Sustainability Appraisal Report

Object

Representation ID: 9321

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Marcol Industrial Investment LLP

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan is not legally complaint owing to its failure to comply with the duty to co-operate and fails to meet the tests of soundness. Our review of the SA and New Settlements Assessment finds that the chosen spatial strategy is not positively prepared or justified. The assessment contains factual errors, is inconsistent and does not represent a suitable and objective assessment of the new settlement options. The Sustainability Appraisal scorings appear to be contrived to bolster the planning and sustainability case for Little Barford, and its resulting impact on the chosen spatial strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 9448

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Prologis

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

While Prologis welcomes the preparation of the SA, it is concerned that the Council has not
properly considered the impact of its spatial strategy within this appraisal. The SDBLP’s
spatial strategy focuses a significant amount of growth in the Borough towards the A1/A421
corridor, with the inclusion of potential new settlements including at Little Barford.
1.21 We consider that the impact of these strategic development sites has not been properly
accounted for when assessing whether the Plan will be effective in delivering sustainable
development.

Please see attached report for detail

Object

Representation ID: 9513

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please not that CPC’s representations on this matter are in relation to CPC’s support of the conclusions of BBC’s new settlement selection however CPC’s representations also address a number of inaccuracies within the Sustainability Appraisal that it wishes to see addressed.
3.1. CPC supports the Council’s decision to not select the new settlement proposals known as ‘Land west of Wyboston – Denybrook Garden Community’. BBC has rightly concluded in its Pre-Submission Local Plan that this site is not well located in relation to any of the East
West Rail interchange options and that its development would result in the loss of high quality agricultural land.
Figure 3.1: ‘Reasons why not allocated’ Sustainability Appraisal (April 2022), Page 108
3.2. BBC explains that it selected the Little Barford new settlement option as it considered that it performed best in relation to air quality, carbon dioxide emissions and travel objectives as it states in its Development Strategy Topic Paper:
“The planning of a new settlement at Little Barford similarly presents an opportunity to maximise the benefits associated with such a well-connected
location. A new rail station at the junction of the East West Rail and East Coast Main Line offers excellent sustainability credentials allowing the settlement to
be planned in a way that makes walking and cycling to the station the mode of choice.”14
“The Council prefers Little Barford because it is more conveniently located to the planned East West Rail interchange and avoids the loss of high quality agricultural land.”15
3.3. Given that BBC concluded that ‘Denybrook’ is not well located to the East West Rail interchange options and that it is not possible to integrate sustainable travel solutions into the Denybrook scheme, in terms of East West Rail, it considers that the assessment of the site should be scored in the Sustainability Appraisal against the following Sustainability Objectives as a ‘Major Negative’ in the Sustainability Appraisal rather than
its current score as a ‘Negative’:
Objective 1: ‘Improve Air Quality
Objective 3: Reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency
Objective 15: Reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable modes of transport
14 Development Strategy Topic Paper (May 2022), paragraph 5.17
15 Sustainability Appraisal (April 2022), paragraph 9.10
3.4. CPC challenges the Sustainability Appraisal’s assertion that the potential new East West Rail station will have ‘beneficial effects’ for ‘Denybrook given its remoteness from all of the railway station options. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal states:
“The testing shows that the negative effects are less severe for both Little Barford and Wyboston in relation to air quality, carbon dioxide emissions and travel objectives than for Colworth and Twinwoods. This is because of the
beneficial effects that derive from the provision of a railway station16.
3.5. CPC’s Regulation 18 representations provide analysis and evidence which demonstrates the remoteness and lack of connectivity between ‘Denybrook’ and the East West Rail station options, as well as the lack of achievable connectivity to any major roads and the promoted scheme’s reliance on using unsuitable country roads for all of its access points.
We include a summary of these below for consideration at the Regulation 19 stage of the plan-making process as well given that we consider that these provide evidence that justifies a ‘Major Negative’ score against Objectives 1, 3 and 15 in the Sustainability Appraisal and provides evidence that further supports BBC’s decision to reject the ‘Denybrook’ scheme.
3.6. As CPC set out in its extensive representations to the Regulation 18 consultation it considers the ‘Denybrook’ site location to be unsustainable and located a very
considerable distance from any existing infrastructure. The amount of infrastructure required to make such a location a sustainable and resilient location to deliver a new settlement is unrealistic.
Distance to Potential New Stations
3.7. The site promoter’s very rough drawing of a dotted line for a cycle link which would link the southern end of the site with one of the railway station options is void of any technical assessment whether such an idea is feasible, and it is therefore a theoretical idea and
should not be relied upon. We have undertaken mapping analysis of the distance and cycle times between Denybrook and the potential stations below.
Figure 3.2: Distance between Denybrook and potential new railway stations
3.8. As one can see the distances based on our calculations are as follows:
• Dennbrook – Option 1: 7.07 km (4.4 miles)
• Denybrook – Option 2: 7.28 km (4.5 miles)
• Denybrook – Option 3: 7.62 km (4.7 miles)
• Denybrook – Option 4: 7.81 km (4.8 miles)
3.9. These distances are clearly the ‘best case scenario’ even though they are calculated from the furthest distance of the site. This is because the distances are calculated ‘as the crow flies’ whereas the road or cycle network to access these stations would be considerably
further.
Cycling Distances and Times
3.10. Without any detailed proposals for road and cycling infrastructure from the site promoters we have made some technical assumptions in order to arrive at a more
accurate idea of the likely distance and cycling times to the potential new railway stations. To do this we have used the shortest route from the centre of the site along a
network composed of the existing network and a straight line extension to the proposed station where no other access route was built. We used Google Maps API to determine the shortest route distances combined with a GIS calculator to determine the length and time for cycling speeds of 13.8km/h.
• Denybrook – Option 1: 9.87 km (6.13 miles) 43 minutes
• Denybrook – Option 2: 8.86 km (5.50 miles) 39 minutes
• Denybrook – Option 3: 8.69 km (5.40 miles) 38 minutes
• Denybrook – Option 4: 8.63 km (5.36 miles) 38 minutes
Figure 3.3: Cycling Distance and Time Estimates from Denybrook site to potential new railway stations
3.11 Any suggestion that the Denybrook site can be considered as ‘integrated’ with the potential new railway station is clearly unfounded by the distance between locations of the site and the potential station locations. There is no clear proposed road link that could link the site to any of the potential railways station options so it is not possible to justify public transportation linking with a railway station. Cycling will clearly not be possible as
a legitimate option for residents as clearly the distance of approximately 5 miles is not something an ordinary person could endure for regular or even occasional use of a railway station.
3.12 Clearly CPC is supportive of walking and cycling as the most sustainable forms of travel and that any new settlement proposals in the borough would need to deliver walking and cycling infrastructure to the public transport network, however such plans need to be
realistic and these are not.
The Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
3.13 CPC supports the Sustainability Appraisal’s assessment of the ‘Denybrook’ site’s potential effects on the ‘loss of high quality agricultural land’ (SA Objective 9). The SA gives the site a score of ‘Major Negative’ and it is the only new settlement option to be scored this way and justifiably so.
“Wyboston is the only new settlement to show a major negative effect in relation to the loss of high quality agricultural land.”17
3.14 This assessment alone should be reason enough to reject ‘Denybrook’ to ensure the protection of this finite resource of the best and most versatile agricultural land to help ensure food security locally and nationally. Clearly, this is a resource that cannot be replaced once developed.
3.15 The NPPF states (our emphasis):
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic
and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”
3.16 A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment18 sets out the government’s 25-year plan to improve the health of the environment by using natural
resources more sustainably and efficiently. It plans to:
• protect the best agricultural land
• put a value on soils as part of our natural capital
• manage soils in a sustainable way by 2030
• restore and protect peatland
17 Sustainability Appraisal (April 2022), paragraph 8.26
18 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan
3.17 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that following about assessing agricultural land to enable informed choices about its future”
“How can planning take account of the quality of agricultural land?
The Agricultural Land Classification assesses the quality of farmland to enable informed choices to be made about its future use within the planning system.
There are five grades of agricultural land, with Grade 3 subdivided into 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a.
Planning policies and decisions should take account of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. In the circumstances set out in Schedule 4 paragraph (y) of the Development
Management Procedure Order 2015, Natural England is a statutory consultee:
a local planning authority must consult Natural England before granting planning permission for large-scale non-agricultural development on best and most versatile land that is not in accord with the development plan. Natural
England has published guidance on development on agricultural land.”19
3.18 The PPG explains why planning decisions should take account of the value of soils and agricultural land classification (ALC) to enable informed choices on the future use of agricultural land within the planning system20.
3.19 The Denybrook site is comprised mostly of Grade 2 Agricultural Land and some Grade 1 as evidenced by the map prepared below which means that if developed the borough would lose some of its best agricultural land and would be lost to future generations at a time when climate change is having immediate impacts.
3.20 Of all the promoted new settlements Denybrook has the best agricultural land and it should clearly be protected. Whereas Twinwoods has a considerable amount of previously developed land as does Little Barford. The whole of the Colworth site is comprised of Grade 3 and further assessment would be needed to determine if this is 3a or 3b.
3.21 We also note that most of the Denybrook site promoter’s off-site transport improvements are proposed in the area to the southeast of their site on land that is Grade1 Agricultural Land which would also be lost as a result of their proposals.
19 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 8-001-20190721
20 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 8-002-20190721
3.22 One of BBC’s Local Plan Themes is Theme 1: Greener with one of its stated objectives being to protect and enhance natural resources which includes soil (our emphasis):
“Protect and enhance our natural resources including air, soil, minerals and water to minimise the impacts of flooding, climate change and pollution”.
Figure 3.4: Provisional Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) - provided by Natural England (May 2020) under
Open Government Licence v3
Heritage
3.23 CPC notes BBC’s Heritage Assessment of ‘Denybrook’ in the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal which concludes based on BBC’s Heritage Team that the scheme would likely result in harm to approximately 21 Grade II listed buildings. CPC supports the Council’s
conclusion in the Sustainability Appraisal that “the scheme is likely to have a high cumulative impact on designated heritage assets”21.
3.24 On this basis CPC considers that the Sustainability Appraisal should score ‘Objective 4 – conserve, sustain and enhance the historic environment’ as a ‘Major Negative’ rather than its current rating as ‘Negative’.
3.25 CPC is concerned that the Council appears to be relying on the site promoter’s evidence in relation to heritage rather than preparing its own Heritage Impact
Assessment evidence base.
3.11. Historic England has prepared a number of Advice Notes with its guidance on how authorities should approach heritage in the Local Plan and in their selection of potential sites including the potential impacts on heritage that might result from the proposals. There are two of these Advice Notes we would like to bring to the attention of BBC:
• The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans (Historic England Advice Note 3) October 201522.
• Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets
(Historic England Advice Note 12) October 201923
21 Sustainability Appraisal, Additional Site Assessments including New Settlements Land Ownership
3.12 The land promoted for development at Denybrook is owned by multiple landowners and by our estimate approximately 56 land parcels. This highlights the complexity of the land assembly and delivery issues that the scheme would likely face if it were to be selected. Please note the landownership map is based on an initial assessment of HM Land Registry information and would need to be confirmed by BBC and the landowners
as to its accuracy.
3.13 Land assembly and multiple landowners does not appear to have been assessed by BBC in its considerations of the potential new settlements. CPC considers that the extent of multiple landownerships at ‘Denybrook’ is another reason for rejecting the site as it
will lead to complications in the land assembly, masterplanning and delivery process ultimately leading to a fragmented, piecemeal scheme.
Figure 3.5: Landownership parcels Dennybrook area. Source of parcel data: HM Land Registry and Ordnance Survey;
Reference used for Denybrook Garden Village Boundary: drawing “Figure 1: Designated Heritage Assets”, Drawing
No. CSA/5041/103, drawn for Taylor Wimpey.
22 https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/
23 https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/statements-heritage-significance-advice-note-12/heag279-
statements-heritage-significance/

Comment

Representation ID: 9641

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

The first statement contained within the Local Plan’s Vision (Chapter 2) rightly sets an
aim of tackling climate change and adapting to and mitigating its effects being at the
heart of new development in the Borough.
3.2 This is then reinforced, with Theme 1 (p.13) setting an objective to making Bedford
Borough a carbon neutral Borough. The Local Plan, however, does not currently carry
this commitment through in such a way as to suggest meaningful action.
3.3 Firstly, the Local Plan does not include any proposed strategy or approach concerning
renewable energy development. If the Borough is serious about becoming carbon
neutral and tackling climate change, it is essential that the Local Plan includes positive
policies which encourage both renewable energy developments, and net zero carbon
developments, to come forward.
3.4 The NPPF is clear (Chapter 14 – para 152 in particular) that the planning system should,
inter alia, support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Para
153 states that Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to
climate change.
3.5 Moreover, para 155 states that Plans should both provide a positive strategy for energy
from renewable and low carbon sources and consider identifying suitable areas for such
developments.
3.6 The Local Plan fails to tackle this issue. As currently drafted, it lacks any meaningful
proposals or aims in order to meet these requirements of national policy.
3.7 AWG supports the principle of Policy DS1(S) and in particular, the importance of
development being located to minimise the need to travel and where there are
opportunities to maximise the ability to make trips by sustainable modes of transport.
3.8 It must encourage growth that comes forward where renewable energy goes hand in
hand with development proposals, with positive policies encouraging such
developments (be they as allocations and/or applications) to be considered favourably.
The NPPF makes particular reference (para 155 c) to identifying opportunities for
development to draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable, or low carbon
energy supply, and for co-locating heat customers and suppliers. AWG therefore
consider that the Plan is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy. To make
the Plan sound, Policy DS1(S) should be revised to include reference to strategic
renewable energy, such as onshore wind and solar. There should also be a requirement
within the strategic allocations to deliver renewable energy as part of these
developments.
3.9 Of further concern is the lack of any focused evidence base document(s) addressing
these matters. The list of Local Plan 2040 Supporting documents provided by the
Council is absent any topic papers, studies or the like which address these matters.
3.10 It is essential that BBC undertake such work as a matter of urgency and revise the Local
Plan ahead of submission.
10 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
3.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (‘the SA’) should also be updated to reflect this
requirement. The climate crisis is a significant, national issue and the SA methodology
must be amended to provide greater weighting to matters relating to climate change
and energy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9649

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Thakeham

The Council have produced a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to assess the proposed spatial strategy and policies against the regulatory requirements.
Whilst we agree that the SA has assessed the different growth options, we are concerned that the individual site assessments that have been undertaken at Appendix 11 are flawed, due to inconsistencies. These errors directly affect the spatial strategy as they inform the preferred option.

Comment

Representation ID: 9709

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

4.5 The evidence underpinning these policies has also failed to consider all reasonable alternatives, including a larger amount of employment land27. The SA’s assessment of the employment land options is flawed. It considers three options: C) 90Ha (more high density office development); D) 142Ha; and E) 206Ha (lower density office/ business park dev with more warehousing). These options do not appear to be consistent with those presented in the Employment
27 We note that the employment land options considered in the Sustainability Appraisal Report do not appear to reflect those presented in the Employment Land Study 2022. It is not clear why this is the case.
Land Study 2022. In addition, the SA concludes that ‘Option E’ (i.e. the option delivering the most employment) is worst performing including in terms of ‘improving air quality’, ‘reducing carbon dioxide’, ‘improving energy efficiency’, ‘reducing the need to travel and promote sustainable modes of travel’.
4.6 The SA appears to have reached this conclusion on the basis that this option would result in greater increase in private car use and commercial vehicle use than other options with less warehousing. However, this assessment is overly simplistic and fails to consider that the Council’s strategy of relying on neighbouring authorities to meet strategic warehousing needs could result in promotion of less sustainable commuting patterns and freight movements than would be the case than if those needs were met locally within close proximity to the existing and proposed population in Bedford. It also fails to recognise the strategic importance of logistics as critical infrastructure nationally, regionally and locally or the Government’s ambitions to achieve a net zero freight sector by 2050.
4.7 Option E also scores more poorly than Option D against the objective of promoting a strong, sustainable and balanced economic growth stimulating job creation across a range of sectors. It is not clear why this is the case, the SA simply suggests that low density office development with greater proportion of warehousing “uncertain whether this will be viable locally”. The market evidence above clearly demonstrates that warehousing is viable in this location.
4.8 The Development Strategy Options Paper (DSO) and SA also consider a range of strategy options as ‘reasonable alternatives’. The SA notes that for the purpose of identifying ‘reasonable alternatives’ the aim is to consider options that could meet the dwelling and employment requirement to 2040. However, it later goes onto state that the employment requirement is not considered an overriding constraint in generating options. Indeed, it is acknowledged in the DSO that most of the ‘reasonable alternatives’ identified would fail to achieve the amount of employment land contemplated in the Plan without additional sites being identified along the A421 corridor, the implications of which do not appear to have been considered as part of the assessment of strategy options. Overall, whilst we agree with and support the identification of the area around Kempston Hardwick as a location for significant growth, Cloud Wing is concerned that the approach to the distribution of other employment land in the Borough is not appropriately justified.
4.9 Cloud Wing is also concerned that the approach taken means that the opportunity presented by a larger Business Park, incorporating a mix of employment uses, on Cloud Wing’s land to the South of Bedford as part of the overall spatial strategy and distribution of employment growth, has not been appropriately considered or assessed as a ‘reasonable alternative’ as part of the Council’s Local Plan evidence base. This approach risks missing a major opportunity for economic growth on a transformative scale that is well-located to benefit from improved rail connectivity.
4.10 More generally, the Council’s approach to the assessment of and selection of ‘other employment sites’, particularly those along the A421 Corridor, is not clear or transparent. Para 5.18 of the DSO states that other potential employment locations “have been assessed according to their accessibility, visibility and proximity to strategic transport routes, and their compatibility with neighbouring uses”. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of this in the evidence provided beyond the general site assessment proforma in the appendices to the HELAA and no explanation on how judgements have been reached about particular sites.
4.11 Cloud Wing remain concerned that the Council’s proposed spatial strategy results in a ‘piecemeal’ approach to employment development elsewhere across the Borough, and an over-reliance on ‘innovation’ uses to deliver its economic needs. This approach would result in a number of individual developments
without the critical mass to generate the level of investment required to facilitate the infrastructure needed and deliver sustainable economic development. It is also unlikely that innovation uses alone would be able to generate the significant uplifts in land value that major industrial and logistics schemes generate28 and that are often needed to fund strategic infrastructure requirements (e.g. new and improved junctions on the strategic road network and link roads) and can support the delivery of other infrastructure that is required to support housing delivery on mixed-use schemes.
4.12 For example, at the Linmere development in Houghton Regis in Central Bedfordshire the delivery of large scale logistics space alongside 5,000 dwellings and other uses has provided upfront funding to support the delivery of early infrastructure for the wider scheme29. A piecemeal approach to employment development across Bedford and over-reliance on innovation uses would result in individual developments each without the critical mass and market conditions to generate the level of investment required to facilitate the infrastructure needed to support the scale of development anticipated and deliver sustainable economic development.
28 BPF (2022) Levelling up - Logic of Logistics
29 BPF (2022) Levelling up - Logic of Logistics

Comment

Representation ID: 9757

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Neame Sutton Limited

It is of concern that the Sustainability Appraisal has not considered the housing requirement in the context
of the unmet need across the neighbouring authorities in the Oxford to Cambridge Arc. The outcome of
the Duty to Cooperate process has the potential to significantly increase the housing requirement in
Bedford and as such, should be considered in the Sustainability Appraisal.

Object

Representation ID: 9930

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

OBJECT:
I. The supporting SA which seeks to justify the back-loaded delivery strategy / stepped trajectory is flawed. The SA simply concludes that the stepped trajectory’s implications for housing delivery will be ‘? uncertain’ (SA, Appendix 8, page 113, SA Objective 12).
II. For such a significant issue which goes to the heart of the whole plan and could hinder achievement of sustainability objectives for economic growth (SA objective 5), providing for residents’ needs (SA objective 13) and social cohesion (SA objective 14) as well as people’s quality of life, health and well-being, this lack of evidence and testing is a significant omission.
III. The SA rejects the entirely reasonable alternative (a central requirement of NPPG001 – SEA and SA) of delivering homes on non-strategic sites in otherwise sustainable locations - to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres - on the crude assumption that such locations will result in increased car dependency with associated negative consequences in terms of CO2 emissions and air quality. Spatial option 3c was dismissed on this basis and ‘village related growth’ considered the worst component of the strategy (SA paragraphs 7.10, 7.23 and 8.13). However, the Council have not properly assessed the capacity of the KSCs and RSCs to accommodate sustainable growth – there is no assessment of sites or individual settlements as part of the SA process.
IV. This is despite the site-specific assessments in the SA showing site options which perform as well, if not better, than the Council’s preferred strategic allocations given proximity to existing schools, facilities and high frequency public transport into Bedford (refer Appendix Ei to our main representations in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).
V. A key distinction is also that such non-strategic sites are deliverable and viable in the context of an effective plan (NPPF test of soundness 35(c)), a factor which is entirely disregard in the SA notwithstanding a cursory comment that such sites may deliver more quickly (SA paragraph 8.17, page 96, in the context of options 3b, 3c, 4 and 7 where development at KSCs and RSCs was assessed at a high level).
VI. These sites will not trigger heavy infrastructure investment in the SRN nor depend on EWR and can deliver localised improvements as necessary via the S106/CIL process. They would form part of a strategy which can meet its needs over the first 10 years of the plan, without the need for a stepped trajectory. Such non-strategic sites and locations would clearly be considered an appropriate and justified strategy under NPPF test of soundness 35(b). The adopted 2030 Local Plan directs growth to KSCs and RSCs so such a strategy would accord with BBC’s previous approach.

Object

Representation ID: 9962

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

REPRESENTATIONS TO SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT

The sustainability appraisal process for development plans tests the social, economic and environmental impacts of various plan options to help choose the most sustainable policies and allocations. Paragraph 31 of the NPPF expects development plans to be underpinned by evidence that supports and justifies policies. Paragraph 32 expects development plans to avoid significant impacts on sustainability objectives and where such impacts cannot be avoided to identify mitigation measures, with those impacts tested through the sustainability appraisal process. As set out below, it is considered that findings of the PSBLP Sustainability Appraisal for two of the preferred allocations are not robust, in that mitigation measures to address significant impacts are not taken into account in the assessment process. The Southill Estate owns two parcels of land that are identified as draft allocations in PSBLP: land at Abbey Field West of Elstow site for residential development (Policy HOU 5); and land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow for a science and innovation park (Policy EMP 5). The assessment of these two draft allocations in the SA conclude that negative effects would still arise for some sustainability topics in the medium and longer term, which cannot be correct when each policy includes requirements to effectively mitigate the impacts of the promoted developments.

Policy HOU5: Abbey Field, West of Elstow
OBJECT

The assessment for Policy HOU5: Abbey Field, West of Elstow against sustainability objectives is provided at SA Appendix pg. 174 to 175. It is noted that the assessment identified a number of positive effects, which are mostly related to the location of the site within the urban area and to the delivery of additional housing. The assessment identified negative effects in the short, medium and long term for the following sustainability objectives: No.2 biodiversity; No.4 historic environment; and, No.13 access to community services and facilities. Policy HOU5 includes policy requirements to address significant impacts on a range of matters. The negative effects in the medium and longer term cannot be correct, because this implies that the mitigation measures identified in the site allocation policy would be ineffective.

Criteria i(a) of Policy HOU 5 requires the design of the promoted development to preserve the setting of heritage assets. The Heritage Impact Assessment prepared for the promoted development demonstrates that the change to the rural setting of heritage assets would result in no more than a minor adverse impact to their wider rural setting and would have no impact on the immediate setting of the assets. It is concluded in the Assessment that the impact on the wider rural setting of these designated heritage assets would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of these assets. In addition, there is a policy requirement for the promoted development to include open space to the north and east, which would separate built development from heritage assets and retain views of those assets. Therefore, the significant effects from the promoted development on heritage assets would be effectively addressed by mitigation measures. If there are any short term impacts on heritage assets, the design and layout of the promoted development including substantial areas of open space would reduce those impacts in the medium and longer term. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.4 (historic environment) is changed to neutral effects in the medium and longer term.

Criteria vii of Policy HOU 5 requires an assessment of ecological impacts of the promoted development, and criteria i(d) requires the promoted development to identify opportunities to include green infrastructure and to connect to existing networks. In addition, Policy DM7 includes a policy requirement for major development to deliver a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain through enhancement of existing features or creation of new habitats. It is anticipated that the promoted development would protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site, and would deliver further enhancements through green infrastructure. Therefore, any significant effects from the promoted development on ecology would be effectively addressed by mitigation and enhancement measures. If there are any short term impacts on ecology, the delivery of green infrastructure as part of the promoted development would reduce those impacts in the medium and longer term. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.2 (biodiversity) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.

Criteria iii of Policy HOU 5 requires connections to neighbouring areas by walking and cycling. The site is within the urban area and there are community facilities available in Elstow. There will be additional facilities delivered within the existing and planned new settlements of the South of Bedford Area. It is considered that the pedestrian and cycle connections to be delivered as part of the promoted development would enable future residents to access community facilities in the surrounding area. Pedestrian and cycle connections to the neighbouring areas. Therefore, any significant effects from the promoted development on access to community services and facilities would be effectively addressed by the delivery of pedestrian and cycle connections. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.13 (access to community services and facilities) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.
A negative effect score would remain for sustainability objective No.9 (previously developed land). However, the identified development needs for PSBLP will require both previously developed land and greenfield sites.

The requested changes set out above would confirm that the site should continue to be identified as a preferred allocation in PSBLP.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested to the assessment of Policy HOU5: Abbey Field, West of Elstow at SA Appendix pg. 174 to 175:
• The score for sustainability objective No.4 (historic environment) is changed to neutral effects in the medium and longer term.
• The score for sustainability objective No.2 (biodiversity) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.
• The score for sustainability objective No.13 (access to community services and facilities) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.
Policy EMP5: Land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow

OBJECT

The assessment for Policy EMP5: Land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow against sustainability objectives is provided as SA Appendix pg. 210 to 212. It is noted that the assessment identified a number of positive effects, which are mostly related to the location of the site adjacent to the urban area, good accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, and to the delivery of employment land. The assessment identified negative effects in the short, medium and long term for the following sustainability objectives: No.2 biodiversity; No.4 historic environment; and No.7 physical activity. Policy EMP 5 includes policy requirements to mitigate significant effects on a range of matters. The negative effects in the medium and longer term for biodiversity and the historic environment cannot be correct, because this implies that the mitigation measures identified in the site allocation policy would be ineffective.

Criteria ix of Policy EMP 5 includes a requirement for the promoted development to protect and enhance heritage assets and their setting. In addition, Policy EMP5 includes landscape and open space criteria for the promoted development, to protect the views of Elstow Abbey and the setting of Elstow village and separate development from heritage assets – see criteria iii and criteria iv. Criteria x requires an archaeological evaluation to be prepared for the site and submitted with a planning application for the promoted development. Therefore, the significant effects from the promoted development on heritage assets would be effectively addressed by mitigation measures. If there are any short term impacts on heritage assets, the design and layout of the promoted development including substantial areas of open space would reduce those impacts in the medium and longer term. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.4 (historic environment) is changed to neutral effects in the medium and longer term.

Criteria xi of Policy EMP 5 requires the submission of a wildlife and habitat survey with mitigation and enhancement measures for the promoted development, criteria vii requires the promoted development to include a green corridor, and criteria vi requires a contribution to the Forest of Marston Vale through tree planting on the site. In addition, Policy DM7 includes a policy requirement for major development to deliver a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain through enhancement of existing features or creation of new habitats. It is anticipated that the promoted development would protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site, and would deliver further enhancements as part of the green corridor and tree planting. Therefore, any significant effects from the promoted development on ecology would be effectively addressed by mitigation and enhancement measures. If there are any short term impacts on ecology, and the delivery of biodiversity enhancements, tree planting and a green corridor as part of the promoted development would reduce those impacts in the medium and longer term. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.2 (biodiversity) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.

The assessment of the site against sustainability objective No.7 (physical activity) is not relevant to the promoted development. It is not normally a requirement for employment sites to include recreation facilities. Although, the promoted development would provide pedestrian and cycle connections to enable active travel to and from the site, and includes a green corridor to provide informal recreation opportunities for future employees. It is requested that the score for sustainability objective No.7 (physical activity) is changed from negative effect to neutral effect.

A negative effect score would remain for sustainability objective No.9 (previously developed land). However, the identified development needs for PSBLP will require both previously developed land and greenfield sites.

The requested changes set out above would confirm that the site should continue to be identified as a preferred allocation in PSBLP.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested to the assessment of Policy EMP5: Land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow at SA Appendix pg. 210 to 212:
• The score for sustainability objective No.4 (historic environment) is changed to neutral effects in the medium and longer term.
• The score for sustainability objective No.2 (biodiversity) is changed to positive effects in the medium and longer term.
• The score for sustainability objective No.7 (physical activity) is changed to neutral effects in the short, medium and longer term.

Comment

Representation ID: 9970

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

In accordance with Section 19 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Incorporating the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan’s preparation, assessing the effects of the Local Plan’s proposals on sustainable development when judged against reasonable alternatives.
A critical stage of the SA process is the consideration of alternative approaches and options for delivering the objectives of the Plan. These are often topics such as housing growth and distribution, employment land delivery and site-specific options. To assess reasonable alternatives, different options for delivering the Local Plan should be developed and assessed at a strategic level against the SA objectives and baseline conditions.
A series of options for the spatial strategy are tested through the SA with option 2Bi ultimately being preferred. This option comprises of growth within the urban area, growth adjacent to the urban area, growth within the transport corridor, land within the parishes within the transport corridor and a new settlement.
Of the other options tested, Option 8 is the most similar with the key difference between the two being a choice between a new settlement or village based growth. Determining that a new settlement is preferable to village based growth is the driver for proposing a stepped trajectory. None of the options readily combine the options of a new settlement and village based growth and this is considered to be a failing of the assessment. There are always numerous options that can be assessed but it is alarming that various scales of growth to the villages have not been considered. In each of the options that include village based growth the minimum quantum of development is 4,000 dwellings. Gladman query why less development to the villages alongside the new settlement option has not been considered. Especially as all or nothing to the villages as an option is always likely to be appear more negatively in a rounded assessment.
The chosen preferred development strategy is then repeated throughout the assessment of reasonable alternatives with sites described as ‘not consistent with the Councils preferred strategy’. This is even where sites comprise part of the preferred strategy but have not been allocated. This is considered another failing of the SA that should be addressed. This suggests that the sites that would comprise some of the options were pre-determined.
This certainly seems to be the case for the sites adjoining the urban area. The SA states at paragraph 9.9:
The Council has decided that sites adjoining the edge of the urban area in most instances should not be part of the local plan strategy because, in many locations, the gap between the edge of the town and villages surrounding it is very narrow and the strategic expansion of the urban area in recent years has already reduced that separation. The Council’s strategy is not to infill those gaps but to support only two sites adjacent to the urban area, where there are clear benefits associated with delivering the Council’s strategic green infrastructure priorities.
All other sites adjoining the urban area have been ruled out in favour of the two strategic scales, even where they would not cause coalescence and provide green infrastructure benefits such as land Gladman are promoting within 0.5km of the urban area. Finally, there appear to be a number of errors in the overall assessment of Option 8 and inconsistencies between the assessment of Option 2bi which will be discussed below. Amendments to the scoring of Option 8 may change where it features within the Council’s preference and at the very least shows the importance of testing an option of village based growth but at a reduced scale.
Option 8 is marked down for potentially resulting in more trips by the private car to Bedford urban area, most of the villages already have a level of service and facility provision allowing this to be minimised in the first instance whereas a new settlement option is just as likely to increase trips to the Bedford urban area.
Growth in the villages is considered to affect the vitality and viability of the urban area, this is again just as likely through the new settlement option. Increased service provision within existing communities provides competition for the urban area whilst also allowing a potential reduction in trips to the urban area.
A reduction in carbon emissions is scored negatively in the village option due to an expected increase of the private car and commercial vehicles. This does not take account of mitigation measures such as the implementation of car clubs or mobility hubs associated with growth in the villages that would not only benefit new residents but also existing communities. Whilst an increase of the private car would also be expected with the new village option, this does not provide the opportunity to provide potential mitigation measures for existing communities like growth in the villages does.
This is just a few of the instances where the assessment of these options should be revisited. As such, Gladman remind the Council that there have now been several instances where the failure to undertake a satisfactory SA has resulted in Plans failing the test of legal compliance at Examination or being subjected to legal challenge. We reserve the right to submit further comments on the Sustainability Appraisal either in written Examination Hearing Statements or orally during Examination Hearing Sessions.

Object

Representation ID: 9989

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The approach to preparation of the Plan for Submission Local Plan 2040 is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

Old Road Securities (ORS) has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. Details of our client’s land interests are registered under Site IDs 604 (Land off Roxton Road (c.100 units) and 645 (500 units known and ‘Willoughby Park’). Indicative Masterplans for both options are provided as Appendix 1 and 2 to this form. These interests were the subject of detailed representations and comments on the proposed strategy as part of the Council’s Summer 2021 Preferred Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation. Issues identified with the proposed approach have not been addressed as part of the Council’s Plan for Submission nor have our client’s site interests been subject to any further detailed or iterative testing, as required. As such, these representations should in conjunction with our client’s previous submissions, full details of which are contained at Appendix 3.

Our main submissions concern the proposed Plan and the methodology and conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations of 2004 (SEA Regulations) are not satisfied in several respects. These concerns were first identified in a ‘Review of Draft [2021] Sustainability Appraisal Findings’ included at Appendix 6 of our client’s previous representations.

The Council has not adequately accommodated the requirements mandated by Policy 1 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the need for an immediate review in terms of assessing a full range of reasonable alternatives to the same level of detail as the selected option, namely fully assessing the potential effects of detailed site options for allocations across the settlement hierarchy.

Circularity in the site evaluation and Sustainability Appraisal processes highlights the basic faults in the Council's strategy. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process was used to determine the suitability of sites, according to paragraph 9.13 of the 2022 Sustainability Appraisal, whereas Table 2.2 of the SHLAA document justifies the exclusion of sites at Stage 1 of the assessment where they are not thought to fit the Council's chosen strategy.

This might be taken as confirmation that the Council has already decided on its preferred strategy before conducting further testing. It has also chosen not to consider all other growth options out of pure conflict with the unjustified decision to reject all village-related growth and limit any potential contribution from this component to the spatial strategy.

Not one of the proposed rural sites is deemed suitable, available, or feasible under the SHELAA process, therefore further testing is prohibited on this basis even if the SA partially recognises the option and sustainability of village-related expansion (i.e., a "reasonable alternative") (see paragraph 7.13). The sites have merely been rejected due to what seems to be a contradiction with the spatial approach; they have not been evaluated for suitability under Stage 2 of the SHLAA process or subjected to any other thorough examination. Accordingly, the assessments do not provide a robust justification for the approach taken to site selection and supporting growth.

All village sites in all settlements are judged similarly as being in conflict with the spatial plan and hence undesirable, according to the SA's unsupported conclusions, which appears to be the advocated position of the Council. The SHLAA determines that any village sites are "inconsistent" with the plan. This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that the suitability of site options should not be further evaluated, nor should strategy options for levels of growth in rural areas (or at specific settlements) be tested in greater detail or through more iterations than were undertaken prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage.

When village-related growth has been tested under the Sustainability Appraisal process, it remains the case that testing has only been done with the presumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages). This is the same approach to the Local Plan 2030, which deferred allocations to Neighbourhood Plans as part of a foreshortened plan period and prior to substantial changes to national policy in the NPPF2021. It is fundamentally unjustified, having already received on ‘reprieve’ on the requirements for sound strategic plan-making and noting failures in the delivery of the current strategy and the explicit requirements for immediate review, not to update this aspect of the methodology.

The Council’s current position is also further contradicted by the conclusions of previous SA exercises (January 2018 and September 2018) exploring options for either an increased housing requirement or extended plan period (i.e., the same as the requirements now necessitated by Policy 1) that demonstrated that higher levels of growth (4,000 or 5,100 dwellings) at Key Service Centres could be just as sustainable as new settlement options. There is therefore no justification why levels of additional growth broadly in-line with these parameters is now viewed as ‘inconsistent’ with the strategy and not capable of complementing a hybrid approach.

Whether or not the Council will unjustifiably claim it has ‘run out of time’ to look at matters in the greater detail, the Council’s position is directly at odds with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper informing the Regulation 18 Draft Plan:

“For the purpose of defining the options, assumptions need to be made about the potential capacity of each broad location for housing and employment growth. It is very important to note at this stage that these assumptions are for the purpose of testing only. They are informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process but they are not based on specific site appraisals (which will form the basis of further testing following this consultation).”

We therefore have significant concerns relating to the legal compliance of the SA sitting behind the submission version of the Local Plan. We do not consider that there has been sufficient testing of reasonable alternatives and even within the preferred approach, there appears to be a significant number of sites within the rural areas of the transport corridor that have been dismissed without justification or sufficient evidence.
Therefore, as draft we consider that the SA is not legally compliant and contributes towards the soundness failings of the wider strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 10100

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Bromham

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

OBJECT:
I. The supporting SA which seeks to justify the back-loaded delivery strategy / stepped trajectory is flawed. The SA simply concludes that the stepped trajectory’s implications for housing delivery will be ‘? uncertain’ (SA, Appendix 8, page 113, SA Objective 12).
II. For such a significant issue which goes to the heart of the whole plan and could hinder achievement of sustainability objectives for economic growth (SA objective 5), providing for residents’ needs (SA objective 13) and social cohesion (SA objective 14) as well as people’s quality of life, health and well-being, this lack of evidence and testing is a significant omission.
III. The SA rejects the entirely reasonable alternative (a central requirement of NPPG001 – SEA and SA) of delivering homes on non-strategic sites in otherwise sustainable locations - to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres - on the crude assumption that such locations will result in increased car dependency with associated negative consequences in terms of CO2 emissions and air quality. Spatial option 3c was dismissed on this basis and ‘village related growth’ considered the worst component of the strategy (SA paragraphs 7.10, 7.23 and 8.13). However, the Council have not properly assessed the capacity of the KSCs and RSCs to accommodate sustainable growth – there is no assessment of sites or individual settlements as part of the SA process.
IV. This is despite the site-specific assessments in the SA showing site options which perform as well, if not better, than the Council’s preferred strategic allocations given proximity to existing schools, facilities and high frequency public transport into Bedford (refer Appendix Ei to our main representations in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).
V. A key distinction is also that such non-strategic sites are deliverable and viable in the context of an effective plan (NPPF test of soundness 35(c)), a factor which is entirely disregard in the SA notwithstanding a cursory comment that such sites may deliver more quickly (SA paragraph 8.17, page 96, in the context of options 3b, 3c, 4 and 7 where development at KSCs and RSCs was assessed at a high level).
VI. These sites will not trigger heavy infrastructure investment in the SRN nor depend on EWR and can deliver localised improvements as necessary via the S106/CIL process. They would form part of a strategy which can meet its needs over the first 10 years of the plan, without the need for a stepped trajectory. Such non-strategic sites and locations would clearly be considered an appropriate and justified strategy under NPPF test of soundness 35(b). The adopted 2030 Local Plan directs growth to KSCs and RSCs so such a strategy would accord with BBC’s previous approach.

Object

Representation ID: 10110

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Roxton

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

OBJECT:
I. The supporting SA which seeks to justify the back-loaded delivery strategy / stepped trajectory is flawed. The SA simply concludes that the stepped trajectory’s implications for housing delivery will be ‘? uncertain’ (SA, Appendix 8, page 113, SA Objective 12).
II. For such a significant issue which goes to the heart of the whole plan and could hinder achievement of sustainability objectives for economic growth (SA objective 5), providing for residents’ needs (SA objective 13) and social cohesion (SA objective 14) as well as people’s quality of life, health and well-being, this lack of evidence and testing is a significant omission.
III. The SA rejects the entirely reasonable alternative (a central requirement of NPPG001 – SEA and SA) of delivering homes on non-strategic sites in otherwise sustainable locations - to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres - on the crude assumption that such locations will result in increased car dependency with associated negative consequences in terms of CO2 emissions and air quality. Spatial option 3c was dismissed on this basis and ‘village related growth’ considered the worst component of the strategy (SA paragraphs 7.10, 7.23 and 8.13). However, the Council have not properly assessed the capacity of the KSCs and RSCs to accommodate sustainable growth – there is no assessment of sites or individual settlements as part of the SA process.
IV. This is despite the site-specific assessments in the SA showing site options which perform as well, if not better, than the Council’s preferred strategic allocations given proximity to existing schools, facilities and high frequency public transport into Bedford (refer Appendix Ei to our main representations in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).
V. A key distinction is also that such non-strategic sites are deliverable and viable in the context of an effective plan (NPPF test of soundness 35(c)), a factor which is entirely disregard in the SA notwithstanding a cursory comment that such sites may deliver more quickly (SA paragraph 8.17, page 96, in the context of options 3b, 3c, 4 and 7 where development at KSCs and RSCs was assessed at a high level).
VI. These sites will not trigger heavy infrastructure investment in the SRN nor depend on EWR and can deliver localised improvements as necessary via the S106/CIL process. They would form part of a strategy which can meet its needs over the first 10 years of the plan, without the need for a stepped trajectory. Such non-strategic sites and locations would clearly be considered an appropriate and justified strategy under NPPF test of soundness 35(b). The adopted 2030 Local Plan directs growth to KSCs and RSCs so such a strategy would accord with BBC’s previous approach.

Object

Representation ID: 10124

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

a)
2.11
2.12
Sustainability Appraisal
In accordance with Section 19(5) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, policies set out in local plans must be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). This incorporates the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (“SEA Regulations”), SA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan’s preparation, assessing the effects of the Local Plan’s proposals on sustainable development when judge against reasonable alternatives.
Regulation 12(2)(b) of the SEA Regulations requires the SA to “identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of— (a) implementing the plan or programme; and (b)reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme.” Schedule 2, paragraph 8 requires an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken.”
2.13 These provisions have been subject to considerable litigation before the Planning Court and Court of Appeal. The courts have emphasised that such assessment must be conducted in a manner which is robust and gives proper effect to the legislation. Reasonable alternatives must be assessed in a “comparable” manner and the reasons for rejection of such alternatives must be clear (Heard v Broadland [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin), [54], [57] and [70] and Friends of the Earth v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin), [88](viii) and (ix)). An SA will be in breach of Regulation 12(2) where it contains no consideration of a reasonable alternative (Ashdown Forest Economic Development Llp v Wealden District Council [2015] EWCA Civ 681, [42]). Whilst an evaluative judgment is required, the courts will quash a plan/policy based upon an SA which does not address a matter that it must expressly deal with and thus contains a “patent defect” which has not been addressed (R(Plan B) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, [129] and [137] and Flaxby Park v Harrogate BC, [2020] EWHC 3204 (Admin), [129]
2.14 Under the PPG, It is very well-established that an SEA exercise must be “systematic” and “iterative” (PPG 11-001, 11-018); it is “integral” to the preparation and development of the plan (PPG 11-006); and it must be based on an assessment of alternatives, with clear reasons provided for the choices made (PPG 11-018).
2.15 We shall return to SEA further under Chapter 4, where we identify concerns in respect of the assessment of appropriate mitigation.
2.16 There are no shortcuts when conducting SEA/SA. The Local Plan must ensure that the results of the SA process clearly justify its policy choices. Where proposed site allocations are required, the approach taken to new growth must assess ‘all reasonable alternatives’. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of the assessment why some policy options have been progressed and others have been rejected. The Council’s decision making and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent and should be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative.
2.17 It is not permissible for an SA process simply to flag up the negative aspects of development whilst not fully considering the positive aspects which can be brought about through new opportunities for housing development and how these can influence landscape issues, social concerns and the economy.
2.18 It is therefore essential that an SEA/SA properly explains and evidences that the statutory requirements have been met. This a substantial amount of work and iteration in the testing of reasonable alternatives. It is therefore essential that the legislation is followed very carefully, and that the SA Report is examined fully to ensure compliance.
2.19 That has not occurred in this case. The SA/SEA is seriously defective in its approach to reasonable alternatives, to an extent that is unlawful.
2.20 We refer back to Chapter 2 of the Sustainability Appraisal Findings (“SA Findings Report”) (copy at Appendix 2), which were appended to the Regulation 18 representations submitted by DLP on behalf of our clients.
2.21 Alongside a detailed assessment of the legislative, policy and guidance requirements relating to Sustainability Appraisals, the SA Findings Report considered specific failings of the Regulation 18 draft version of the SA.
2.22 That can be incorporated by reference to these submissions as there has been no effective change to the SA work. Having reviewed the latest iteration of the SA in detail, it is even more evident that the process undertaken has been rushed. The SA work is not effective or justified. It has very significant gaps. There are clear defects with regard to the SEA Regulations.
2.23 We again echo our concerns, as expressed in the SA Findings Report, with regard to the Council’s decision to reject Option 3c (which includes village-related growth). This has simply not been addressed in the April 2022 SA, where the Council’s only potential claim to have explored a ‘hybrid’ option incorporating village-related growth lacks any of the iterative testing required in terms of site options, levels of growth or reasons to include or exclude other components what would in principle comprise an appropriate strategy. We consider that the approach taken by the Council remains unjustified.
2.24 The benefits of early site delivery and the delivery of community benefits should be reflected in the scoring of the SA and it should be recognised that delivery of community infrastructure is key in achieving the objectives of the SA. For sites which can deliver locally identified infrastructure requirements, such as green infrastructure (as per our clients’ land at Sharnbrook), health provision and school place provision (as per at Oakley), the SA should consider the wider benefits of the scheme to the existing population and score accordingly. This is linked more generally to the failure to reflect proposed mitigation in the SA at site level.
2.25 It is disappointing to note that our recommendation as part of our previous submission to evaluate individual sites and settlement with regard to the associated economic, social and environmental benefits, including the provision of an expanded school at Oakley, have not been taken on board and reflected in the SA Update.
2.26 We continue to support a ‘hybrid’ scenario that would contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development through village related development outside of the A421 corridor, delivering a greater balance of net gains in accordance with national policy and guidance. This is notwithstanding our continued assertion that Oakley, on the basis of the Council’s own sustainability scoring, should be moved to the Key Service Centres category of the settlement hierarchy.
2.27 We shall return to SEA matters in Chapter 4 below.

4.0 UPDATED OVERVIEW OF THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL AND SITE SELECTION PROCESS
4.1 We have set out the legislative and policy framework above in respect of SEA and SA, notably Regulation 12(2)(b) and Schedule 3, paragraph 8.
4.2 As we have set out above, we do not consider that the SA has assessed reasonable alternatives to the plan’s policies in a number of respects. We have also identified a number of other flaws, which we itemise here.
4.3 At the outset, it is apparent that there has been very limited change between the Regulation 18 version of the SA and the Regulation 19 version. This was a significant missed opportunity to conduct a proper assessment of reasonable alternatives.
i) Chapter 2: Introduction
4.4 Paragraph 2.8 sets out the paragraphs and content considered relevant to each of the Schedule 2 paragraphs 1-10. The Council consider that against each of the 10 criteria, the SA provides sufficient detail and content. However, as outlined earlier within this representation we consider that there is a failure to reflect the benefits/disbenefits of the individual sites. Aligned to this, mitigation is only considered at a higher level and the potential mitigation that would make otherwise unsustainable sites, suitable, have not been considered in sufficient detail. For example, regarding the Council’s later reference to mitigation regarding the prioritisation of delivering community services and facilities this is within the context of any site option within village locations providing for these benefits being disregarded outright. Accordingly, we do not consider that the SA as drafted is consistent with Schedule 2 of the SEA Regulations.
ii) Chapters 7 and 8: Reasonable Alternatives
4.5 Chapter 7 is the key chapter in which the Council should have set out the reasonable alternatives and then carried out the requisite comparable assessment.
4.6 At [7.12] it is explained that the “detailed work” on specific strategy options contained within the Development Strategy Topic Paper (“DSTP”) was based upon a series of assumptions as to the potential capacity of each broad location for housing growth, informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process. It is however immediately apparent in the framing of those Options at [7.13], notably Option 3c, that the assumptions artificially imposed caps on the figures for Rural Service Centres (and for Key Rural Service Centres), without reference to the call for sites process. Page 7 of the Development Strategy Topic Paper asserts that this figure was an “assumption for testing” and the “figure adopted in the Local Plan”. But this completely fails to reflect that the Local Plan 2040 was a fresh assessment, with a specific plan objective to meet the growth target. There is no reference across either SA or the DTSP to settlement capacity, e.g. availability of services. The blanket choice of 35 dwellings for the RSCs means that there has been no attempt at all to consider reasonable alternatives of figures higher than 35 in such settlements. That is notwithstanding the obvious advantages in respect of meeting the overall housing requirement, meeting local communities’ needs for housing and associated infrastructure and a range of other benefits.
4.7 From [7.17] onwards, the SA purports to conduct an assessment of detailed sites. But it consists of a series of lists that essentially summarily dismiss all such sites, purely on the basis of location/local caps. It is remarkable that the Council have not considered any “options for the sitting of development” and restricted their assessment only to “total number of dwellings in broad locations”. This is especially given the repeated recognition above each list that the sites are “potentially able to make a contribution to meeting housing or employment need”, including under [7.23] “Village related growth”. [7.23] does not provide any adequate explanation, beyond an overarching reference to village related growth being a “less sustainable type of location for growth”. Given that a number of the sites can realistically address the housing need, that explanation falls well short of what Regulation 12(3) requires.
4.8 This means that an artificial cut-off has been imposed within the SA. Broad locations outside of the urban area have not been subject to the same level and degree of testing as those within the urban area. Indeed, they simply have not been assessed at all, purely on the basis of conflict with the strategy.
4.9 We (and other consultees) have repeatedly observed that village-related growth could complement the preferred strategy, with sites that can contribute early in the plan period.
4.10 This also gives rise to serious site/settlement-level deficiencies because there has been no assessment of how benefits/disbenefits and significant environmental effects will arise from constraining growth. One such example is that Oakley, where the school expansion required at Lincroft Academy will give rise to significant positive environmental effects if delivered. However, if the Plan remains in its current form there will be significant negative environmental effects (in respect of population and transport movements and across each of the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development),
4.11 Just as in Heard and in Ashdown Forest, the SA is based on a pre-determined approach with an arbitrary cut-off. This has completely prevented assessment of a realistic option, any other level of growth within individual villages and any of the specifically identified sites.
4.12 We echo our observations above as to settlement capacity. This is an extremely well- established process, whereby the ability of a settlement to cater for specific levels of growth is undertaken. It is inherent in NPPF 20a, 23, 35 and especially 66 and 79 that individual settlement capacity must be assessed.
4.13 This is particularly important where the Council were provided with an abundant source of site-specific information through the Call for Sites. The SA literally discards this exercise as not relevant to the question of assessment.
4.14 All of these defects are then carried over into Chapter 8, notably [8.13] when the appraisal is described. It is said that there is “little to distinguish them” but that is because the options have fixed the same amount across all of the villages, without any of the requisite capacity assessment.
4.15 Turning to the question of timing after [7.24], it is stated that the options for the trajectory being both stepped and not stepped are tested. However [8.33], [9.14] and Appendix 9 do not explore how the trajectory can be met with a different strategic approach. It is said that no negative effects are identified under a stepped approach, but this wholly fails to address the problem of delays to meeting housing needs now.
iii) Chapter 9: Developing the preferred approach
4.16 The arbitrary nature of the assessment process is exemplified by [9.9] where two sites are included on the basis of meeting strategic green infrastructure priorities, without assessing the extent to which other sites can deliver the same benefit in this location or elsewhere across the Borough, within the villages.
iv)
4.17
Conclusion
In summary, this is a clear-cut case of non-compliance with Regulation 12(2)(b). In place of assessment of reasonable alternatives, there is a significant gap. Single paragraph dismissals and long lists of summarily rejected sites do not amount to a consideration of alternatives. The SA is wholly defective both legally and for the purposes of soundness.

Object

Representation ID: 10146

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roebuck Land and Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sustainability Appraisal
Fundamental to the success of the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan is the delivery of some 3,800 homes of the proposed 4,000 homes at Little Barford New Settlement within the plan period. This equates to 14% of the housing provision within the 20-year plan period. The premise of this allocation is that it is sustainable due to the proximity of the new East West Rail (EWR) station.
Given the uncertainties of EWR and particularly the section between Bedford and Cambridge, we are not satisfied that the SA objectives, assessment methodology and framework generally accord with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations.
Particularly, there is no assessment of the transport and carbon impacts of development at Little Barford should East West Rail be delayed or not delivered, including potential traffic impacts on the A428 within Huntingdonshire and Greater Cambridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 10404

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: The Executors of the late Nigel Alington

Agent: Code Development Planners Ltd

This section provides an assessment of the methodology used by BBC in carrying out the sustainability
appraisal exercise.
2.2 Appendix 1 of this representation shows CODEs interpretation of the SA process followed by BBC and
is used to provide a structure for these representations.
2.3 In considering the options, the SA first considered the amount of growth and then the options for
distribution. In considering the options for the distribution of growth, five broad components for growth
were identified and tested against the SA objectives. Subsequently various combinations of these broad components for growth were devised to form a ‘long list’ of potential growth strategies before assessing
detailed site alternatives.
3 Assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal Framework and reasonable alternatives
Sustainability appraisal objectives
3.1 The sustainability objectives have been developed following a review of relevant international and
national polices, plans and programmes, together with baseline information, taking account of
international and EC objectives. For the prevalent themes and topics identified the subsequent review
of evidence has led to the identification of key sustainability issues for which one or more objective
encapsulates the key issues that have been identified.
3.2 Having established the key issues a Sustainability Appraisal Framework has been produced. This is
the recognised way for testing social, economic and environmental effects of the local plan and
alternatives. The Sustainability Appraisal Framework is found in Appendix 1, Pg.1 of the Sustainability
Appraisal Report Appendices, (April 2022) (Appendix 2 of the representations)
3.3 CODE is broadly supportive of the approach used in identifying the sustainability appraisal objectives
and the framework applied in assessing local plan polices, proposals and objectives. However, we have
a noted amount of duplication across the assessment of Little Barford as a site in the New Settlement
Assessment Document and as a part of the local plan policy assessment for Policy HOU19.
Developing and refining options and reasonable alternatives
3.4 The following section provides a more detailed comment on the process the Council has followed in
developing a series of reasonable alternatives for growth and the assessment of those options.
Particular focus is given to the growth strategy options and the consideration of the Little Barford site
within the various options.
Options for the amount of growth
3.5 The Council has used the NPPF requirements for local planning authorities to assess local housing
needs, informed by a local housing needs assessment that is conducted using the standard method in
National Planning Practice Guidance as a starting point for considering the amount of growth the plan
will deliver.
3.6 The local housing needs assessment shows that the local plan must provide a minimum 1,355 dwellings
per year. Over the 20-year plan period the Council will therefore need to allocate land to enable a
minimum of 27,100 dwellings to be delivered. However, with existing commitments of 14,824 dwellings
there is a need to allocate sufficient land to deliver a further 12,276. The Council appointed Opinion Research Services to undertake Bedford’s local housing need assessment (May 2021) and was
prepared following the Standard Method revised as of December 2020.
3.7 In considering reasonable alternative amounts of growth to be provided by the local plan the Council
considers a figure lower than the 12,276 is not realistic due to NPPF requirement for plans to meet
assessed needs in accordance with the standard method. This is the minimum amount of growth to be
planned for and as such the Council has also assessed a higher growth figure where the local plan
would need to allocate 14,986 new dwellings. This figure has been based on a 10% uplift to the local
housing needs assessment. In assessing the options for the amount of growth, the higher growth option
shows that there were likely to be more negative effects when assessed against the sustainability
objectives. The Council concluded that the higher level of growth would exceed the identified needs
and result in a number of negative effects on the sustainability appraisal objectives which would exceed
any identified benefits and as such is not considered a reasonable option for growth. The Council
concludes that the only reasonable option for the level of growth to be planned for is the growth option
which meets the assessed housing needs for growth. We consider that the Council has sufficiently
considered the reasonable alternatives for the amount of growth.
Sustainability appraisal testing - Options for the distribution of growth – Broad spatial
components
3.8 Following the Issues and Options consultation in 2020 the Council worked to devise a strategy and
define specific strategy options for consultation in relation to the location of development. Having
consulted on six potential development locations in 2020, the Council drew these options together into
five broad components of growth:
 Within the urban area (sites within the urban area boundary).
 Adjoining the urban area (all or part of the site is within 0.5 miles of the urban area boundary).
 Village related (Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres).
 New settlements (Wyboston, Little Barford, Twinwoods, Colworth).
 A421 transport corridor with rail based growth (stations at Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby, Wixams
and at a location between St Neots and Tempsford).
- Transport corridor –growth focused on Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby and Wixams (railbased
growth)
- Transport corridor – south (the parishes of Wootton, Kempston Rural, Elstow, Wilstead,
Shortstown, Cotton Endo
- Transport corridor – east (the parishes of Cardington, Cople, Willington, Great Barford,
Roxton, Wyboston and Little Barford)
- Transport corridor – growth focused on new settlements in the A421 corridor (Wyboston and/or
Little Barford).
3.9 The broad components have been derived following the 2020 Issues and Options consultation paper
which considered six potential development locations. These were:
 Urban based
 A421 based growth
Rail growth
 East West Rail northern station growth
 Dispersed growth
 New settlement-based growth
3.10 The consultation document made clear that these locations would then form the building blocks for
potential development options for further consultation in the draft plan and made clear that the final
strategy would likely combine a number of the development locations listed above.
3.11 All of the potential spatial development options will be made up from one or several of the component
locations for growth. As an initial exercise, and before the reasonable alternatives are considered, the
Council assessed how each broad component of growth compared in principle when assessed against
the sustainability appraisal objectives.
3.12 In reviewing the broad spatial components CODE notes that the site at Little Barford has been
considered as part of two of the options, that of new settlements and as part of the A421 transport
corridor with rail-based growth. CODE contends that the proposal at Little Barford could in fact be
considered as part of a further broad spatial options component; adjacent to the urban area and benefit
from the associated sustainability benefits. The following section goes on to discuss the implications of
including the new settlement at Little Barford within this additional component.
Broad spatial component - Adjacent to the urban area
3.13 This section provides comment on the orange box within the CODE SA flow chart.
3.14 CODE would contend that the Council and the Sustainability Appraisal has failed to take into account
the relationship between the site at Little Barford and the adjoining urban area of St Neots, instead only
focusing on the areas adjoining Bedford.
3.15 The site at Little Barford shares its northern boundary with the RWE gas power plant and Alington Road Industrial Estate, which although located within Bedford Borough, is adjacent to the urban area of St
Neots, Huntingdonshire. St Neots has been identified within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 as
one of four spatial planning areas. This designation is the highest order settlement and reflects St Neots’
status as a traditional market town and as one of the most sustainable centres for development1. As
such, the site at Little Barford should be considered within the 0.5 miles of the urban area boundary
and considered as part of the broad spatial option for adjacent to urban area growth locations.
3.16 The relative positions of St Neots and Little Barford within the settlement hierarchy, with St Neots
categorised as the equivalent of a strategic or district centre and Little Barford as a local centre: key service centre (policy TC1(S)) recognises that whist the day to day needs of the residents of the new
settlement of Little Barford will be provided on site, residents would travel beyond the new settlement
for access to higher order facilities. The proximity of the two settlements to one another enables such
journeys to be made by sustainable and active modes of travel.
3.17 Recognising that the new settlement at Little Barford should also be assessed as ‘adjacent to the urban
area’ further demonstrated the site as being part of a sustainable strategy for growth when considered
against the 15 sustainability objectives and should be considered as equally, if not more sustainable
when assessed as part of the new settlement and A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth spatial
options for development. The table below ‘Summary of broad components of growth testing’ (Pg. 45,
Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices, April 2022) shows that the option for growth adjacent to
urban areas scores much more positively when considering sustainability objectives 3 - Reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency, 6 - Promote vital and viable town centres
and 15 - Reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable modes of transport. [see table in original submission]
The sustainability appraisal testing shows that development adjacent to the urban area should be
assessed as a major positive when considered against the sustainability objective to reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency. Concentrating development around existing urban
areas is likely to reduce the need to travel and the length of trips undertaken by private cars and
commercial vehicles which are a major source of emissions. In locating development close to major
destinations, in this case St Neots and the services and facilities available within, the likelihood of travel
by walking and cycling for residents and employees is increased. Concentrated development also
increases the viability of public transport which can further reduce emission levels as an alternative to
private vehicles.
3.19 Similarly locating development adjacent to the urban area also provides major positives in reducing the
need to travel and the promotion of sustainable modes of transport. Once again, the need to travel
should be reduced due to the proximity of services and facilities and the location would benefit from an
enhanced public transport service providing real alternatives to the private vehicle.
3.20 The Council’s own evidence base in relation to transport have modelled the provision of a high
frequency bus route between St Neots and Sandy, stopping at the new settlement at Little Barford,
further demonstrating the benefits associated with the new settlement proximity to an urban area
location with regards to sustainability objectives 3 and 15.
3.21 Further to the high frequency bus service the new settlement will also provide a range of alternative
sustainable transport links both within the settlement and to the neighbouring urban area of St Neots
which includes an existing station on the East Coast Main Line. [Paragraph 6.1.2, pg. 24, Transport
Technical Note, WSP, July 2022]
3.22 In light of the above, CODE contends that the Little Barford new settlement does indeed fit within the
parameters of adjacent to urban area spatial growth option and can demonstrate significant positives
associated with the sustainability objectives 3 and 15. When compared with those assessments for new
settlements and A421 transport corridor growth there is clear differences demonstrating ++
assessments against these two sustainability objectives. The rightful inclusion of Little Barford within
this board spatial growth option further demonstrates the site’s sustainability and supports the allocation
for a new settlement.
3.23 The further benefit associated with adjacent to urban area development is associated with the locations
ability to promote vital and viable town centres. In identifying the issues around employment, business,
retail and tourism which have shaped the sustainability objective 3 the Council has identified the key
issue of promoting the vitality of Bedford and Kempston town centres (Paragraph 3.71, pg. 44,
Sustainability Appraisal Report, April 2022). Whilst CODE acknowledges the Little Barford site location
is unlikely to benefit those town centres in Bedford and Kempston the site’s location on the edge of
St Neots cannot be overlooked.
St Neots will provide future residents of the new settlement with access to high order facilities such as
cinemas, and other entertainment and leisure, and a wider range of employment that will not be
provided by the new settlement. Policy HOU19 details how the new settlement will provide ‘all the key
services and facilities to address its own needs, including health, education, retail, culture and
community components.’ The need to establish and sustain these key services and facilities to address
the day to day needs of residents of the new community at Little Barford is supported by the landowners.
The Transport Technical Note (July 2022) submitted in support of these representations explains the
proposals commitment to self-sufficiency through inter alia the delivery of on-site social infrastructure
including education, health, retail, sport and leisure and other community facilities supported by digital
communications infrastructure assisting in minimising the need to travel externally from the site.
However, the sites proximity to the urban area of St Neots is a positive factor, the principle of which is
recognised in the other sections of the SA. High frequency bus service and new active travel would
connect with existing routes and the National Cycle Network will ensure there are a greater percentage
of journeys beyond the site can be undertaken by sustainable modes of transport than a site that is not
adjacent to an urban area. This should be reflected in the SA in the assessment of Little Barford. It
demonstrates that although the proximity to EWR is a significant advantage over other locations in the
choice for Little Barford as the location for a new settlement. However, even in the absence of EWR,
Little Barford’s location in the borough and its relationship to other urban areas makes is a sustainable
choice.
3.25 It would assist the BBLP2040 objective for Little Barford to cater to the day to day needs of its residents
if Policy HOU19 and TC1(S) identified the new settlement as a local centre: Key service centre.
Currently the Council has failed to designate the new settlement within the hierarchy of town centres
as set out in Policy TC1(S). CODE therefore contends that in order to deliver the required town centre
facilities as set out in Policy HOU19 the new settlement at Little Barford should be included within the
town centre hierarchy as a ‘Key Service Centre’. This would follow a similar approach to Wixams new
settlement which ‘is identified as a potential key service centre, as over the course of the plan period,
the planned town centre will be constructed and, once complete, will serve the settlement’ (Paragraph
5.7, pg. 85, Local Plan for Submission, BBC, April 2022)
3.26 Doing so would allow for the provision of town centre uses within the new settlement and, whilst not
promoting the vitality or viability of Bedford or Kempston town centres will allow for the creation of new
suitably sized key service centre, within Bedford Borough as an integral part of the new settlement at
Little Barford. The table produced under paragraph 2.5 of the Town Centre and Shopping Polices Topic
Paper (April 2022) indicates that key service centres will serve a primarily local catchment but also the
surrounding rural area through the provision of a range of shops of a local nature that could include a
small supermarket, newsagent and pharmacy type facilities. In making provision within allocation Policy
HOU19 for a defined ‘town centre’ area, BBC will remove the need to apply a sequential test for main town centre uses within the defined area. This would be one element to encourage take up and assist
in establishing, in early phases of the development, services and facilities for the community to use and
the associated sustainable travel patterns.
3.27 This demonstrates an overlap between the objectives set out within the SA where although the new
settlement at Lille Barford may not support vitality and viability within Bedford and Kempston but
benefits from enhanced the proximity to an out of district town centre with regards to objectives 3 and
15 and the desire to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and promote sustainable modes of transport.
Development strategy options
3.28 Having established the broad components for growth BBC further refined its options for growth. Using
the broad components for growth in different combinations produced 16 alternative strategies for
development. In developing these strategies BBC considered that all but two had the potential to meet
the housing and employment figures of the plan and have therefore been considered reasonable
alternatives.
3.29 These options are set out in the Development Strategy Topic Paper (Paragraph 3.13 – 3.14, pg. 8 –
21, May 2022)
3.30 Each of the 14 options have then been assessed against the 15 sustainability objectives. It is highlighted
by the Council that in some instances no difference can be distinguished between the options, as the
assessment at this stage is being undertaken at a strategic level and a number of the SA objectives
require more detail associated with specific site circumstances. This means that a meaningful
assessment of objectives relating to biodiversity, historic environment and promoting social cohesion /
preventing crime is not possible. BBC explains that ‘as a result, certain sustainability objectives have
been assessed as more significant in assessing the strategy alternatives’ (Paragraph 8.8, pg. 93,
Sustainability Appraisal Report, April 2022).
3.31 Having assessed the reasonable alternatives for the distribution of growth the Council has identified
Option 2bi as its preferred option for growth distribution. This shares housing growth between Stewartby
/ Kempston Hardwick and Wixams which has benefits for delivery, whilst maintaining a sufficient level
of growth to enable housing needs to be met and to support major strategic green infrastructure projects
(Paragraph 9.7, pg. 102, Sustainability Appraisal Report, BBC, April 2022). Additional to the growth at
Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick and Wixams this option also includes the provision of one new
settlement at either Wyboston or Little Barford.
4 Distribution of growth – detailed site alternatives
4.1 Having established a preferred strategy for the location of development the SA then moves on to
provide detailed site assessments of all the proposed sites to fit within the preferred strategy. This helps inform the process of selecting sites for inclusion within the local plan by identifying whether a
site is likely to produce positive, negative or uncertain effects in relation to the SA objectives with the
exception of new settlements which are assessed separately within the New Settlements Assessment
Topic Paper (April 2022)
New settlements assessments
4.2 This section provides comment on the yellow box within the CODE SA flow chart.
4.3 Proposals for four new settlements have been put forward in the new local plan. The Council has made
the decision that the new settlements should be assessed for allocation using a bespoke criteria
specifically designed for large, standalone developments. Details of this are set out in section 3 of the
New Settlement Assessment Document (Paragraph 3.1, pg. 4, April 2022). This includes a range of
Council identified criteria along with an assessment of each new settlement against the 15 sustainability
objectives.
4.4 In assessing the site at Little Barford the Council has failed to consider the points raised earlier in the
representations that not only does the proposal fit within the broad spatial components of ‘new
settlements’ and ‘A421 travel corridor growth’, but also as ‘development adjacent to an urban area’.
Failing to recognise the location on the edge of an urban area has resulted in what CODE considers an
inaccurate assessment of the site against some of the sustainability appraisal objectives where most
positive scores would be wholly justified. Once again these relate to issues around the reduction of
emissions of carbon dioxide and the promotion of sustainable transport methods.
4.5 The testing goes on to show that the negative effects of the assessment against the SA objectives are
less severe for Little Barford and Wyboston in relation to air quality, carbon dioxide and travel objectives
than for Colworth and Twinwoods. Paragraph 8.26 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report (April 2022)
indicates that these benefits are derivative of both Little Barford and Wyboston’s location in relation to
new stations proposed as part of the East West Rail infrastructure project. Once again CODE contends
that were proper consideration given to the site’s location adjacent to an urban area (one which includes
a railway station on the East Coast Mainline), these negative effects should in fact be considered
positive effects. The development of Little Barford not only creates a new settlement but is in a location
that facilitates journeys by sustainable and active modes of travel to higher order facilities whilst also
reducing the distance to be travelled. Locating development close to the major destinations or highlevel
facilities within the neighbouring St Neots also increases the likelihood of travelling by walking and
cycling for residents and employees.
4.6 In explaining their preference for the land at Little Barford paragraph 9.10 of the Sustainability Appraisal
Report states ‘The Council prefers Little Barford because it is more conveniently located to the planned
East West Rail interchange and avoids the loss of high quality agricultural land.’ CODE believes that the justification for the selection of Little Barford should also recognise its unique
geographical location positioned close to and well connected by sustainable and active modes of
transport to another settlement further up the settlement hierarchy in St Neots which includes a railway
station on the East Coast Mainline. The settlement hierarchy with St Neots in a higher tier of settlement
than Little Barford, protects St Neots from competition from Little Barford whilst recognising that there
will be a relationship between the two. The above representations further strengthen the allocation of
the land and Little Barford by demonstrating that enhanced levels of sustainability should be considered
when assessing the site as part of the broad spatial options considered by the Council. Had the Council
assessed the site as an edge of urban area site positive effects would have been identified when
assessed against sustainability objectives 3 and 15. In assessing the site in such a way it has become
clear that, although the Council has stated Little Barford is the preferred option as a result of its location
in relation to East West Rails proposals, the delivery of East West Rail is not fundamental to the delivery
of a self-sustaining settlement at Little Barford. Internal links within the settlement to proposed town
centre uses and external links to higher order services and facilities within St Neots, which supplement
and complement the range of facilities to be provided within the development, serve to demonstrate the
sustainability of the location and support the sites allocation.
4.8 In addition to changes in the assessment of the Little Barford new settlements sustainability scores for
objectives 3 and 15, CODE also considers there to be additional SA objectives where the proposals
have not been properly considered.
Biodiversity and green infrastructure – Protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity and habitats
4.9 As part of the New Settlements assessment the site at Little Barford has been assessed as having an
‘uncertain’ impact with regards to SA objective 2 (Pg. 32, New Settlements Assessment Topic Paper,
April 2022). As part of the Regulation 18 consultation representations and a suite of evidence was
submitted in support of the site at Little Barford, evidence which CODE feels demonstrates clear
positives when considered against the assessment criteria.
4.10 A County Wildlife Site (CWS) is located on land within the Alington Estate. The CWS designation covers
the field between Lower Farm Barns and St Deny’s Church, the adjacent grazed field to the south of
the access track to the Church and an area of wetlands/wet woodlands adjacent to the River Great
Ouse. Although no development is proposed on the CWS, it is included within the land proposed for a
new settlement allocation so that an appropriate programme of management can be implemented which
may over time enhance the grassland habitats (refer to Botany Assessment of Grassland Component
of Little Barford CWS, September 2021). Extended phase one habitat surveys have been undertaken in respect of land within the Alington Estate,
west and east of the ECM (refer to Preliminary Ecological Appraisals, September 2021 and July 2022
(PEAs)).
4.11 The PEAs establish that the site supports a range of protected species the likely impacts, mitigations
and enhancement measures have been considered. The PEA concludes that with suitable measures
there will be no negative residual effects associated with the development. Further details can be seen
in table 8 of the PEA.
4.12 PEAs have been undertaken for the site and established that, “Through incorporation of further surveys,
mitigation, and precautionary methods, it is considered that the site could deliver a significant
biodiversity net gain in terms of measures to support high value habitats and protected species and to
carry this out in line with current wildlife legislation, chapter 15 of the NPPF (MHCLG, 2021); and local
planning policies relevant to ecology.” (Paragraph 5.2, pg.26, PEA, SES, September 2021). The
proposed development provides an opportunity to deliver landscape scale biodiversity benefits that
enhance habitats within and adjacent to the River Great Ouse floodplain and strengthen the ecological
connectivity for priority habitats and protected and notable species. Furthermore, the relevant
documents (as set out in paragraph 1.5) are submitted in support of these representations so they can
continue to be considered as part of the local plan preparation process.
4.13 The most western area of the site is within the Lower Great Ouse River Valley green infrastructure
opportunity zone under Policy AD24 of the Bedford Borough Allocations and Designations Local Plan,
July 2013. Paragraph 6.3 of the Transport Technical Note (July 2022) explains of the feasibility and
deliverability of a multi-user route along the River Great Ouse will be considered as an option to
accommodate pedestrians and cyclists travelling through the site. This again supports the SA objective
and evidence has been prepared to demonstrate positive effects of the proposal in relation to its
delivery.
4.14 Having regard to the above CODE therefore contends that the proposal site at Little Barford should be
assessed as at least having minor positive impacts in the delivery of SA objective 2.
Appraisal findings – the preferred approach
4.15 Having assessed the reasonable alternatives for the distribution of growth the Council has identified
Option 2bi as its preferred option for growth distribution and includes a new settlement at either
Wyboston of Little Barford. The Council has chosen this despite option 2a being the best performing
option for the distribution of growth when considered against the sustainability objectives. Paragraph
9.5 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report (April 2022) explains that the decision has been made
‘because of its [Option a’s] extremely high concentration of growth on one location at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick, which presents challenges of delivery and increased risks to the plan’s delivery
as a whole.’
4.16 Paragraph 10.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report (April 2022) explains the main focuses of the
preferred option and includes reference to ‘a new settlement and related employment provision at Little
Barford well connected to the new East West Rail interchange with the East Coast Main Line.’
4.17 In assessing the new settlement proposals against the sustainability objectives (part of the New
Settlements Assessment criteria) both Little Barford and Wyboston perform better the Twinwoods and
Colworth. The Council considers both Little Barford and Wyboston to be consistent with the Councils’
preferred broad spatial option for growth which concentrates growth within the A421 transport corridor
with rail-based growth.
4.18 The sustainability appraisal testing has shown that each site can deliver positive effects, particularly in
relation to the following sustainability appraisal objectives:
 Promote strong, sustained and balanced economic growth, stimulating job creation across a range
of sectors.
 Encourage and support physical activity.
 Protect the quantity and quality of water resources.
 Promote good quality housing, ensuring an appropriate mix of house types and sizes.
 Provide for residents’ needs and improve access to community services and facilities.
 Promote social cohesion, the prevention of crime and reduce the fear of crime.
4.19 The Council explains that in choosing between Little Barford and Wyboston the preferred option is Little
Barford because it is more conveniently located to the planned East West Rail interchange and avoids
the loss of high-quality agricultural land.
4.20 This fits in with the Council’s preferred strategy for growth locations within the A421 transport corridor
and with potential rail-based growth. However, these representations have demonstrated that the site
at Little Barford should not be considered solely as a location for rail-based growth in respect of reliance
upon EWR. The location on the edge of St Neots has considerable sustainability benefits which have
not been fully assessed by the Council but are raised within this representation. Assessing the site in
this manner clearly shows additional positives when assessed against the SA objectives and would
further strengthen the allocation.
4.21 Having established the preferred option, this is then tested against the sustainability appraisal
objectives with the results shown in paragraph 10.3 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report (April 2022)
This is a broad assessment of the preferred option as a whole and is then followed by an assessment
against the SA objectives of the draft local plan for submission to the Planning Inspectorate for
examination on a policy-by-policy basis.
Sustainability appraisal testing – Local Plan Polices - Policy Hou19 Little Barford new settlement
4.22 This section provides comment on the green box within the CODE SA flow chart
4.23 The SA appraises each of the polices that are included in the draft plan for submission. The policies
are evaluated against the Sustainability Appraisal Framework (Appendix 1, Pg.1 of the Sustainability
Appraisal Report Appendices, April 2022). Each policy is assessed to determine whether it supports
or conflicts with each sustainability objective, the size of impact and how this may change over time.
The assessment of the sites that are development allocations in the local plan is based on the detailed
site assessment questions of the Sustainability Appraisal Framework. The assessment in full is set out
in Appendix 11 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report, where new settlements are assessed in the
separate New Settlement Assessment Topic Paper.
4.24 There appears to be some conflict or confusion around the exact methodology of assessment for the
new settlements and the criteria they have been assessed against. Accounting for the above the
Council has previously explained that the assessment of the four new settlement proposals is
undertaken using bespoke criteria specifically designed for large, standalone developments as
explained and set out in the New Settlements Assessment Topic Paper (April 2022).
4.25 We agree with the overall conclusions and outcomes, but CODE has identified inconsistencies across
the assessment of SA objectives 3, 6, 7, 13 and 15 where some of the objectives seem to recognise
the benefits associated with the site’s location on the edge of St Neots whilst the assessment of other
objectives fails to do so. Objectives 3 and 15 have, as above been highlighted, as objectives improperly
assessed. Corrections to the inconsistencies we raise in the assessment would only reinforce the result
that Little Barford is a sustainable location for new settlement growth.
SA objective 3. Reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency
4.26 The Council has commented that as a ‘self-contained’ new settlement it is expected that the settlement
be largely self-supporting in terms of amenities and services and therefore reduces the needs for
residents to travel outside of the settlement. Where travel, out from the settlement is required walking
and cycling provision, together with the high frequency bus service between St Neots and Sandy means
there is the potential to minimise car use. As explained in the table on page 36 of the Sustainability
Appraisal Appendix ‘Ensuring that major destinations are close together means that there is a greater
likelihood of travel by walking and cycling for residents and employees. Concentrated development also
increases the viability of public transport, which is a lower producer of carbon dioxide per head than
private car travel.’ And should be considered a major positive when assessed against the SA objective.
This is before considering the additional sustainability benefits and public transport options that could
be further provided by the East West Rail line. SA objective 15. Reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable modes of transport.
4.27 The assessment of policy HOU19 against SA objective 15 has resulted in the scoring of minor negative
effects across the short, medium and long term. The comments provided by the Council explains that
a self-contained new settlement would be expected to be largely self-supporting in terms of amenities
and services thus reducing the need for residents to travel outside of the settlement. Walking and
cycling provision, together with improved bus links to St Neots and proximity to a planned East West
Rail station mean that car use is likely to be minimised. However, there are still likely to be trips by car
for employment and services that cannot be met within the settlement and are not easily accessible by
public transport.
4.28 CODE would refute the final sentence of the Council’s assessment and highlight the assessment SA
objective 15 when considered against the edge of urban area growth spatial option. Scoring a major
positive it is recognised that ‘Concentrating development is likely to reduce the need to travel and length
of travel by private car and commercial vehicles. Ensuring that major destinations are close together
means that there is a greater likelihood of travel by walking and cycling by residents and employees.
Concentrated development also increases the viability of public transport.’ (Sustainability appraisal
testing, broad components of growth, Adjacent to urban area table, pg. 35 - 38, Sustainability Appraisal
Report Appendices, April 2022)
4.29 The location of Little Barford adjacent to St Neots will provide future residents of the new settlement
with access to high order services and facilities that may not be provided by the new settlement itself.
Access to these facilities will be promoted through a range of sustainable modes including walking and
cycling [Transport report, WSP, July 2022] or public transport facilities (high frequency bus service
between St Neots and Sandy) [Transport report, WSP, July 2022].
4.30 East West Rail would provide an additional benefit by providing a sustainable alternative to the car for
those long-distance journeys. However, given the proximity of St Neots and the high order facilities that
are on offer there it is considered that a majority of the needs of future residents of the new settlement
at Little Barford could be met whether by the settlement itself or St Neots train station.
5 Conclusions
5.1 CODE Development Planners considers that the BBLP 2040 is broadly in accordance with the legal
requirements and meets the tests of soundness have been met.
5.2 Despite this CODE has some concerns over the assessment of the site at Little Barford and the
application of assessments of broad spatial components in assessing the sustainability of the site. In
recognising the site’s location on the edge of St Neots the Council would identify additional positive
effects against sustainability objectives 3 and 15 of both the site assessment and assessment of Policy HOU19. Assessing the site with proper consideration of the location on the edge of St Neots provides
further justification for the allocation, additional to the Councils reasoning for allocating. The Council
have stated that Little Barford is the preferred option for a new settlement because of its convenient
location in relation to the planned East West Rail interchange and because the site avoids the loss of
high-quality agricultural land. The above representations have demonstrated that whilst the site does
benefit from the East West Rail the selection of Little Barford new settlement is justified even in the
absence of East West Rail. Where there is a need to leave the new settlement the location adjacent to
St Neots and planned pedestrian, cycle and public transport enhancements provide highly sustainable
means of access. [See appendices in attachment.]