Policy HOU14 Kempston Hardwick New Settlement

Object

Representation ID: 9232

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ian Blaney

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to site allocation too big an impact on Kempton Hardwick CWS and Kempton Moat.

Object

Representation ID: 9413

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: O&H Land

Agent: Varsity Town Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Sustainable, rail based growth is a real possibility in the area to the south west of Bedford even without the enhancements being talked about by East West Rail Co. The development strategy should continue to focus on this area but recognise the potential that already exists along the Marston Vale Line.

Object

Representation ID: 9444

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rutherford

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This and other developments in the plan create an 8 mile x 2 mile urban area to the south of Bedford.
If done well it will be a very big pleasant suburb. If done badly it will be a series of estates with small gaps of farmland in between.
Either way, very significant areas of countryside disappear.

Comment

Representation ID: 9481

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Graham Mills

The phasing of development in new settlements is a very positive aspect of this Local Plan. However, if the required new Bletchley-Bedford-Cambridge railway stations, or the new dual carriageway to Cambridge are not built then the housing targets and the new settlements must be postponed till transport capacity is provided. Otherwise the Plan is not sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 9594

Received: 29/08/2022

Respondent: Urban & Civic plc

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

• U&C acknowledge and have no objection to the inclusion of allocations, focused upon the existing urban areas, where impacts and mitigation can be addressed largely within the bounds of the Borough. These allocations are therefore capable of being proven to be deliverable within the terms of the NPPF. The new settlement allocations are not, however, capable of being regarded as deliverable, having been assessed as the most sustainable option for longer term growth and allocated on the basis that they have potential to be served by East-West Rail. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates that East-West Rail is


an infrastructure project which ‘is required’ over the Local Plan 2040 period, to meet the needs arising from planned growth (IDP, paragraph 7.2.1). It is not a nice to have. Yet, the new settlements are
allocated without any policy controls upon the timing or phasing of development relative to infrastructure and are not contingent upon the delivery of East-West Rail or other significant
infrastructure. Without such obligations, the Policy allows for development in advance of or even without the firm commitment of East West Rail or other significant infrastructure. Delivery without this infrastructure would make the new settlements location far less sustainable and would not be justified by the evidence base as it stands.

• Furthermore, the new settlement allocations are made without any consideration for the implications or the likely scale and location of development within close proximity, but outwith the Bedford Borough boundary. This includes, but is not confined to, additional development proposed along the A421 (for example options emerging through the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan) and in immediate proximity to Little Barford, at Tempsford. Tempsford is a highly sustainable location for substantial growth, which will be considered through early plan review in Central Bedfordshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 9608

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Wilshamstead Ward

Kempston Hardwick (HOU14)
Likewise, the proposal for up to 3800 dwellings (With a potential for over 7500 additional vehicles) at Kempston Hardwick, to the west of Wixams, will add similar pressures. It will also result in a more or less continuous areas of development from Stewartby, through Kempston Hardwick and Wixams, to Wilstead, Elstow and Shortstown.

The area will change fundamentally, from one of small, rural villages to a large urban sprawl. The building of a large new settlement at Kempston Hardwick, so close to another new settlement at Wixams, is a recipe for traffic chaos, as the roads will not be able to absorb such a huge amount of additional traffic. It wall have sever environmental consequences from day one.

Comment

Representation ID: 9636

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

These representations have been prepared on behalf of Arnold White Group (‘AWG’) in
response to the public consultation on Bedford Borough Council’s (‘BBC’) Local Plan
2040 Plan for Submission April 2022 Consultation (‘the Local Plan’).
1.2 AWG are a landowner and strategic land promoter, owning and controlling significant
areas of land within Bedford Borough. AWG are owners of 96ha of land at Broadmead,
Marston Vale, north of Stewartby and c.12ha area of land known as Elms Farm,
Kempston Hardwick. A significant part of the site has been optioned to Cloud Wing
under an agreement that expires in December 2023. This response has been prepared
and submitted on behalf of AWG in respect of both areas of land, as landowner.
1.3 The Broadmead land is part of the wider 222ha ‘Bedford Business Park’ being promoted
by Cloud Wing UK Ltd (‘Cloud Wing’) and a separate set of representations have been
submitted by Cloud Wing, with AWG approval, in respect of that land. Reference is
made to those representations throughout this document.
1.4 A Site Location Plan identifying the Elms Farm site (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’) is
enclosed at Appendix 1.
1.5 AWG has been active participants in every stage of the Local Plan 2030, as well as the
previous stages of consultation on the Local Plan 2040.
1.6 AWG support the proposed allocation HOU14. However, for the reasons set out in these
representations, AWG consider that the Local Plan as drafted is not sound as the
approach taken to this allocation is not an appropriate strategy having regard to
available land, nor is it consistent with national policy as it does not fully enable the
delivery of sustainable development. The Local Plan can be made sound through the
following modifications:
• An assessment of land at and surrounding HOU14 based on recognisable
boundaries (i.e. roads), rather than an arbitrary line drawn in the middle of a
field;
• The resulting inclusion of the Elms Farm Site as land allocated for residential
development as part of the wider HOU14 allocation;
• Strengthening of the Plan regarding climate change, with a Policy that
promotes the development of renewable energy, in particular wind and solar,
to help tackle the climate emergency and energy security.
1.7 This response also includes further information in relation to the Elms Farm site,
providing justification as to why it should be allocated within HOU14 in accordance with
national policy in order to make the Local Plan sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 9642

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

4.1 For the reasons set out earlier in this response, AWG strongly supports the principle of
the South of Bedford Area as a focus for environmental-led and sustainable growth.
However, for the reasons set out below, AWG considers the focus of the Plan and Policy
HOU12 on the delivery of an “innovation hub” at Kempston Hardwick to be unsound.
This fails to recognise the importance of other sectors and locational advantages of the
south of Bedford area and the Kempston Hardwick site, particularly for industrial and
logistics uses. The overreliance on innovation uses also poses a threat to the delivery of
the overall employment and economic needs of the area. Furthermore, the proposed
mix of uses, density and quantum of housing is likely to lead to a shortfall in housing
across the HOU12 area. This is considered in more detail below.
4.2 AWG support the principle of Policy HOU14 and the proposed new settlement at
Kempston Hardwick. Cloud Wing set out, in detail, their comments in respect of the
Vision, and Policy HOU12 (south of Bedford Area) and these representations should be
read in conjunction with that submission.
4.3 The strategy of focusing growth on the south of Bedford area (Policy HOU12) is
supported by AWG. However, AWG find that the approach taken to allocating sites and,
in particular, the quantum of development allocated on certain sites, is not justified nor
consistent with national policy, for the following reasons.
4.4 Firstly, the Local Plan does not put dwelling numbers against allocations HOU13,
HOU15, HOU16 and HOU17. The Policy must be amended to do so that there is a clear
understanding and expectation as to the quantum of development that the Plan is
proposing in these locations.
4.5 Upon review of the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (April 2022), numbers have been
proposed against these sites as follows:
HOU13: 500
HOU15: 300
HOU16: 1800
HOU17: 1000
4.6 What is not evident from the evidence base or the Local Plan, is the approximate
developable areas and thus whether these are realistic densities. Upon examination of
the Policies for each site, and the Figures in the Local Plan which accompany each, the
only way to achieve all the Policy requirements, in particular the amount of open space
and green infrastructure, would necessitate very high densities on most of these sites
(c. 50/60+ dph).
4.7 There is no evidence accompanying the Local Plan which justifies this approach; the
HEDNA does not identify such a high requirement for small (1-2 bedroom homes) which
a high density would lead to, nor is there market evidence supporting housing demand
for such a high quantum of small units in these locations.
12 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
4.8 This is likely to lead to future applications which either decrease the number of homes,
resulting in unmet need (in terms of overall quantum and/or mix) and possibly nondelivery
of key infrastructure. Alternatively, it may lead to non-delivery of green
infrastructure due to pressures to deliver housing numbers.
4.9 The quantum for each allocation is not based on a proportionate or robust evidence
base and are therefore not sound.
4.10 To make the Local Plan sound, additional allocations are therefore necessary to make
up this shortfall in numbers. Doing so would have the further benefit of addressing the
stepped trajectory shortcomings as set out in Section 2 of these representations.
4.11 AWG supports the principle of the allocation of the land at Kempston Hardwick for
development. However, for the reasons set out in detail in Cloud Wing’s
representations, Policy HOU14 proposes insufficient employment land on the parties’
land at Kempston Hardwick. AWG also has significant concerns over the overreliance
and inappropriate emphasis on delivery of innovation uses at the site, which do not
appear to be justified and pose risks to the delivery of economic needs and the overall
effectiveness of the Plan. The allocation should state “employment uses”, rather than
specifically identifying innovation uses.
4.12 AWG is also concerned by references in the draft Plan and its supporting evidence
which suggest that development at Kempston Hardwick and other strategic sites would
only be able to come forward post-2030 following the delivery of East-West Rail and
completion of various highway improvements, which in turn appears to be driving the
Council’s proposed approach to a stepped housing trajectory.
4.13 For the reasons set out in detail at paragraphs 6.9 to 6.69 of Cloud Wing’s
representations, a larger amount of employment land, including industrial and logistics
uses, could start to be delivered earlier than 2030. The site is already a suitable location
for employment growth. It is accessible by public transport and would be capable of
supporting early delivery of infrastructure improvements including improvements to the
surrounding highway network (i.e. the package of improvement works to Junction 13 of
the M1 and the junction of the A6 and A421 which have been developed in detail
through discussion with Highways England as part of the outline planning application for
the Bedford Business Park) and deliver sustainable transport improvements (i.e.
improvements to pedestrian and cycle accessibility and public transport).
4.14 Residential development, meanwhile, can come forward in advance of much of the
necessary infrastructure. The land at Elms Farm (considered below) is one such location
where homes can be delivered early, without the requirement for strategic
infrastructure.
4.15 On this basis, the Plan and draft Policy HOU14 risks unnecessarily delaying delivery of
housing and job growth in a sustainable, suitable location and failing to meet economic
needs in the short-term.
4.16 AWG supports the principle of mixed-use development and the allocation of the land in
HOU14 as a strategic allocation for growth in Bedford Borough. For the reasons set out
above, the quantum of employment development should be increased, and the loss of
residential development can be made up through allocating additional land which
directly adjoins the HOU14 area.
13 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
4.17 In this context, AWG’s view is that it is entirely inappropriate for development at the
site to be delayed until late in the plan period and for the policy to prevent permission
being granted until such time that a Supplementary Planning Document has been
prepared by the local authority. Whilst we agree that further work would be required to
develop a robust Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the site and support the Council’s view
that development at Kempston Hardwick should be landscape-led and of high-quality
design, underpinned by an appropriate masterplan, the proposed approach has the
potential to delay and undermine delivery of development early in the plan-period. The
Policy should, therefore, be amended to allow flexibility for the landowners/ developers
to prepare their own masterplan and design code, in accordance with paragraph 129 of
the NPPF.
4.18 The detailed criteria set out in Policy HOU14, the concept plan and the infrastructure
identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Transport Strategy would also need to
be reviewed, updated, and amended, as appropriate, to reflect changes to the quantum
and mix of residential and employment development proposed in response to our
comments earlier in this response.
4.19 The next section of these representations puts forward a case as to one such location
for growth within the southern parishes, which would deliver growth in accordance with
Policy HOU12, on a site which has erroneously been discounted from the site selection
process
4.20 These remainder of these representations focus on an area of land, known as Elms
Farm, which is partly included and partly excluded from Policy HOU14.
4.21 As set out earlier in this response, Elms Farm is located in a sustainable location,
adjacent to Woburn Road, Manor Road, and the roundabouts on Fields Road. It is a
gateway location at the key entrance to the HOU14 allocation area when travelling from
the west and along the A421, and is, therefore, a prime location for a high-quality
development as part of this wider allocation.
4.22 The land at Elms Farm does not appear to have been assessed by the Council, despite its
location and the fact that part of the site is included within the HOU14 area. Whilst the
site has not previously been put forward through the Call for Sites process, it is in a
sensible and logical location for development.
4.23 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Housing and economic land availability assessment
paragraph 11 (reference ID: 3-011- 20140306) states:
“Plan makers should not simply rely on sites that they have been informed about but
actively identify sites through the desktop review process that may have a part to play
in meeting the development needs of an area.”
4.24 Neither the SA, nor any other evidence base document, make any reference to any such
action having taken place.
4.25 HOU14, instead, is presented with an arbitrary boundary through the middle of a field
partly within the Elms Farm premises. Instead, the boundary for HOU14 should be
extended to Manor Road and Woburn Road, as a logical and clear permanent boundary
for the allocation.
4.26 This would increase the amount of land available for residential development,
contributing to the housing shortfall identified earlier in this response. Moreover, as the
14 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
Elms Farm site adjoins the roundabouts on Fields Lane and is a gateway site, it can
deliver early and also contribute to the housing trajectory, similarly responding to the
stepped trajectory point.
4.27 The land at Elms Farm, is readily available, in single ownership from a company with a
proven track record of delivery.
4.28 The Local Plan evidence base finds that this location is a logical and appropriate location
for residential development; The Site would accord with the development strategy for
BBC and would deliver housing in a sustainable location, as advocated in the NPPF.
4.29 As currently drafted, the Local Plan is unsound as it is not justified based on the
evidence base, nor is it effective given it will create an arbitrary boundary, leave an area
of land that is not practical for modern day farming, and will fail to deliver sufficient
housing to meet identified needs.
4.30 The boundaries for HOU14 should therefore be amended and the allocation must
include the land at Elms Farm to make the Local Plan sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 9685

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Historic England

This new settlement proposal is a large strategic allocation for at least 4000 homes and employment development.
The site contains a scheduled monument, The Kempston Hardwick Moated Site. Kempston Hardwick is a fine example of a Bedfordshire moated site, the interior of which is substantially undisturbed and the waterlogged moat of which provides conditions suitable for the survival of organic remains.
Manor Road is the site of the linear medieval manorial deserted village, and part of the setting of the monument is this linear settlement.
Stewartby Conservation Area and its associated listed buildings lies to the south of the site whilst Wootton Conservation Area and listed buildings lie to the west of the site.
Any development of this site has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets and their settings.
An HIA has been prepared for the western portion of the site. However, this assessment does not follow the full 5 step methodology for HIAs. It identifies assets and considers impact but does not make any recommendations regarding potential mitigation and enhancements. This should be undertaken to inform the policy.
There does not appear to be an HIA for the rest of the site. An HIA should be prepared to cover the whole site.
However, we note that the promoters supporting statement does refer to an agreed stand-off distance for the scheduled monument. However, this was negotiated in relation to a specific application for employment development rather than a larger new settlement proposal.
An HIA should also be prepared for the rest of the site that considers the context of the new settlement.
We welcome criterion vi. However, the policy needs to be more specific in relation to mitigation and enhancement measures for the scheduled monument (see requirement above for completion of HIA).
Figure 7 page 64 shows a concept diagram for the site. Our initial view, though subject to the findings and recommendations of the HIAs, is that there should be more open space to the west of the monument (removing some of the land for employment in this area) and greater set back along the line of Manor Road, leaving a wider green corridor in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9718

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Historic England

For some sites, there does not appear to be an HIA and yet there are heritage issues that need to be addressed.
These include sites HOU2, HOU8 and parts of HOU14.
In these cases, please prepare a proportionate HIA prior to EiP and use the recommendations to inform policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 9719

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

6.1 Cloud Wing supports the principle of the allocation of the land at Kempston Hardwick for development. However, for the reasons set out in detail at Sections 3, 4 and 5 of these representations, Policy HOU14 proposes insufficient employment land on Cloud Wing’s land at Kempston Hardwick. Cloud Wing also has significant concerns over the overreliance and inappropriate emphasis on delivery of innovation uses at the site, which do not appear to be justified and pose risks to the delivery of economic needs and the overall effectiveness of the Plan. The allocation should state “employment uses”, rather than specifically identifying innovation uses. It should also be amended to recognise the fact that additional Class B8 logistics uses would generate significant uplifts in land value, that could support early investment in the infrastructure required to support housing development at the site.
6.2 Cloud Wing is also concerned by references in the draft Plan and its supporting evidence which suggest that development at Kempston Hardwick and other strategic sites would only be able to come forward post-2030 following the delivery of East-West Rail and completion of various highway improvements, which in turn appears to be driving the Council’s proposed approach to a stepped housing trajectory.
6.3 However, for the reasons set out in detail at paragraphs 6.9 to 6.69 below, a larger amount of employment land, including industrial and logistics uses, could start to be delivered earlier than 2030. The site is already a suitable location for employment growth. It is accessible by public transport and would be capable of supporting early delivery of infrastructure improvements including improvements to the surrounding highway network (i.e. the package of improvement works to Junction 13 of the M1 and the junction of the A6 and A421 which have been developed in detail through discussion with Highways England as part of the outline planning application for the Bedford Business Park) and deliver sustainable transport improvements (i.e. improvements to pedestrian and cycle accessibility and public transport).
6.4 On this basis, the Plan and draft Policy HOU14 risks unnecessarily delaying delivery of growth in a sustainable, suitable location and failing to meet economic needs in the short-term. Cloud Wing support the principle of mixed-use development at Kempston Hardwick and the allocation of the land in HOU14 as a strategic allocation for growth in Bedford Borough. However, for the reasons set out above, the quantum of employment development on Cloud Wing’s land should be increased. AWG is promoting further land directly adjoins the HOU14 that could accommodate additional residential development, where required.
6.5 In this context, it is in Cloud Wing’s view entirely inappropriate for employment development at the site to be delayed until late in the plan period and for the policy to prevent permission being granted until such time that a Supplementary Planning Document has been prepared by the local authority. Whilst we agree that further work would be required to develop a robust Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the site and support the Council’s view that development at Kempston Hardwick should be landscape-led and of high quality design, underpinned by an appropriate masterplan, the proposed approach has the potential to delay and undermine delivery of development early in the plan-period. The Policy should, therefore, be amended to allow flexibility for the landowners/ developers to prepare their own masterplan and design code, in accordance with paragraph 129 of the NPPF.
6.6 The detailed criteria set out in Policy HOU14, the concept plan and the infrastructure identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Transport Strategy would also need to be reviewed, updated and amended, as appropriate, to reflect changes to the quantum and mix of residential and employment development proposed in response to our comments above.
6.7 Our comments on the assessment of the site as part of the appendices to the HELAA and Sustainability Appraisal remain as set out in the comments on the Strategy Options and Draft Policies Consultation (see Appendix 2).

Comment

Representation ID: 9720

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

6.8 The comments hereafter set out the rationale which Cloud Wing has set out in its Bedford Business Park planning application. That application remains undetermined. Clearly, the Council will wish to continue to consider the advantages of that application in the context of its emerging Local Plan, which proposes that the Kempston Hardwick site is indeed suitable for a mix of uses, including those uses set out in the Bedford Business Park planning application.
6.9 Within the NPPF, the definition of whether a site is ‘deliverable’ specifically relates to sites for housing. Notwithstanding this, the PPG confirms that the key factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a site is likely to be delivered when assessing both housing and economic land should be:
• Suitability – is the site an appropriate location for development when considered against relevant constraints and their potential to be mitigated?
• Availability – are there any legal or ownership impediments to development?
• Achievability – is there a reasonable prospect that the particular type of development will be developed on the site at a particular point in time, including whether the site is economically viable.
6.10 The following section assesses the site against these criteria:
Suitability
6.11 The NPPG sets out that a site or broad location can be considered suitable “if it would provide an appropriate location for development when considered against relevant constraints and their potential to be mitigated”.
6.12 In order to demonstrate that site is suitable, the following sections looks at the relevant technical matters to demonstrate that when taking into account the relevant mitigation, there are no constraints to development.
Highways and Access
6.13 As set out in the earlier sections, the site is located in a prime location for economic development. Situated at the heart of the Golden Triangle, the site is extremely well connected to the strategic road network, being located adjacent to the A421 which connects to the M1 and A1.
6.14 There are also excellent rail links with the existing Kempston Hardwick railway station being located centrally within the site and providing hourly services to the centre of Bedford and to Bletchley. This connectivity is also set to improve in the future light of the planned improvement works to the East West rail line.
6.15 The development of the site could, therefore, progress and support delivery of employment early in the plan-period whilst also allowing for the potential relocation of Kempston Hardwick station as part of the EWR proposals. Cloud Wing is already engaging with East West Rail in relation to how it may be able to assist in facilitating elements of the proposed improvements.
6.16 To support economic development on the site, a series of critical infrastructure improvements are proposed, including new walking and cycle routes through the site, new public transport and shared transport services, highway network improvements and a new vehicular bridge across the Marston Vale Railway Line. The proposed walking and cycle routes, coupled with the extensive connections to existing green infrastructure and pathways, will promote active travel corridors and facilitate sustainable methods of commuting to the site.
6.17 It is noted that there is a holding objection from Highways England in relation to the outline planning application for the site which is currently pending determination. Detailed discussions with Highways England have been ongoing to resolve their comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on the strategic road network. A package of improvement works to Junction 13 of the M1 and at the junction of the A6 and A421 have been developed in detail through discussion with Highways England and would be secured as part of the development. It is anticipated that this package of improvement works will be sufficient to enable a resolution to be reached and Highways England to remove their holding objection in due course.
6.18 On this basis, we consider there are no highways and access matters that could be considered a constraint to development of the BBP proposals. Rather, the accessibility and connectivity of the site offers a particular advantage that means that it is very well placed to support a sustainable pattern of economic development.
Flood Risk and Drainage
6.19 As identified on the EA Flood Risk Map, the site lies within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. Commercial development, including offices, general industry, storage and distribution uses, are considered appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a in accordance with the guidance outlined within the NPPF.
6.20 As part of the outline planning application, a comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken based on data provided by the Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards (IDB). This has confirmed the flooding from groundwater, sewers and reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources is low.
6.21 The final layout of the site will be designed based on evidence from modelled flood levels obtained from the Bedford Group of IDB and the site topographic survey. This will enable the areas of higher flood risk to be properly mitigated and any development in these locations will be designed to ensure buildings are safe for the entirety of its lifespan, and that development within higher risk areas will not increase flooding elsewhere.
6.22 As part of future development, it is proposed that surface water would be discharged into the Great River Ouse watercourse located adjacent to the site’s western boundary.
6.23 As part of the outline planning application, the Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) has indicated that it will support a strategy based on restricted discharge rate of 4 litres/second/hectare to the existing IDB drainage network. There are no outstanding objections on Flood Risk or Drainage grounds.
6.24 We therefore consider that there are no significant constraints to development regarding flood risk or drainage matters.
Heritage & Archaeology
6.25 There are no heritage assets within the site itself, however the site is located within the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), the Kempston Hardwick Moated Site. This is assessed as an asset of heritage significance.
6.26 Additionally, there are heritage assets located in the wider vicinity of the site, including the Stewartby Conservation Area and Grade II listed kiln and chimneys at the Stewartby Brickworks to the southeast.
6.27 Discussions with Historic England during the consideration of the application have been undertaken to agree appropriate separation distances between development and the SAM. Minor amendments are also to be made to the heights of buildings in the part of the site nearest the SAM to minimise any harm to the setting of the SAM.
6.28 Accordingly, there is an appropriate approach to development on the site in order to mitigate heritage concerns so that this is not a constraint to development.
6.29 Furthermore, a full geophysical survey of the site has been undertaken followed by targeted trial trenching. This has demonstrated that the overall archaeological potential of the site is low, with the Council’s archaeology officers being content that any further work can be secured by way of planning condition.
6.30 Therefore, archaeology is not a constraint to development.
Landscape and Visual Impact
6.31 As part of the outline planning application, Indigo Landscape Architects prepared a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which provides a comprehensive assessment of the visual impacts of the proposed development.
6.32 Whilst the development will be visible from the A421, the road is raised and therefore will obstruct any views from the north towards Bedford and Kempston.
6.33 There is also substantial vegetation to the west which will protect any views from Wootton, and to the south to protect the views from Kempston Hardwick Moated Site, the SAM, and from the forthcoming residential development at the former Stewartby Brickworks.
6.34 Moreover, the proposed development includes substantial landscape planting which will provide significant screening to the development, helping the development blend into the landscape. Once the vegetation has reached maturity, the visual impact of the development is considered to fall to slight adverse in the longer term.
6.35 As the LVIA concludes, some ‘significant’ effects are to be expected given the size of the scheme and the scale of buildings proposed (particularly during the early part of the development lifespan) but once the mitigation planting has reached maturity the visual impact will be reduced. Furthermore, the assessment has been undertaken as a ‘worst-case scenario’ and at the reserved matters stage, further design measures and the choice of materials will assist in offsetting visual effects.
6.36 The visual impacts of the proposed development should also be considered against the significant economic benefits the development would deliver as discussed throughout these representations.
6.37 On this basis, it is not considered that landscape and visual impacts represent a significant constraint to development on the site.
Ecology and Trees
6.38 The outline planning application seeks to deliver 29.82ha of new green infrastructure and amenity space, retain 10.77 hectares of existing planting within the site and create 14.47 hectares of landscaped corridors along access routes. There would also be 8.45 hectares of sustainable, drainage ponds and green swales. A small lake and associated drainage channels make up a further 4.85 hectares. As such, the total open space and accessible green infrastructure equates to 68.36 hectares, or approximately 30% of the land within the red line site boundary.
6.39 The proposed ecological enhancements are indicated on the image below.
6.40 As part of the planning application, Delta-Simmons Environmental Consultants Ltd undertook a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the Site as well as further surveys including faunal, breeding bird, wintering bird, aquatic, reptile, bat, riparian mammal, invertebrate and hedgerow surveys.
6.41 In order to minimise the effect of the development on ecology, a series of mitigation measures have been recommended which would be secured as part of future development. This would include measures to avoid excessive uplighting and light spill, the use of SUDs, the incorporation of native hedgerow planting and for fencing to allow for access and egress for hedgehogs.
6.42 The assessment concludes that whilst there may be a short-term effect on the biodiversity value of the site in terms of the diversity of flora and fauna it supports until newly created habitats become established, in the long-term it is anticipated that full mitigation and enhancement measures will be achieved.
6.43 Following comments on the application, further consideration is being given to the scope for additional biodiversity enhancements on site. As part of this Cloud Wing is committed to achieving a 10% biodiversity net gain either on-site or via combination of on-site measures and offsite compensation.
6.44 Delta-Simmons Environmental Consultants Ltd also carried out a tree and hedgerow survey to support the outline planning application. This confirmed that no trees on-site nor on land adjacent to the site are covered by a TPO.
6.45 The proposals seek to deliver 30% tree canopy cover and provide important new linkages through what is currently an inaccessible area of land connecting the forest to the south of the Marston Vale with Bedford to the north. This is in line with the aims of the Marston Vale Community Forest. The tree officer at BBC has not raised any objections to the proposals and will seek further details at the reserved matters stage.
Noise and Air Quality
6.46 The outline planning application is accompanied by a suite of technical reports in order to assess the noise and air quality impact of the proposed development and identify appropriate mitigation measures where necessary.
6.47 With regards to noise, the Noise Assessment confirms that if best practice measures are employed during the construction phase, it is anticipated that construction noise levels will have a minor residual effect on nearby noise sensitive receptors. Whilst the noise during the operational phase is likely to have a longer-term effect, appropriate mitigation measures will be adopted during the detailed design stage.
6.48 The Air Quality Assessment confirms that, with appropriate mitigation in place, there would be a negligible air quality impact during the construction phase.
6.49 Moreover, there would be a negligible to minor adverse effect during the operation phase as a result of vehicle emissions from operational traffic.
6.50 As such, it is not considered that there are any significant noise or air quality impacts that would be a constraint to economic development at the site.
Ground Conditions and Remediation
6.51 As part of the outline planning application, a series of ground investigation works have been undertaken. This identified a series of remediation works that could be secured by planning condition.
6.52 As such, it is not considered that ground contamination presents a constraint to future development of the site.
Agricultural Land Classification Assessment
6.53 A full agricultural land classification assessment has been undertaken by Landscope Land and Property Ltd for the parts of the site which does not form part of the former brickworks or clay pits.
6.54 The assessment concluded that 86.5% of the area falls within category 3B ‘Moderate’ agricultural land whilst 10% falls within 3A ‘Good’ agricultural land.
6.55 As such, the development of the Site would not have an impact on any Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land and only a limited impact on Grade 3A land. It is not anticipated that loss of agricultural land would constitute a constraint to development.
Summary
6.56 In summary, it is considered that there are no technical constraints that would prevent the development of the Site for employment land.
Availability
6.57 The PPG states that a site is: “considered available for development, when, on the best information available… there is confidence that there are no legal or ownership impediments to development. For example, land is controlled by a developer or landowner who has expressed an intention to develop”.
6.58 Cloud Wing control the site and therefore there are no legal ownership or other technical impediments to delivering development on the site.
6.59 Furthermore, the site is being actively promoted for economic development and is the subject of an outline planning application currently pending determination.
6.60 Accordingly, the site is available for employment development now in NPPF terms.
Achievable
6.61 As per the NPPG, a site is considered achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that the particular type of development will be developed on the site at a particular point in time, including an assessment of the economic viability of a site.
6.62 Given the scale of development proposed for the site, the development will be delivered over several phases. This will include ground remediation works and the delivery of transport infrastructure in the first phases, as set out below:
• Phase 1 – ground remediation works in the location of the former Kempston Hardwick brickworks
• Phase 2 – construction of bridge proposed over the railway line and main road infrastructure
• Phase 3 – construction of employment uses in areas where no ground remediation works are required
• Phase 4 – construction of employment uses on the former Kempston Hardwick brickworks location
• Phase 5 – construction of employment uses in the south of the site.
6.63 Whilst the timings for delivery are dependent on achieving a planning permission and identification of a Development Partner, both of which are currently ongoing, it is anticipated that it would be possible to start on site with site clearance, remediation and enabling works within 6 months of receiving an outline planning permission, following the discharge of any relevant planning conditions. It is anticipated that works to deliver the primary infrastructure for the first phase would then commence approximately 6 months later, following the grant of reserved matters, with the aim of the first phase being complete and ready for occupation within 18 months.
6.64 The scheme would be capable of supporting the delivery of its own infrastructure requirements and there are no significant site constraints that might prevent development or make the development unviable.
6.65 Therefore, it is considered that the site is achievable for development as there is a realistic timeframe for development and there are no economic viability constraints that would hinder delivery.
6.66 Due to the nature of the proposals and the opportunity presented, there has been a significant amount of market interest in the site for employment uses. It is envisaged that the provision of much needed high quality employment space in this location will be attractive to both new businesses relocating to the area and existing local businesses looking to grow. SEMLEP has confirmed that Cloud Wing’s proposals fit well with the strategic economic vision for the area (Appendix 3).
6.67 It is also being explored whether the site might be well-placed due to its size and location to contribute to the wider modal shift of logistics from road to rail through rail freight opportunities being promoted by the NIC. This modal shift is being driven by wider challenges facing the UK’s freight system including decarbonisation, congestion and how technological advancements can assist in meeting increasing societal demands.
Deliverability Summary
6.68 Therefore, it is considered that the site is deliverable in line with the NPPF as it is a suitable location for development, it is available and there is a realistic prospect that development will be developed on the site.
Benefits of Bedford Business Park
6.69 The Bedford Business Park proposals are capable of delivering substantial social, economic and environmental benefits which will directly benefit Bedford and contribute towards delivering the growth objectives within the Arc. These are summarised below (set out in the attachment).

Comment

Representation ID: 9729

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Historic England

The final category of sites include those sites where an HIA has been prepared but the recommendations from the HIA have not been incorporated into the policy
wording for the site.
These include sites HOU1, EMP4, HOU13, HOU14, HOU15, HOU16, HOU17, HOU18 and HOU19. We suggest including a diagram for HOU6 to illustrate the
extent of open space,
It is important that policies include sufficient information regarding criteria for development. Paragraph 16d of the NPPF states that policies should provide ‘a clear
indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal’.
Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 61-002- 20190315Revision date: 15 03 2019 also makes it clear that, ‘Where sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given to provide clarity to developers, local communities and other interested parties about the nature and scale of development.’
Historic England’s Advice Note on Site Allocations HEAN3 includes a section on site allocation policies at paragraphs 3.1 – 3.2. It states, ‘The level of detail required in a site allocation policy will depend on aspects such as the nature of the development proposed and the size and complexity of the site. However, it ought to
be detailed enough to provide information on what is expected, where it will happen on the site and when development will come forward including phasing. Mitigation and enhancement measures identified as part of the site selection process and evidence gathering are best set out within the policy to ensure that these are
implemented.’
Therefore, should the HIA conclude that development in the area could be acceptable and the site be allocated, the findings of the HIA should inform the Local Plan policy including development criteria and a strategy diagram which expresses the development criteria in diagrammatic form.
In these cases, please ensure that the policy wording is amended to include the recommendations from the HIA. It is helpful if the recommendations are also shown
on a diagram in the Plan.
Without the completion of this evidence base, some sites are not justified and so are not sound. Furthermore, without suitable amendments to policy wording, some
of the policies are not effective and so are not sound.

Object

Representation ID: 9785

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: BDW Trading

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Our comments should be read within the context of our responses to the vision and objectives and Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy.
We consider that Policy HOU14 is not sound on the following tests under paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
a) Positively prepared – the plan does not propose a strategy which contains sites within a strategy capable of delivering the area’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum.
b) Justified – the strategy in the plan is not appropriate taking into account the reasonable alternatives which is more of a focus on Bedford Town and Kempston and sites that can be well-connected to these existing urban areas.
c) Effective – the strategy is not effective due to the uncertainty over deliverability of proposed allocations.
d) Consistent with national policy – we simply consider that the plan is not capable of being considered to deliver sustainable development as required under the NPPF because of the proposed spatial strategy and the proposed site allocations.
The proposed policy is overly reliant on East-West Rail despite there being significant decisions yet to be made on this infrastructure proposal. By pushing ahead with this consultation prior to any definitive progress on East-West Rail, there is danger that the spatial strategy including the approach to south of Bedford will unravel. Kempston Hardwick is reliant on two new train stations, which requires a significant amount of infrastructure delivery within a short timeframe. The timing of the delivery of these key pieces of infrastructure is uncertain.
The delivery of 3,800 units over the plan period to 2040 is ambitious when there are multiple land owners in play. Delivery could therefore be complex, delayed and incoherent.
There is currently a pending planning application for employment on the site – Ref. 18/02940/EIA – Outline application with all matters reserved except access, for a commercial and industrial development providing up to 780,379 sqm of floorspace for B1, B2 and B8 uses and ancillary service uses (A1, A3, A4 & A5) and associated infrastructure including open space and landscaping.
Barratt Developments are a 5-star (the top level) home builder as awarded by the HBF customer satisfaction survey 2022 and previous years. Barratt Developments measure its socio-economic impact (more information can be provided) and recently won the RESI Awards Large Developer 2021.
As the land at Box End performs so well but is inexplicitly omitted from the proposed sites within the South of Bedford Area, there is a vulnerability in the approach which is not sound.
We suggest a review of the evidence base and strategy which would lead to a need for more land for housing-led development including identification of land at Box End, west of Bedford

Object

Representation ID: 9900

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

HOU13 Land at Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural
5.32 Notwithstanding the Plan has proposed an allocation of land surrounding Gibraltar Corner, Kempston Rural which is a small residential estate west of the A6. We object to HOU13 as it is proposing significant development in this isolated location which is clearly not as sustainable as an extension to Wootton or adjoining the Bedford urban area. In the Settlement Hierarchy it is a Group 4 settlement (the lowest category) scoring a total of 8, which is for bus services. It did not score for any other service or facility. Policy HOU13 sets out requirements for development but as can be seen by criteria iv, v, vii residents will rely on vehicular connections to more sustainable locations, including Wootton and Biddenham. It is not a new settlement but a larger residential estate in the open countryside. With a need for houses in the area as established by HOU13 and HOU14, then Wootton would be the most sustainable location to deliver some of this need.

Object

Representation ID: 10263

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

HOU14 - Kempston Hardwick New Settlement
10.8 Central Bedfordshire Council objects to this allocation on the basis of our transport concerns as detailed above.
10.9 This site is proposed to deliver significant growth linked to the A421 corridor of at least 4,000 new homes and around 70ha of employment land, although it is unclear in the submission plan, what types of employment would actually be delivered here. It is considered that these proposals will have significant impacts upon Central Bedfordshire communities.
10.10 The policy recognises that the site is reliant on new rail infrastructure at Stewartby Hardwick (i.e. a new station delivered by the EWR rail project) and a new station at Wixams, but we would consider the Wixams scheme much more certain than that of EWR as no decision has yet been made as to the scheme (s) which will form part of the development consent order. Particular attention should be paid to forecasting flows towards the A421 and M1 J13 within any future detailed Transport Assessment. Despite what the site will offer, it is highly unlikely that it will be completely self sufficient as the policy wording suggests and the impact on routes such as the A421 is critically important to Central Bedfordshire.
 
10.11 We are concerned that the proposed new link between Fields Road and Manor Road will facilitate the use of the B530 as an alternative route when the A421 experiences congestion issues resulting from both growth and the proposed widening scheme further east.
10.12 It should also be made clear if ‘Stewartby Hardwick’ and ‘Broadmead’ are both referring to the new EWR station, as the names are used interchangably in the supporting evidence.
10.13 The Submission plan states that a masterplan and design code will be prepared for this site to show how the new settlement can be delivered in accordance with the South of Bedford Framework and will be adopted as SPD. It will be essential that Central Bedfordshire Council is engaged from the outset in the production of the masterplan and design code, to ensure that any impacts arising from the proposals on our residents, communities, serices and infrastructure, are identified and mitigation measures agreed prior to any development taking place.

Object

Representation ID: 10394

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: FCC Environment UK Ltd

Agent: Axis PED Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy HOU14 Kempston Hardwick New Settlement – FCC support this allocation. As set out within the Call for Sites Submission FCC has undertaken initial feasibility work to explore options of providing a new link road from the A6 in the east across the Site to provide direct access to the land to the west of the railway line which forms part of this proposed allocation.
The new road would be taken from the existing roundabout to the north east of FCC’s site, route through the Site to join the new road network proposed as part of the Kempston Hardwick New Settlement. The purpose of the link road would be to reduce congestion between central Bedford and Kempston Hardwick.
The link road would provide a direct route between the Kempston Hardwick New Settlement and the A421 which forms part of the trunk road network.
As set out within the Call for Sites submission and representations made to the 2021 consultation, FCC’s Elstow South site will become available for development within the plan period. The site has planning permission to be restored to create a site which is level with adjoining land. The discharge of conditions applications to allow infilling work to commence are due to be determined in the coming months.
The ‘Housing Land and Employment Land Availability Assessment and Site Assessment’ (HELAA) document (May 2022) confirms that Elstow South (referred to as ‘Site 947 Land of Wilstead Road’) was discounted at Stage 2 of the Assessment on the basis that: “The site requires significant remediation and is not currently available.”
The Local Plan is required to allocate sites for development over the plan period. As set out above, the discharge of conditions applications which provide the detail on the restoration of the site are well progressed and the site will be restored and available for development by 2031. The HELAA document confirms that for a site to be considered available for development, there are no legal or ownership impediments to development and the landowner has expressed an intention to develop. The Planning Practice Guidance provides further detail on what happens when constraints are identified that impact on the suitability, availability and achievability (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 3-021-20190722). It states that where constraints have been identified, then assessment will need to consider what action could be taken to overcome them. Dewatering of the voids has commenced, the discharge of conditions applications are well progressed and FCC intend to commence the infill works to create a development platform in 2023.

Object

Representation ID: 10488

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordshire Police

Agent: West Mercia OPCC

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Having worked with Bedford Borough Council during the preparation of its Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Bedfordshire Police (BP) is very disappointed with the outcome of this in two key respects:

1. Policies HOU1 – HOU 19 do not reference the police, or indeed the emergency services, infrastructure that will be required to support the developments they propose.

2. Although BP provided the Council and its consultants (AECOM) with a detailed Infrastructure Plan detailing precisely the police infrastructure required to support new housing growth in the Borough, only its contents in relation to premises requirements have been allowed for in the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and even then inaccurately. The Council’s IDP also erroneously states that BP will eventually be able to meet the costs of delivering the infrastructure required to the growth envisaged by the Local Plan. In fact developer funding will be required to meet the costs. This was explained and evidenced at length in the Infrastructure Plan submitted by BP.

The above outcomes contrasts starkly with the basic expectation that when people move into a new housing estate or other development, they are protected by police and other emergency services that can operate efficiently and effectively in that vicinity. This applies to all levels of service, whether they ring 999 should the worst happen, or are simply benefitting from the reassurance of day-to-day neighbourhood policing for example.

It means in turn that the delivery of police and other emergency services infrastructure needs to be planned and funded in advance of a new development scheme, in the same way as utilities, education, health, transport and other public services that are currently specified in various places in Policies HOU1 – HOU19.

The potential impact on the police and other emergency services from a new development is not simply due to an increase in population, but also the location of where that new population is arising and the impact that it will have on the present disposition of emergency services resources. Delivery of services to the new communities is also not just about responding to crimes or incidents, but also includes community assurance, delivery of crime safety advice and where necessary providing referral responses when there are expressed concerns about the safety of children, the elderly or those with special needs, for example.

The experience of BP shows that new developments quickly take on the characteristics of surrounding areas in terms of calls, incident types and crime numbers, even from the point when materials are delivered to a site. Therefore, service provision needs to be expanded accordingly, as do those of other public service providers.

This is very important as development growth, particularly new housing development, has significant and permanent implications for the emergency services once delivered. Whether it takes place on green fields, urban centres or redundant factory sites, new schemes invariably result in an increased demand for ‘blue light’ services.

Hence why planning policies (i.e. HOU1 – HOU19) have a key role to play in ensuring that the police and other emergency services can provide the same level of service to the residents/occupiers of a new development as for existing residents, without compromising frontline services. After all, it is only possible to create successful places and support new communities if they are brought forward alongside adequate services and infrastructure.

BP would also like to point out at this juncture that mitigating the impact of a given scheme on the emergency services is not a false choice between design or infrastructure measures. These in fact go together to ensure a development is safe and secure. The emergency services want to see schemes that incorporate fire safety measures, adopt Secured by Design guidance, include suitable access for response vehicles (police cars, fire engines and ambulances alike) and provide the infrastructure necessary to enable service delivery and on-going coverage for the scheme in question. Current legislation and policy do not permit ambulance services, fire and rescue services and the police to downgrade the level of their provision to a new development scheme because it incorporates fire safety and/or crime prevention design measures. Appropriate new infrastructure for the police and other emergency services is therefore always required.

This is why sustainability of a development to the police and other emergency means two things. It firstly means schemes that both passively (through design measures) and actively (through infrastructure provision) preserve community safety. If a building or place does not provide these things, there can be no quality of life for the people who will reside, work or visit there, leading ultimately to an unsustainable development.

This is not only the view of our organisations. We are sure you will agree those who purchase properties on a development, who may bring up families there, or for whom it may be a place of work, will want to know that it is a safe environment underpinned by emergency services providing effective and efficient services. It is not only in the interests of the continual well-being of the new residential and/or business community that has been created, but also to protect those in existing communities that will border the development in question. Conversely, there would be great anxiety amongst all these people, new and existing, if the emergency services network was stretched to beyond capacity.

Turning to what is meant by ‘infrastructure’ in this context, the Council’s IDP takes the view that police infrastructure is purely new buildings or works to existing buildings. However, in an police and other emergency services context (and as BP showed in the infrastructure plan it submitted to the Council), infrastructure includes


• Vehicles of varying types and functions as needed to cover the development in question e.g. deployment for emergency response, patrol or follow-up for incidents.

• Personal equipment for officers and staff e.g. workstations, radios, protective equipment, uniforms and bicycles;

• Radio cover e.g. base stations, hardware and signal strengthening equipment;

• CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras;

• Mobile IT technologies e.g. body worn cameras and smart tablet computers; and

• Firefighting equipment such as Fire Lances and thermal imaging cameras.

This may seem an unnecessarily expansive definition, but what constitutes ‘infrastructure’ in any given case is what would not be otherwise directly needed by the emergency services but for the new development.

It is a view shared by the Government. Under Schedule 11 (204N(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the emergency services are classified as infrastructure and the Bill also states that this encompasses facilities and equipment.

This is why we consider that in the absence of references to planning for police and emergency services infrastructure in Policies HOU1 – 19, they are unsound in the context of paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 10521

Received: 23/08/2022

Respondent: Stewartby & Kempston Hardwick Parish Council

Number of people: 256

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Registered petition obo 256 people.
Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick Parish Council (SKHPC) have studied and reviewed the Local Plan 2040 as a whole document and more specifically the areas within their Parish. SKHPC objects to Policy HOU 14 Kempston Hardwick new settlement on the grounds of: Current and planned development; Highways; Healthcare; Policing; Gypsy & Traveller Sites; and Residents feedback – not being made aware of how the proposals would affect local communities. The petition is submitted on behalf of the residents objecting to Local Plan 2040 and the developments that are proposed for Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick. The Local Plan 2040 is considered a comprehensive document on paper but has a series of presumptions and unqualified plans that must be addressed before approval is given.
It should be noted that SKHPC are aware that new housing building quotas are set by central government for local authorities to achieve.