Site ID: 907

Showing comments and forms 31 to 54 of 54

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 6637

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Potts

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 6780

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Ms S Kelly

Representation Summary:

We support development of this site. It is adjacent to the urban area and to the likely location of the new East West rail station. It therefore provides options for genuinely sustainable transport as both stations in St Neots are likely to be within walking / cycling distance It is also a smaller site so it would not grow into a new town of 10,800 homes as Dennybrook could. A much larger development such as Dennybrook would have a significant impact on St Neots and its services whereas Little Barford is smaller and would have a lower impact on the town. It is also on the side of St Neots where strategic, planned growth is already happening (Loves Farm and Wintringham Park to the east), unlike Dennybrook which is positioned to the west where the A1 has always provided a clear dividing line between urban to the east and rural land to the west.
Much of the site appears to be grade 3 agricultural land in contrast with Dennybrook which is grade 2.
Little Barford has good connectivity to the A428 (existing and new) and A1.

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 6833

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Damian Smith

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7100

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: June Coles

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7147

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Stephen Coles

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7227

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Knight

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7267

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Laura Jones

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7327

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Becky Browning

Representation Summary:

Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7367

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: St Neots Town Council

Representation Summary:

Summary of points raised:
– There is no reference to the additional services which will be provided to support the new population, assurances that it will be sufficient, or guarantees that it will be delivered.

– Projections of the impact on emergency services are not provided, projections of crime levels in the Eatons and across St Neots, and the planned policing enhancements required to meet that risk.

– Projections of the impact on the London rail link from St Neots station which is already overcrowded and causes significant problems with commuter parking on Loves Farm.

– Assumptions are made around the potential road and rail links being considered, without commentary on mitigations if those plans change
– There is no consideration to the St Neots economy or view on how the settlement will be beneficial to local businesses.
– There is also no reference to any specific steps being taken in housing planning to address the climate emergency.
– The flood risk is also not addressed, the impact of replacing green fields with concrete and tarmac and how the increased flood risk to St Neots will be mitigated.

– The area currently used by St Neots residents for dog walking, running, cycling and other recreational activity will be lost.

IMPACT ON ST. NEOTS SERVICES
Our most significant concern relates to the impact of the proposed Wyboston, Little Barford (and Tempsford) developments, the residents of which are likely to rely heavily on services provided for St Neots, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire taxpayers, without contributing

financially to their provision. It seems unlikely that the needs of these new residents will be completely met by the developers of these settlements.

St Neots Town Council is concerned that the town’s schools, doctors, care facilities, recycling facilities etc will feel the effects of the new population by virtue of the fact that the town is closer than Bedford.
– Please provide details of the local facilities and assurance from Bedford Borough Council that all planned facilities will be delivered.
St Neots Town Council also requests that projections of the impacts on emergency services are also provided, in particular, community policing. St Neots local policing has been defunded and reduced over many years and is not in a position to effectively manage undesirable elements which will inevitably arrive with such an expansion in population. County Lines operations show that crime does not stay within the local area and so it’s a realistic prospect that if not properly managed in Bedfordshire that St Neots residents will feel the effects.
– Please provide emergency service impact projections, including additional detail on projected crime levels and mitigation.

ROAD AND RAIL LINKS
We acknowledge that there is an opportunity for the Wyboston development to address the long-standing issue of HGVs coming through the Eatons from Staughton Airfield, which have posed a danger to St Neots residents for many years. It is expected that the new development will give an alternative route for these lorries to take, the present objections to weight limits on Bushmead Road will be removed and the way clear for Bedford Council to take the right action.

– Please can Bedford Council confirm that this will be the case and that the long-requested weight restrictions on Bushmead Road can be implemented.
Another long-standing issue for residents of the Eatons is the lack of pedestrian access to the industrial estates near the A1/A428 roundabout. Given that this is likely to be a key employment area for residents of the Wyboston and Little Barford developments, serious consideration needs to be given to access to employment in St Neots. It is not in line with the Town Council’s declaration of a climate emergency (2019) to assume that anyone employed in this area will drive, the plan needs to include pedestrian and cyclist access to this area.

– Please provide assurance and plans to meet pedestrian requirements crossing the A1/A428 roundabout.
The most important topics under review at the moment are East-West Rail (EWR) and the A428 upgrade. The 2040 Local Plan document is unclear on:
– how either of these major infrastructure projects works with the development, especially considering uncertainty about the EWR route selection.
– what dialogue is being had between the three programs or the impact of potential changes to (or cancellation of) either transport link.
– How access from the new development to the existing St Neots station, or the potential new St Neots South station will be managed in terms of projected volumes of commuters and the handling of the additional transport burden.
– Please address all three of these points in full.

ST. NEOTS ECONOMY
It is the view of the council that it is essential that any new development brings benefit to the town and supports the growth of the local economy. Central Government and Huntingdonshire District Council are investing heavily in the high street in the coming years making the town a cultural, retail and hospitality destination in the region.

Section 5 of the plan describes the hierarchy of town centres in the area in some depth but fails to acknowledge the significant presence of St Neots Town Centre - which is significantly larger than that of any of the settlements listed with the sole exception of Bedford.
– Please provide projections of the impact and benefit to the St Neots High Street and local businesses.

CARBON NEUTRALITY
St Neots Town Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and through various initiatives under the banner of Neot Zero, is striving to help local businesses and residents cut their carbon emissions by 2030.

While the proposed Wyboston and Little Barford developments do not fall under our jurisdiction, it is not in keeping with the spirit of the town’s objectives that new developments are built so close without reasonable facilities to ensure that all the new homes are able to be run carbon neutral.
– Please provide full details of all housing specifications that support carbon neutrality and evidence that the development will aspire in its entirety to be maintained carbon neutral or carbon negative.

FLOODING
In 2020 St Neots suffered three significant flooding events with a considerable loss of property to many residents. There is a concern that replacing farmland with hard surfaces would risk surges into the River Great Ouse and increase the flooding risk to St Neots. Locally Loves Farm and Wintringham have both been built with this in mind using balancing ponds and other measures to offset the risk, the council would like to understand more about the flooding risks identified, the potential impact to St Neots and the mitigations in place.
– Please provide a full environmental risk assessment covering St Neots.

LOSS OF RECREATION SPACE
The most noticeable immediate impact on St Neots residents will be the destruction of large swathes of the natural area which is presently enjoyed by dog walkers, runners and cyclists all year round. The public rights of way will no longer provide what our residents currently have access to, although the 2040 plan describes the importance of health and wellbeing from outdoor exercise it seems to be taking a popular facility away from those who use it today for precisely that purpose.

Presented above are the initial thoughts of the Town Council in relation to what is clearly an early document, however, we trust that the views of the council will be taken into consideration. We look forward to both your responses to our comments and being part of future consultation on the project.

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7384

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Goodship

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7532

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hambleton

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7586

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Nicola Tagg

Representation Summary:

Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7908

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: The Executors of the late Nigel Alington

Agent: Code Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

These representations have been prepared by CODE Development Planners on behalf of the Executors
of the late Nigel Alington in relation to the draft policies and evidence base of the regulation 18 Bedford
Borough Local Plan 2040 (BBLP 2040). These representations are for land at Little Barford, east
and west of Barford Road, east of the East Coast Mainline railway (ECM) and west of the Black Cat to
Caxton Gibbet A428 road improvement (refer to enclosed drawing 068-001-012).
These representations and the accompanying technical documents demonstrate that further
assessments and refinements to the proposals submitted to the call for sites and issues and options
consultations during August and September 2020, have improved the proposals’ scores when
assessed against Bedford Borough Council’s (BBC) Site Selection Methodology, June 2021.
These representations are accompanied and supported by the following technical documents:
 Drawing 068-001-012: Areas available for local plan promotion;
 Drawing 60830-PP-500 A: Highway access and development parcels – new settlement (BBLP
2040 reg 18 options 2b, 2c and 2d);
 Drawing 60830-PP-501: Highway access and development parcels – parish growth (BBLP 2040
reg 18 option 2d);
 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, September 2021 (issue 3) prepared by Southern Ecological
Solutions;
 Botany Assessment of Grassland Component of Little Barford CWS, September 2021 (issue 2)
prepared by Southern Ecological Solutions;
 Botany Assessment of RWE Buffer, September 2021 (issue 3) prepared by Southern Ecological
Solutions;
 Transport Assessment, September 2021 prepared by Richard Jackson Ltd incorporating the
following:
- Drawing 60830-PP-014A: Sustainable travel options plan;
- Drawing 60830-PP-017: Proposed A428 grade separated junction location;
- Drawing 60830-S-004: Bridge at section 2 general arrangements and typical details;
- Drawing 60830-S-005: Bridge at section 9 general arrangements and typical details;
- Sustainable Transportation Technical Note, September 2021;
 Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), June 2021 (revision A) prepared by Richard
Jackson Ltd;
 Surface Water Strategy, August 2021 prepared by Richard Jackson Ltd incorporating the following:
- Drawing 60830-PP-200: Surface water strategy (sheet 1 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-201: Surface water strategy (sheet 2 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-202: Surface water strategy (sheet 3 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-203: Surface water strategy (sheet 4 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-204: Surface water strategy (sheet 5 of 5);
 Services Technical Note, September 2021 prepared by Richard Jackson Ltd incorporating the
following;
- Drawing 60830-PP-100A: Existing service records (sheet 1 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-101A: Existing service records (sheet 2 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-102: Existing service records (sheet 3 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-103: Existing service records (sheet 4 of 5);
- Drawing 60830-PP-104: Existing service records (sheet 5 of 5);
 Tree Constraints Report, September 2021 (revision A) prepared by Southern Ecological Solutions
incorporating the following:
- Tree Survey Schedule;
- Tree Survey and Constraints Plan.
2 Proposals being promoted
The three proposals (AL1, AL2 and AL3) submitted during the call for sites and issues and options
stages of local plan preparation are superseded by two proposals, one for a new settlement and the
other for parish growth as outlined in the Growth and Spatial Strategy Options 2b, 2c and 2d of the
BBLP 2040 – Draft Plan Strategy Options and Draft Policies Consultation, June 2021 (refer to drawings
60830-PP-500 A and 60830-PP-501).
This site areas are 310 ha for the new settlement proposal and 28.68 ha for the parish growth proposal.
In both scenarios not all the land is proposed for development. Technical assessments are on-going to
establish a net developable area and a capacity study will be submitted at an appropriate stage in the
preparation of the BBLP 2040.
Based on technical assessments undertaken to date (the scope of which is considered proportionate
to this stage of the preparation of the BBLP-2040) the new settlement proposal is capable of delivering
circa 4,000 new homes and circa 3.61 ha of employment land. The parish growth proposal is capable of delivering circa 200 new homes circa 3.61 ha of employment land. Development of the chosen
proposal will be supported by appropriate infrastructure.
3 Site Selection Methodology Sustainability Objective Questions
BBC has tested the sustainability of each site by asking a series of assessment questions in relation to
sustainability objectives. Paragraph 4 of the BBLP 2040 Site Assessment Pro Formas, June 2021
document states, “At this stage, factual and technical information is being gathered about the site
submissions and it is important to note that this site assessment work in not yet complete.” To assist
BBC in this process this representation includes information to enable BBC to update the responses to
the assessment questions.
The following sections correspond with those set out in BBC’s Site Selection Methodology, June 2021.
Each of the following sections begin with the assessment question/s posed under each topic heading
within the Site Selection Methodology and the score given to the proposals (in the form they were
submitted to the call for sites and issues and options stages of local plan preparation) in the Site
Assessment Pro Formas, June 2021. Where necessary these representations provide updated
information from the technical reports prepared on behalf of the Executors and/or refinements to the
proposals resulting from the technical reports.
4 Sustainability objective | assessment question | air quality - improve air quality
1a Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small
settlement?
It is recognised that the proposals being promoted at Little Barford (parish growth (transport corridor:
east) option and new settlement option) are “not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined
settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement” as defined by policies S5 and 6 of
the BBLP 2030. However, the Site Selection Methodology, June 2021 does not include criteria which
assess the positive impact an allocation could have on the preservation and enhancement of settlement
features of those settlements which currently do not consist of 30 or more dwellings, regardless of
whether the settlement comprises a distinct group of buildings. The village of Little Barford contains
several listed buildings and other non-designated settlement features which would benefit from
sensitive new development to enhance the vitality of place and viability of suitable uses for some of the
vacant listed buildings.
The proposals would create a defined settlement policy area for Little Barford. We support the growth
and spatial strategy options, 2b, 2c and 2d set out in the BBLP 2040 Draft Plan Strategy Options and
Draft Policies Consultation document. These provide a framework for allocations at Little Barford of a
scale that could facilitate the preservation and enhancement of its existing settlement features.
With significant planned strategic, infrastructure development in the form of the A428 Black Cat to
Caxton Gibbet, road improvement and potential future strategic infrastructure related to East West Rail
(EWR) routes and station options, in or in close proximity to the parish of Little Barford, a plan led
approach is needed. Paragraph 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that
“plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing
needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities”. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF goes on
to state that, “Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic
environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This
strategy should take into account:
a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them
to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic
environment can bring;
c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness; and
d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of
place.”
The new settlement proposal for circa 4,000 new dwellings and associated infrastructure is proposed
to cater for the day to day needs of its residents. In the early years higher order facilities will be accessed
in St Neots. Early provision of facilities and community infrastructure will support the residents of the
new settlement. A sustainable transport technical note has been submitted with these representations
proposing a cycleway/footway between the development (parish growth and new settlement) and
St Neots and the phased provision of further cycleways and public transport provision as the
development progresses. Again, we consider that proposals for parish growth or new settlement at
Little Barford would create a new “settlement policy area.”
1b Accessibility on foot to a food store?
The parish growth option proposal for the Alington Estate would rely on St Neots for access to day to
day and higher order facilities. Subject to the timing of community infrastructure as part of the new
settlement proposal it is possible that residents of the early phases of the development will access the
higher order facilities in St Neots. Access to these facilities is proposed via on and off-site improvements
to pedestrian and cycle routes (refer to drawing 60830-PP-014A: Sustainable travel options plan). The
Sustainable Transportation Technical Note, September 2021 provides details for the provision of
shared use cycleways from the northern access of the site into St Neots. These proposals also include
road crossing facilities at the existing A428 and B1043, providing future residents with safe and
convenient foot or cycle access to the Tesco superstore located in St Neots.
Additionally, the proposed B1043 crossing location has been identified as part of an existing ‘desire
line’ for pedestrians from the housing developments to the east in St Neots. The proposals provide
betterment for these users through the provision of a safe crossing point across the B1043.
The Sustainable Transportation Technical Note, September 2021 sets out proposals for providing
access to identified locations. The new settlement option at Little Barford includes the onsite provision
of a 2ha site for a supermarket, schools and other facilities to establish, within the new settlement, an
area that will function as a “key service centre”. Details of the timing of provision of sustainable travel
measures and other infrastructure associated with the development, including on site services and
facilities, will be considered at a later stage in the preparation of the BBLP 2040.
1c Accessible on foot to a primary school?
A proposal for a new settlement at the Alington Estate, Little Barford is of a scale that includes on site
provision of two primary and one all through school (or one secondary school and one additional primary
school). It is anticipated that the number of schools and the number of forms of entry will be defined in
the policy wording associated with the allocation of a new settlement. On site provision of schools will
require the local education authority to share formal playing pitches with the community. The location
of these facilities will be designed to create safe routes to schools to encourage pupils to walk and cycle
between home and facilities.
On site services and facilities including a network of sustainable travel measures will be provided as
the development phases progress. Phases will accord with an agreed phasing strategy to ensure
development and infrastructure is delivered to achieve sustainable development.
1d Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?
In addition, the proposals’ (parish growth and new settlement options) inclusion circa 3.61 ha of
employment land, RWE’s gas power plant and the Alington Road Industrial Estate are walking distance
from the site. Drawing 60830-PP-014A: Sustainable travel options identifies the pedestrian and cycle
infrastructure improvements proposed as part of the proposals.
Currently the public transport for Little Barford is of a poor standard where only a single service runs
between Biggleswade and St Neots on a Thursday. The drawing also identifies the principle for a bus
route through the site. The proposed public transport scheme would greatly enhance accessibility to
public transport and all development would ideally be within 400m of the main public transport corridors.
Bus services would run at an improved frequency to meet demand and local policy. Until the location
of the EWR station is known it is anticipated that the destination for the bus would be St Neots town
centre, passing the Tesco’s store, leisure centre and Ernulf Academy for secondary education.
Land east of the East Coast Mainline (ECM) railway within the new settlement proposal at the Alington
Estate would be approximately 1,200m from the proposed bus route. To ensure public transport remains an attractive option the bus route could be diverted into the development parcel and then return
to Barford Road on an occasional basis. Additional consideration will be given to the inclusion within
the site of a public transport hub to assist residents walking or cycling from east of the ECM with access
to the bus service.
1e Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.
5 Sustainability objective | assessment question | biodiversity and green infrastructure – protect,
maintain and enhance biodiversity and habitats
2a Within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance / habitat or principal importance /
within the impact risk zone of a SSSI / Natura 2000 site?
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.
Following the call for sites submission further assessments have been undertaken which have resulted
in the field between St Deny’s Church and Lower Farm Barns being excluded from development. The
field to the south is also excluded from development. The western areas of wetland and wet woodland
are located within the flood zone and, as explained in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, are not
proposed for development.
Although this does not form part of parish growth option it is included as part of the new settlement
option. However, 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). Areas within the extent of the CWS
are also of heritage interest and the opportunity exists through the allocation of the new settlement
proposal to provide interpretation media and sensitively create a resource accessible to the public as
multi-functional informal recreational open space.
2b In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
An extended phase one habitat survey has been undertaken in respect of land within the Alington
Estate, west of the ECM (refer to Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, September 2021 (PEA)). The
assessment confirmed that the part of the site surveyed has the potential to support protected and
notable species of flora and fauna and concluded that the site supports a range of protected and priority habitats predominantly within the area west of the Barford Road, much of which is within or adjacent to
the River Great Ouse floodplain. There are also extensive areas of lower value, farmland habitats east
of the Barford Road and west of the ECM. The areas surveyed provide suitable habitat for a number
of protected and/or notable species.
Having established 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.
The remainder of the site being promoted for a new settlement (land east of the ECM and west of the
A428 improvement) will be surveyed ahead of the regulation 19 consultation for the BBLP 2040. Due
to time constraints the focus has been to survey land west of the ECM. Any issues in this area from an
ecological perspective might, together with other potential constraints such as heritage, high pressure
gas main and high voltage overhead powerline had the potential for a greater impact on the deliver of
housing numbers. There is sufficient flexibility in the size of the area of land on the east of the ECM to
satisfactorily address ecological constraints that might arise.
2c Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity on site?
A PEA has 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, p.26, PEA, SES). 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.
2d Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
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. The policy has identified six areas across the borough where there is the greatest potential
to maintain and enhance the multi-functional nature of green infrastructure against five themes of
landscape, historic environment, biodiversity, accessible green space and access routes.
The sustainable transportation technical note submitted as part of these representations provides
details on how a Public Right of Way (PRoW) is within the development parcel from the northwest
corner of development near the southwest corner of the power station providing a sustainable link to
St Neots. It is suggested that the route is suitable for a recreational footpath and riverside walk (paragraph 2.4, pg. 2, Sustainable Transportation Technical Note, September 2021). The existing
footpath heads north through an area of woodland that has the potential as part of a new settlement
allocation for enhancement including seating, way markings or information boards with items of interest
(wildlife, heritage etc) identified. The enhancement of the ‘green access routes’ accords with the Lower
Great Ouse River Valley specific targets.
Subject to arboricultural constraints and livestock considerations, a continuous leisure route adjacent
to the Great River Ouse could be delivered on land within the control of the Alington Estate.
Opportunities to create circular loops off this riverside leisure route to connect with St Deny’s Church
could be considered as further assessments are undertaken as part of the promotion of the new
settlement option.
In addition to specific fields on the west of Barford Road being excluded from development, with the
exception of the scrub/woodland immediately south of RWE and woodland in the location of the
proposed southern bridge crossing the ECM, the objective is to seek to retain the existing woodlands
on site and through the new settlement option, link these through multifunctional green corridors.
6 Sustainability objective | assessment question | climate change and energy – reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency
3a Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
Further investigation is required to ascertain if a renewable energy generation scheme or efficiency
standards that go beyond normal requirements are achievable. No commitment can be made at this
stage in the preparation of the BBLP 2040.
3b Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small
settlement? Assessment as for 1a.
3c Accessibility on foot to a food store? Assessment as for 1b.
3d Accessibility on foot to a primary school? Assessment as for 1c.
3e Accessibility on foot or by bus to a major employer? Assessment as for 1d.
7 Sustainability objective | assessment question | cultural heritage and historic environment –
conserve, sustain and enhance the historic environment
4a Likely to impact on designated or non-designated heritage assets or their settings?
Following the call for sites, further assessment has been undertaken and has resulted in the field
between St Deny’s Church and Lower Farm Barns being excluded from development. This means that
both the above and below ground archaeological remains of a medieval village and former location of
a 19th century parkland (Boat House Field and The Park) will not be developed. Furthermore, land to the southwest of Barford Road, which is within the functional flood plain, but which also has visual
evidence of ridge and furrow is also not proposed for development.
At Lower Farm Barns, whilst functional uses need to be found for the buildings and therefore
development of the complex would be necessary this will be done in a manner that will not lead to
substantial harm under the definition of paragraph 200 of the NPPF. Similarly, the non-designated
heritage assets of the gate lodges and former schoolhouse will be incorporated into the development
but as buildings that will provide a sense of place.
The extent of the settings of the listed buildings (Lower Farm Barns, Lower Farmhouse, and 1-4 The
Cottages) will be defined ahead of the regulation 19 stage of BBLP 2040 preparation. However, the
quantum of development proposed and set out elsewhere in these representations has made an
allowance within ‘development areas DA3 and DA6’ (identified on drawings 60830-PP-500 A (new
settlement proposal) and 60830-PP-501 (parish growth)) in anticipation that part of these development
parcels will require sensitive development and will possibly require certain areas to remain
undeveloped. Any reduction in net developable area as a consequence to the settings of listed buildings
is not anticipated to reduce the delivery of new homes proposed to contribute to BBC’s housing
requirement.
In other words, the housing numbers put forward are on the conservative side and therefore, even with
further refinement of the net developable area, the proposals will achieve circa 200 homes in relation
to the parish growth option and circa 4,000 new homes from the new settlement option.
8 Sustainability objective | assessment question | employment, business, retail and tourism –
promote strong, sustained and balanced economic growth, stimulating job creation across a
range of sectors
5a Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
The Bedford Borough Employment Land Study Part One (BBELS) identifies a quantitative requirement
for additional B class employment land of 171ha to 2040, split roughly 40% offices, 30% industry and
30% warehousing. Accounting for the existing available supply of 48ha of land, the draft BBLP 2040
proposes there is a need to identify 123ha of B class employment land. It further proposes that 60ha of
this is required for two new business parks, leaving 63ha to be allocated up to 2040 for further general
employment uses, split between office, industry and warehousing.
The BBELS further explains that in addition to existing available sites in the borough, the need for largescale
warehousing over the plan period in the area is likely to be fully met by extensive allocations for
strategic warehousing in Central Bedfordshire. As a result, it states that it is unlikely that more land for
warehousing needs to be allocated in the BBLP 2040 and the 63ha requirement for 2040 should be allocated on smaller sites which are more likely to be attractive for office and general industrial purposes
rather than large scale warehousing.
The call for sites representation submitted on behalf of the Executors of the late Nigel Alington,
proposed B1: 9,616m2 to 20,244m2 or B2: 7,191m2 to 15,176m2 or B8: 6,568m2 to 13,861m2 or a mix
of these uses (mix subject to employment evidence). Whilst 3.25ha of employment land is indicatively
shown west of Barford Road for both the parish growth and new settlement options, development areas
DA1 and DA2 will increase following the grounding of existing overhead powerlines. This work is
currently being undertaken.
The employment area will increase to 3.61ha and help contribute towards the borough’s overall
employment needs. It would be suitable for the development of both office and industry as identified by
the BBELS.
The location of employment land to be provided as part of the proposals, for either the parish growth
option or new settlement option, is subject to the impact of planned and potential strategic infrastructure
(A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet road improvement and EWR). Were the site to secure allocation this
would be considered as part of the masterplanning process.
In 2019, EWR announced a preferred route option for the section of the line between Bedford and
Cambridge. Between 31 March and 9 June 2021 public consultation was undertaken to consider five
shortlisted potential route alignments for the railway and potential station locations. Alignments 1, 2 and
9 were proposed to cross land within the Alington Estate and, if chosen, will have implications for the
new settlement option. Two alternative alignments, routes 6 and 8 would have limited construction
impact but would represent significant gains in the choice of sustainable modes of travel due to the
proximity of the proposed station locations (68m St Neots South Option B station and 1243m Tempsford
Option B station (which is within acceptable walking and cycling distances). All five options would have
implications for the location of employment land within the new settlement option for Little Barford.
Separate evidence has been prepared in consideration of the impact the EWR route alignment and
station location options might have. It considers land take, the quantum of development and solutions
to ensure the community of a new settlement at Little Barford is integrated in relation to the accessibility
of community services and facilities for residents in relation to each of the five route options. In
summary, the evidence demonstrates that the delivery of a sustainable new settlement for circa 4,000
can still be delivered within the plan period.
9 Sustainability objective | assessment question | employment, business, retail and tourism –
promote vital and viable town centres
6a Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?

Paragraph 86 of the NPPF states inter alia that in drawing up local plans, local planning authorities
should define a network and hierarchy of centres. This is important because paragraph 87 emphasises
that defined town centres are the preferred locations for new main town centre uses.
The term ‘town centres’ in the NPPF refers to ‘city centres, town centres, district centres and local
centres’ as types of town centre. The BBLP 2040 is proposing to use the following typology of centres:
Town centres for the purposes of the NPPF:
1. Strategic centre
2. District centre
3. Local centre (including key service centre)
Other centres
4. Neighbourhood centre
An allocation for a new settlement option at Little Barford should make provision for a defined ‘town
centre’ area for the purposes of the NPPF. This would likely be in the form of a key service centre as
identified in the Town Centres and Shopping Topic Paper (June 2021), serving primarily the local
catchment but also the surrounding rural area with a range of small shops and facilities in keeping with
those listed in paragraph 2.5 of the Town Centres and Shopping Topic Paper. In making provision within
the allocation policy for a new settlement at Little Barford 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.
10 Sustainability objective | assessment question | health and wellbeing - encourage and support
physical activity
7a Within 400m of an existing open space or proposing open space within it?
7b Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?
The new settlement option will include community facilities and will be masterplanned to create walkable
neighbourhoods. The existing features of the Alington Estate include areas of woodland and other areas
that create opportunities for multifunctional recreational open space. Formal playing pitch provision
would be included as part of the new settlement option for Little Barford.
11 Sustainability objective | assessment question | landscape and townscape – protect and
enhance landscape and townscape character and the sense of place in settlements
8a Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape?

BBC has commissioned LUC to update to the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) published in
May 2014 with the update published in October 2020. The landscape character assessment describes
and classifies the recognisable and consistent pattern of elements that makes one landscape different
from another. The character is what makes each part of the landscape distinct and gives each area its
particular sense of place.
The LCA identifies and describes six landscape types across the borough, each with a relatively
homogenous character with similar physical and cultural attributes. The landscape types are subdivided
into component landscape character areas of which there are 13. Each of these character areas are
defined based on distinct and recognisable local identify. The promotion site at Little Barford is spread
across two of these character areas; the Great Ouse Clay Valley and Biggin Wood Clay Vale. It is
suggested within the LCA that each of these character areas have key characteristics that distinguish
them from other areas of the borough. The Great Ouse Clay Valley covers much of the site west of the
ECM whilst the area south of Rectory Close, between Barford Road and the ECM is part of the Biggin
Wood Clay Vale.
BBC’s evidence on landscape type and landscape character areas is proposed by the Bedford Borough
Design Guide scoping consultation document1, to provide the basis for analysis in preparing design
guides/codes for development in the rural parts of the borough. Currently BBC does not propose to
have a different basis for preparing design guides for new settlement allocations.
The NPPF provides scope at paragraph 129 where it states, “Design guides and codes can be prepared
at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale”. BBC should provide separate guidance for
allocated new settlements to recognise that new settlements provide an opportunity to create a distinct
sense of place. Whilst recognising the landscape framework that these strategic sites possess BBC’s
development plan documents should acknowledge that planned and potential strategic infrastructure
will change the existing landscape framework.
We contend that for new settlements of the scale proposed by the BBLP 2040 landscape type and
landscape character areas are not the most appropriate reference to “creating beautiful and distinctive
places with a consistent and high quality standard of design” as required by the NPPF. Paragraph
130 c) of the NPPF states, “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments [inter
alia], are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and
landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as
increased densities)”. A design guide predicated on landscape type and landscape character areas
does not deliver the balanced approach set out in paragraph 130 of the NPPF.
Further information on landscape will be submitted prior to the regulation 19 consultation.
1 Consultation ends 3 September 2021

8b Within the existing settlement form?
Refer to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 (inclusive) above.
12 Sustainability objective | assessment question | land, soil and water – maximise development
on previously developed land and avoid the loss of high quality agricultural land
9a On previously developed land?
The number of new homes required to meet BBC’s local housing need is such that greenfield land will
need to be allocated.
9b On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
Please refer to extract from the Agricultural Land Classification Map Eastern Region (Natural England)
below.
(see attachment for map)
The above map demonstrates that land to the west of Barford Road is primarily classified as grade 3,
good to moderate agricultural land or identified as other land primarily in non-agricultural use. East of
Barford Road the predominant land classification continues to be grade 3, whilst there are small areas
of higher quality grade 2 land located in the northern and south areas of the parish growth and new
settlement options. This trend continues east of the ECM where land is predominantly of grade 3 quality
with an area in the north and east classified as grade 2.

The map only provides details of land grades 1-5 and does not include the subdivision of grade 3 land
into 3a - good quality agricultural land and 3b – moderate quality agricultural land. Further work is
required to confirm whether the land within the site is grade 3a or 3b agricultural land. However, it is
worth noting that the alternative new settlement option under the growth and spatial strategy options
2b, 2c and 2dat Wyboston is predominantly agricultural land classification 2.
13 Sustainability objective | assessment question | land, soil and water – protect the quantity and
quality of water resources
10a Within a groundwater source protection zone?
Land within the control of the Alington Estate is not within a groundwater source protection zone,
therefore the parish growth and new settlement options for Little Barford are not impacted by this
selection criterion.
14 Sustainability objective | assessment question | land, soil and water – minimise flood risk
11a At risk of flooding?
Since the call for sites submission work has been carried out to establish the flood risk associated with
development of the site. Richard Jackson Ltd has been commissioned to undertake a Site-Specific
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), June 2021 (revision A).
The FRA confirms that the existing use, agriculture and associated housing, and the proposed use,
residential and employment, results in no change to the flood risk classification, both falling under the
classification of “most vulnerable”. Paragraph 11.1 of the FRA confirms that “development will be
situated in Flood Zone 1 and is an appropriate for development for that zone according to the Planning
Policy Guidance of the NPPF and the LLFA” and that “There will be no increase in water flow from the
site once a suitable mitigation strategy is in place and development will be located outside of the surface
water flooding areas”.
Additionally, a surface water strategy has confirmed that there will be no increase in water flow from
the site as the drainage strategy has been devised to accommodate the 1 in 100-year event plus 40%
climate change within the surface water drainage system concluding “Once the suitable mitigation
strategy is in place and development located outside of the surface water flood areas, there is a
satisfactory drainage strategy for the site” (paragraph 11.2, p.16, Surface Water Strategy, August 2021,
Richard Jackson Ltd).
The surface water strategy is based on a worst-case scenario that there will be 100% runoff from
proposed impervious surfaces. To refine the strategy future works are planned to include ground
conditions/infiltration studies.

The proposed drainage strategy includes the provision of a number of drainage attenuation basins for
development areas across the site. The proposed quantum of development set out elsewhere in these
representations accounts for this provision and ensures that any reduction in the net developable area
as a consequence of water attenuation provision does not undermine the delivery of the dwelling
numbers required by BBC from a new settlement. As stated above, this strategy is based on a worst case
scenario and with future work and refinement, the area required for attenuation basins may be
reduced.
15 Sustainability objective | assessment question | population, housing and community – promote
good quality housing, ensuring an appropriate mix of house types and sizes
12a Likely to provide a mix of housing, including affordable housing?
12b Able to address a particular housing need?
Both proposals for Little Barford (parish growth and new settlement options) are of a scale that would
provide a mix of housing. The existing BBLP 2030 and the regulation 18 version of the BBLP 2040
contain and propose policies that would ensure developments of certain scales cater for a range of
housing needs including affordable housing.
16 Sustainability objective | assessment question | population, housing and community – provide
for residents’ need and improve access to community services and facilities
13a Within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed?
The proposals for parish growth and new settlement options at Little Barford are focused on land to the
east and west of Barford Road and seek to provide development around the historic core of Little
Barford. There are several vacant or underutilised buildings. Further assessment is required to establish
if any of these could be viably converted for cultural or social activities.
The proposal for a new settlement option includes the provision of services and facilities to meet the
needs of the new community. Details of the exact services and facilities to be provided require additional
work in establishing the needs and viability of provision. The sustainable transport strategy proposes
to include internal cycleways adjacent to principal routes within the site to provide sustainable access
to facilities.
The provision of a supermarket and educational facilities has been included in the net developable area
calculations and their provision will not undermine the number of dwellings delivered on site. The policy
wording for a new settlement allocation in relation to the onsite provision of schools should include that
the school facilities (hall, playing fields etc) be shared with the community.

17 Sustainability objective | assessment question | population, housing and community – promote
social cohesion, the prevention of crime and reduce the fear of crime
14a Likely to encourage social cohesion?
14b Likely to help make the area safer?
Both proposals for Little Barford (parish growth and new settlement options) are of a scale that would
enable the proposals to be designed to achieve social cohesion and prevent and reduce the fear of
crime.
Where green corridors are proposed to have a multifunctional use eg habitat corridors and safe walking
and cycling routes to schools these will be designed on safe neighbourhood principles.
18 Sustainability objective | assessment question | transport – reduce the need to travel and
promote sustainable modes of transport
15a Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small
settlement? Assessment as for 1a.
15b Accessible on foot to a food store? Assessment as for 1b.
15c Accessible on foot to a primary school? Assessment as for 1c.
15d Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer? Assessment as for 1d.
15e Able to connect with the highway without constraint?
15f Able to be developed without causing highway or junction capacity issues?
The proposal for a parish growth option of circa 200 new homes and employment development on land
east and west of Barford Road would rely on St Neots for access to higher order facilities. Access to
these facilities will be provided by proposed offsite improvements to pedestrian and cycle routes along
the Barford Road. The submitted sustainable transport technical note provides details for the provision
of shared use cycleways from the northern access of the site into St Neots. These proposals also
include the provision of road crossing facilities across the existing A428 and the B1043.
The proposals provide future residents with safe and convenient foot and cycle access to the Tesco
superstore located in St Neots. Additionally, the proposed B1043 crossing location has been identified
as part of a ‘desire line’ for pedestrians from the housing developments to the east. The proposal set
out provides betterment for these users through the provision of a safe crossing point across the B1043.
Further assessments are required to ascertain which services and community facilities are provided in
the early development phases of the new settlement proposal. However, residents of the new
settlement (and the parish growth option) who might access the higher order facilities in St Neots will
be provided with a choice of sustainable travel options. The sustainable transport technical note sets
out proposals for providing access to these facilities. As the new settlement development progresses,
onsite services and facilities will increase in provision.

On-site cycleways will be developed as the development phasing progresses and masterplans for each
parcel are designed providing alternative access to facilities.
The new settlement proposal has considered the need to provide facilities and services commensurate
with a key service centre including the provision of a new supermarket and educational institutions
within the development and has accounted for these in the net developable land area calculations. This
ensures that the provision of the necessary services and facilities does not undermine the delivery of
dwelling numbers required by Bedford Borough for a new settlement.
Currently the public transport for Little Barford is of a poor standard where only a single service runs
between Biggleswade and St Neots on a Thursday. The proposed public transport scheme would
greatly enhance accessibility to public transport and all development would ideally be within 400m of
the main public transport corridors. Bus services would run at an improved frequency to meet demand
and local policy. Until the location of the EWR station is known it is anticipated that the destination for
the bus will be St Neots town centre, whilst passing the Tesco store, leisure centre and Ernulf Academy
for secondary education.
1 Land east of the ECM railway within the new settlement proposal at the Alington Estate would be
approximately 1,200m from the proposed bus route. To ensure public transport remains an attractive
option the bus route could be diverted into the development parcel and then return to Barford Road on
an occasional basis. Additional consideration will be given to the inclusion within the site of a public
transport hub to assist residents walking or cycling from east of the ECM with access to the bus service.
19 Further Topics – East West Rail and sustainable transport
Additional to the sustainable transport facilities discussed earlier in these representations it is also
important to consider how future infrastructure projects within the area may influence the site. EWR is
a rail infrastructure project that proposes to link Oxford to Cambridge and more locally, Bedford to
Cambridge. EWR has most recently (31 March - 9 June 2021) consulted on route alignment options for
the Bedford to Cambridge section of the line. This will provide a route between Sandy and St Neots
with four of the route options including in the consultation crossing land within the Alington Estate put
forward in this submission for a new settlement.
The EWR proposals also include the provision of a new station to be located either within the Alington
Estate (St Neots South Option A station) and or on land to the near south (St Neots South Option B
station, Tempsford Option A station and Tempsford Option B station). This will provide further
sustainable transport options for future residents commuting to Cambridge or Bedford. Cycle links to
the proposed stations will also be important. Provision of these can be considered in greater detail when
the EWR route and station alignments are confirmed but should the development go ahead it is proposed a route cycleway running parallel to the eastern side of ECM would provide access to a future
station.
Separate evidence has been prepared in consideration of the impact the EWR route alignment and
station location options might have. It considers land take, the quantum of development and solutions
to ensure the community of a new settlement at Little Barford is integrated in relation to the accessibility
of community services and facilities for residents in relation to each of the five route options. In
summary, the evidence demonstrates that the delivery of a sustainable new settlement for circa 4,000
can still be delivered within the plan period.
20 Minerals Safeguard Area
The southern portion of the site is designated as a minerals safeguard area as shown on the Minerals
and Waste Local Plan Strategic Sites and Policies LDD: Policies Map Location Plan (January 2014).
The area of the site affected by the minerals safeguard area includes several important elements that
would preclude or severely limit areas where minerals could be extracted. An area to the south west of
the site adjacent to the River Great Ouse is not proposed for development due to its function as flood
plain and the presence of ridge and farrow archaeological features. The presence of a Medieval village,
19th century park, listed buildings and other non-heritage assets and CWS preclude mineral extraction
from areas west of Barford Road with the exception of the two fields to the south west fronting on to the
Barford Road. However, these fields and fields on the east of the Barford road are constrained by the
presence of high pressure gas mains and high voltage overhead power cables and pylons and
woodland.
It is also noted that the support text for Policy 47S – Pollution, disturbance and contaminated land of
the BBLP 2030 states; “Development proposals which are located close to permitted or allocated
mineral and waste sites may require a tract of land within which no development should take place to
ensure that no new incompatible development encroaches upon existing permitted and allocated
mineral and waste management sites. Buffer zones may be landscaped to alleviate noise and improve
visual appearance. The size of the buffer zone required will be determined by the type of operation
and particular site circumstances. However, buffer zones would normally be expected to be set at
around 200 metres for mineral working and inert waste disposal”
Once the above areas have been excluded from the areas identified within the minerals safeguarding
area it is questionable whether the remaining areas would be of sizes viable for mineral extraction.
Furthermore, it is currently unknow what the quality of the mineral resource is in those areas that could
theoretically be extracted. Further assessment would establish whether the preferred development
could proceed with minerals left in situ or if there is a need to incorporate some mineral extraction into
the development.

21 Conclusions
These representations and the technical documents that accompany them demonstrate that both the
transport corridor – east: parish growth and new settlement elements of the growth and spatial strategy
options 2b, 2c and 2d are deliverable in respect of the proposals at the Alington Estate, Little Barford.
Apply the criteria of the BBLP 2040 Site Selection Methodology, June 2021 to assess the two growth
options proposals at Little Barford based on the latest evidence and refinements to the proposals
demonstrates that in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF the inclusion within the BBLP 2040 of
either the parish growth option or new settlement option at Little Barford would satisfy the tests of
soundness. less

Attachments:

Highways access map (11.94 MB)
Highways access and development parcels map (11.53 MB)
site map (4.24 MB)
RJ Ltd - Transport Assessment for Local Plan Reg 18 - Part 4 of 5.pdf (11.78 MB)
RJ Ltd - Transport Assessment for Local Plan Reg 18 - Part 5 of 5.pdf (992.54 KB)
210901 BotanyAssessmentCWS_Issue2_Redacted.pdf (7.76 MB)
210901 BotanyAssessmentRWEbuffer_Issue3_Redacted.pdf (4.52 MB)
210902 TN_Services Data_60830 - Final_Redacted.pdf (14.49 MB)
210903 PEA_SES _Issue 3_Redacted.pdf (4.00 MB)
RJ Ltd - SSFRA - Alington Estate - June 2021 Final Rev A_Redacted.pdf (20.38 MB)
RJ Ltd - Surface Water Drainage Strategy Part 5 of 5_Redacted.pdf (2.02 MB)
RJ Ltd - Surface Water Drainage Strategy Part 1 of 5_Redacted.pdf (2.83 MB)
RJ Ltd - Surface Water Drainage Strategy Part 2 of 5_Redacted.pdf (9.44 MB)
RJ Ltd - Surface Water Drainage Strategy Part 3 of 5_Redacted.pdf (11.57 MB)
RJ Ltd - Surface Water Drainage Strategy Part 4 of 5_Redacted.pdf (17.54 MB)
RJ Ltd - Transport Assessment for Local Plan Reg 18 - Part 1 of 5_Redacted.pdf (1.81 MB)
RJ Ltd - Transport Assessment for Local Plan Reg 18 - Part 2 of 5_Redacted.pdf (12.70 MB)
RJ Ltd - Transport Assessment for Local Plan Reg 18 - Part 3 of 5_Redacted.pdf (6.25 MB)

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7980

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Lorraine Jewell

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 7990

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Gooch

Representation Summary:

Little Barford Site 907
We support development of this site. It is adjacent to the urban area and to the likely location of the new East West rail station. It therefore provides options for genuinely sustainable transport as both stations in St Neots are likely to be within walking / cycling distance It is also a smaller site so it would not grow into a new town of 10,800 homes as Dennybrook could. A much larger development such as Dennybrook would have a significant impact on St Neots and its services whereas Little Barford is smaller and would have a lower impact on the town. It is also on the side of St Neots where strategic, planned growth is already happening (Loves Farm and Wintringham Park to the east), unlike Dennybrook which is positioned to the west where the A1 has always provided a clear dividing line between urban to the east and rural land to the west.
Much of the site appears to be grade 3 agricultural land in contrast with Dennybrook which is grade 2.
Little Barford has good connectivity to the A428 (existing and new) and A1.
100 word summary Little Barford site 907
This site is suitable because it will be within walking / cycling distance of the new East West rail station and also close to the existing mainline station. It is close to the strategic growth points in St Neots (Wintringham Park) with good access to the A1 and A421. It is not such good quality agricultural land as Dennybrook – it appears to be grade 3.
Twinwoods Site 883
We support development of 70ha of this site which is brownfield land as an alternative if Little Barford is deemed unsuitable. At 35dph this could provide 2450 homes which is sufficient to support option 2b with a new settlement if Little Barford was not an option. Brownfield sites should be used in preference to greenfield sites according to the NPPF. We recognise that there are problems with the A6 into Bedford but we believe these issues need to be resolved even with the development proposed for the 2030 plan and to enable residents from the north of Bedford to access the new east west rail. Therefore a new settlement of 2450 homes at Twinwoods would provide the infrastructure funding for this. Sustainable transport could be provided via a parkway station or guided busway and a park and ride bus for the private schools.
The area does not flood, and it is distinct from local villages so there is no risk of coalescence or loss of identity of existing settlements or villages. Development here would support Bedford town centre.
100 word summary Twinwoods site 883
Twinwoods is suitable because it is a brownfield site. Development here could provide infrastructure funding to alleviate the issues on the A6. Eg. by providing a guided busway / park and ride bus for the private schools. The area doesn’t flood and would support Bedford town centre.

Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8089

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Huntingdonshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Huntingdonshire District Council equally have several points of concern and observations about the
potential new settlement at Little Barford. It is located approximately 500m south of St Neots with a
proportion of its northern and eastern edges aligning with Huntingdonshire’s district boundary.
Huntingdonshire District Council are concerned about the long term intended scale of the proposed
developed at Little Barford. It is noted that the site was submitted to Bedford Borough Council for
3,385 – 3,955 new homes. The site has however been included within three of the preferred options
for 3,085 new homes. Based on the consultation material, justification for the reduction in this figure
to 3,085 is unclear as a reduced quantum of development would have an impact on the
infrastructure and services capable of being provided within the scheme and thus increase pressure
on services and infrastructure within St Neots detrimentally impacting existing residents.
It is also noted that two other sites were submitted to Bedford Borough Council around Little
Barford on either side of Barford Road for a combined total of 1,385-1,645 new homes, but it
appears that only the site at Top Farm (land east and west of Barford Road) for 3,385-3,955 new
homes is included within the preferred development strategy options.
Huntingdonshire District Council is concerned about the feasibility of delivering the Little Barford
new settlement and whether it will be able to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet all locally
generated needs. If adequate infrastructure is not provided on the proposed development this
would likely place extra demands on service provision within St Neots to the detriment of their
accessibility by local residents. Moreover, the Little Barford new settlement heightens the risk of
coalescence which must be avoided through measures such as very substantial landscaping including
landscape buffers to retain a physical and perceptual separation from Little Barford to St Neots. To
assist in addressing these concerns, it would be beneficial to gain clarity on Bedford Borough
Council’s long-term ambitions for the Little Barford new settlement and the adjoining land
submitted during the Call for Sites consultation.
Huntingdonshire District Council acknowledge that this site is likely to benefit from being in closer
proximity to a new East-West rail route where a new station is expected along the East Coast
Mainline Railway between St Neots and Sandy and thus has greater potential to incorporate
sustainable modes of transport. However, there is still uncertainty on the location of an East-West
railway line station and when it may be delivered. Additionally, there is also the timing and delivery
of the proposed realigned A428 route which will impact the eastern edge and southern aspects of
the site to consider. These may give rise to delays in effective masterplanning of the site, mix of land
uses, incorporation of sustainable and accessible transport and its eventual delivery. This is a
concern as this could place additional pressure on the services and infrastructure of St Neots if not
planned thoroughly and with enough services and infrastructure in which to sustain itself. These
concerns are exacerbated as St Neots town centre is located 2 miles north of the site whereas
Bedford town centre is some 9 miles away. Therefore, it is likely that people will look to St Neots for
services.
The uncertainty of the location and quantum of employment floor space within the site are of
concern, in particular in relation to the impact on the vitality and viability of the Established
Employment Areas within St Neots, especially those to the south (Howard Road Industrial Estate,
Little End Road/ Alpha Drive Business Park and Colmworth Business Park). The proposal is highly
likely to impact upon the vitality and viability of existing employment areas within St Neots and
careful consideration must be given to promoting a sustainable and complementary mix of uses
should the proposal move forward.
Development at Little Barford is likely to increase pressure on the road network particularly along
Barford Road and the roundabout between it and the A428. The potential delays in journey times
arising from increased vehicle movements along the A428 and Barford Road and consequent delays
and congestion within St Neots would detrimentally affect residents of St Neots. The impact this
would have on air pollution and air quality is particularly important as central St Neots contains an
Air Quality Management Area. Huntingdonshire District Council is concerned that this could exceed
acceptable thresholds of air pollutants and harm the health of Huntingdonshire residents, this would
also be contrary to national policy on air quality and climate change. There are also concerns about
any linkages and impact on local roads Potton Road and Dewells Lane.
Table A.5 of the Bedford Borough Transport Model Local Plan Assessment (May 2021) identifies that
additional mitigation is required for this site, this being the incorporation and linkage of the
settlement via accessible and sustainable modes to St Neots and an interchange station at
Tempsford. In principle Huntingdonshire District Council are supportive of greater integration
between areas via safe and sustainable modes of transport. This mitigation measure is required in
addition to those identified within Table A.3 of the assessment under the two options ‘pink, yellow &
brown’ and ‘red & orange’ where the options indicate growth in the Little Barford area.
Improvements in pedestrian and cycle connectivity between St Neots and Little Barford would also
be necessary to support active and sustainable modes of transport. Should the development
strategy at the next stage of the Local Plan preparation include the proposed development at Little
Barford further assessment will need to include substantially more detailed consideration of the
mitigation measures required to accommodate travel demands arising from the scheme and how
these can be delivered. This should incorporate improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity.
It is acknowledged that a new settlement at Little Barford would reduce the loss of higher quality
agricultural land when compared to Wyboston. Although the development may have an impact on
designated heritage assets. The site may also have detrimental impacts on the designated Lower
Great Ouse River Valley green infrastructure network opportunity zone (policy AD24 of the Bedford
Local Plan to 2030). All possible avenues to avoid this should be explored before any mitigation
options are considered. All opportunities to deliver biodiversity net gain within the scheme should
also be investigated and secured.
Land to the west of Barford Road toward Wyboston Leisure Park is at a high risk of flooding,
therefore large scale development within its immediate vicinity (even if not located on land classified
as vulnerable to fluvial flooding) must consider and mitigate the impact it may have on all forms of
flooding events in line with national policy. This should also consider the combined flooding impacts
of the development with the improvement works to the A428. Mitigation measures must not
increase the likelihood of flooding events elsewhere, for instance within St Neots where the River
Great Ouse runs through the centre of the town and is therefore more vulnerable to flooding. This is
particularly important to make any development resilient in terms of flooding and climate change.
In conclusion, Huntingdonshire District Council have concerns over the new settlement at Little
Barford based on the significant impact on St Neots in terms of substantial landscape impact, risk of
coalescence due to the proximity of the site, increased demands on infrastructure, traffic
generation, air quality, flooding, climate change and detrimental outcomes for Huntingdonshire
residents and businesses.

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8364

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bernadette Yockney

Representation Summary:

This site is suitable because it will be within walking / cycling distance of the new East West rail station and also close to the existing mainline station. It is close to the strategic growth points in St Neots (Wintringham Park) with good access to the A1 and A421. It is not such good quality agricultural land as Dennybrook – it appears to be grade 3.

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8372

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Phillip Yockney

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8471

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Theodore Cassell

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8640

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Henry Zwetsloot

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8797

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Staploe Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8844

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Ibbett

Representation Summary:

Support

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8965

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Browning

Representation Summary:

Object

Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 9074

Received: 27/01/2022

Respondent: Mrs Linda Bates

Representation Summary:

As a resident of Colmworth I have serious concerns regarding the plans for the proposed development of Dennybrook. My husband and I come from the farming community and the impact on the local farmers, landscape, wildlife and the rural community would be defer stating.

I understand from the documentation that has been made available, that the development would be excessive and cover an area which is comparable to the size of Biggleswade and stretch from the A1 Eaton Socon to Colmworth. with 10,000 homes. This would totally wipeout the rural environment where we live. With most households owning 2 or more vehicles this will completely overwhelm the roads within the area, with a minimum of 20,000 additional vehicles. The road infrastructure is not able to sustain such volume and for most people, with the distance they need to travel (even to one of the proposed new railway stations), will not eliminate the use of cars or encourage cycles or walking.

Being in the farming community much of the land is Grade A agricultural land growing essential crops and providing employment. I don’t believe that there is any brownfield element to this site which is supposed to be a priority under the governments “National Planning Policy Framework”. Surely sites with Brownfield elements should be considered and prioritized over the use of Grade A Agricultural land.

This development is supposed to provide an environmentally sound and sustainable solution to Bedford Borough ‘s housing needs. How can it, when it would destroy Grade A agricultural land and wildlife habitat, overwhelm the road network and due to its location potentially benefit the town of St Neots much more than it would Bedford