by a specific policy.
It is also of relevance that the A428 scheme will not include a road link connection onto the Barford Road where it crosses – DCO extract below.
[See attachment for insert.]
There is no opportunity for a direct connection onto the new A428 carriageway for vehicular movements from either the eastern or western half of the development which would all need to link back to the existing A428, adding a significant amount onto the local rural road network. This constraint is illustrated by reference to Figure 2.3 – Assumed Little Barford Development Highway Network within the Aecom Bedford Borough Transport Model – reproduced for ease below.
[See attachment for insert.]
Given the allocation is predicated on ‘rail based growth’ the EWR route options are not indicated. Should the either of the preferred routes mentioned above be taken forward, the impact of the new rail infrastructure on the model assumptions has not been undertaken. The proposed single rail crossing is a challenge and lacks connectivity and permeability within the new settlement proposal.

Attachments: