Sustainability Appraisal - Supplementary Report [EXAM 115/115B]

Table 5.2: SA findings for Areas A-D

Summary of SA findings

5.6 At this strategic level of assessment, there was considerable uncertainty in the SA findings since the likely effects depend upon the scale, nature and location of proposed development within each Area, as well as the possibilities for implementing mitigation measures.

SA objective 1: To ensure that the housing needs of all residents and communities are met

5.7 Areas A, B and C are likely to have significant positive effects on SA objective 1. All four Areas could provide an appropriate mix of types of housing but this is more likely to be deliverable through the medium to larger-scale growth that could be delivered in Areas A, B and C. Positive effects in Area D would be minor as growth potential there is small-medium scale.

SA objective 2: To maintain and enhance community and settlement identities

5.8 Development in Area A could have significant negative effects on the first part of SA objective 2, as a result of the loss of Green Belt land and the potential for coalescence of existing settlements. Development in the other three Areas would avoid the Green Belt, so minor positive effects were identified. All four Areas have the potential for either positive or negative effects on the second part of this SA objective (integration and the identity of a settlement or community). Effects will depend upon the sensitivity of the settlement/community and the scale and design of the development.

SA objective 3: To improve accessibility to services and facilities

5.9 All four Areas are likely to have minor positive effects on SA objective 3. Although large development sites (including new villages or extensions to settlements) have the potential to put strain on existing services, they also have the greater potential for positive effects through early, creative masterplanning with the scale and scope to provide sustainable community infrastructure thus mitigating potential negative effects and potentially benefitting the area.

SA objective 4: To support the economy and ensure that there are suitable opportunities for employment

5.10 All four Areas are likely to have positive effects on SA objective 4. Potential significant positive effects were identified for Area C which has close links to Milton Keynes and is well-connected with the improved A421, M1 and the planned upgrading for the East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge. Area B also has the potential for significant positive effects due to the location of the A1 corridor through this area and the planned upgrading of the East West Rail. Area A offers strong opportunities to support and enhance the vitality and viability of Dunstable and Luton town centres.

SA objective 5: To improve the health and wellbeing of communities and reduce inequalities

5.11 Area A could have a significant positive effect on SA objective 5 as it includes areas of higher deprivation around Houghton Regis and Luton which new development could help to address. Health would also be benefited by GI provision which should be better addressed by the larger-scale development possible in Areas A-C. Since growth potential for Area D would be small-medium sized, there may be fewer opportunities for delivering GI enhancements.

SA objective 6. To maintain and improve the existing highway network and reduce associated indirect impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions

5.12 There is some potential for growth along the major transport corridor following the M1, A5 and the railway with likely negative effects in Area A but mitigation may be achieved by ensuring that new development is located where there is existing capacity, with potential neutral effects resulting. Minor negative effects are likely to result from Areas B, C and D as a result of increased pressure on the highways network in those areas. The A1 corridor running through Area B is a strategic location for the warehousing industry with good, fast access to the national/international road network and is important to maintain. Area C is well-connected with the improved A421, the M1 and the planned section upgrade for East West Rail60 between Oxford and Cambridge. There is the potential for major development, including new settlements, to contribute to further improvements and ensure the continuing capacity of the strategic road and rail networks; although there is uncertainty at this stage. Larger developments are more likely to be able to support funding for upgrading the strategic road network. The smaller-medium scale developments indicated for Area D are less likely to support the potential to upgrade roads.

SA objective 7: To encourage a demonstrable modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport and reduce the need to travel

5.13 Area A is well-connected to the Midland Main railway line and smaller-medium sized developments at locations such as Ampthill, Flitwick, Westoning and Harlington, along well-connected public transport routes could encourage modal shift with positive effects. Larger scale developments with major opportunities to promote sustainable transport are only likely to be possible adjacent to Luton and to help meet the housing needs of Luton Borough. Larger scale developments indicated for Areas B and C have the scope for effective design and implementation of sustainable transport modes – cycling and walking – with the potential for significant positive effects. Smaller-medium scale development indicated for Area D limits possibilities with likely neutral effects.

SA objective 8: To maximise the potential for energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emission and ensure that the built, natural environment and its communities can withstand the effects of climate change

SA objective 9: To minimise the demand for water and maintain or improve water quality

5.14 All development has the potential for high energy and water efficiencies but generally, the scale and scope of the larger developments, especially new villages/settlements, offers potential possibilities for exemplar design and construction.

SA objective 10: To reduce the risk of flooding from all sources

5.15 The Regulation 19 SA report noted that a Development Management Policy on Flood Risk was being drafted for the Local Plan in line with Government guidance. This will provide mitigation measures. Larger developments can have the scale and scope to provide creative design and potentially contribute to resolving existing flood risk issues. No differences were identified in the SA between Areas A-D for these SA objectives.

SA objective 11: To protect and conserve soil

5.16 Minor negative effects were identified for all four Areas. All development will take land and the soil resource will be lost with permanent negative effects. However, it is possible to avoid the best and most versatile agricultural land.

SA objective 12: To protect, enhance and manage biodiversity & geodiversity

5.17 The Regulation 19 SA report noted that Development Management Policies on Green Infrastructure, Enhancing Ecological Networks and Nature Conservation were being drafted for the Local Plan and these will help to avoid important assets to avoid negative effects on this SA objective. The SA did not identify variations in the likely effects on biodiversity and geodiversity of development in the four Areas as these will depend on the specific location of developments.

SA objective 13: To protect and enhance the landscape and townscape

5.18 All development has the potential for negative effects on landscape and townscape. The SA noted that Development Management Policies on Landscape Character and Value are being drafted for the Local Plan and these should reduce the extent of negative effects. No differences were identified in the SA between Areas A-D for these SA objectives.

SA objective 14. To ensure the protection and enhancement of heritage assets, the historic environment and its setting

5.19 The Regulation 19 SA report noted that a Development Management Policy on the Historic Environment was being drafted for the Local Plan and that this will help to avoid important assets to avoid negative effects on this SA objective. The SA did not identify variations in the likely effects of development on the historic environment in the four Areas as these will depend on the specific location of developments.

Summary and conclusions

5.20 Area C performed the best of the four Areas in the SA, with four potential significant positive effects identified. The next best performing was Area B, with three potential significant positive effects, followed by Areas A and D with two and zero likely significant positive effects identified respectively.

5.21 Area D performed poorest of all the Areas in the SA, as the area offers the potential only for smaller-scale development which would not deliver, or provide access to, as wide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure. Conversely, development in Area C could be larger-scale, and would have good potential in terms of employment and the economy due to the focus in that area of research and development activities. The area is also well-connected in transport terms. The Green Belt in Area A is a significant constraint and that was the only Area which had a potential significant negative effect associated with it.

Options for the distribution of development growth

5.22 The SA findings for the six options for the distribution of development growth were presented in Chapter 4. In summary, the best performing options were Option 2 (larger new settlements), Option 5 (growth around sustainable transport hubs), and Option 6 (urban extensions). The poorest performing options in the SA were Option 3 (village extensions) and Option 4 (growth around strategic roads). Option 1 (smaller new settlements) fell in the middle of these two groups of options in terms of the likely sustainability effects. This suggests that while villages may be able to make some provision, CBC should be looking largely towards other distribution types, particularly 2, 5 and 6, and then 1, when considering alternative options for the greatest contribution to meeting development needs.

Residential site options

5.23 The SA findings for the strategic residential site options were presented in Chapter 4. This section considers which of those site options falls within each of the development types referred to above, and which of Areas A-D they are located in. This analysis helps to identify alternative approaches that CBC could take to selecting sites for allocation.

5.24 Table 5.3 below lists the residential site options in each of Areas A-D and shows which of the distribution options they are classified as, as well as how many homes they could accommodate. The sites that are currently allocated in the submitted version of the Local Plan are shaded in grey.

Table 5.3: Alternative site options matrix

Table 5.4: Key to distribution types

5.26 The following sections consider the key decisions to be made by CBC in each area, with respect to the alternative residential site options. The site-level SA findings are considered alongside the SA findings for both the four areas and the different development types. Bearing in mind, the preference shown in SA terms for looking towards distribution types other than Option 3 (village extensions), (as explained in paragraph 5.21), these sections focus on the strategic sites.

5.27 At the end of each section, the sites that are allocated in the submitted Local Plan in that area are identified and the reasons for CBC's decision making at that time are given. Where CBC proposes to make changes to allocations within the Local Plan this is noted and the reasons given. This information has been provided by CBC and is included in this report in order to meet the requirement of the SEA Regulations to provide reasons why certain options are selected and others rejected.

Area A: South & West/ M1 Corridor

5.28 This area is characterised by the Chilterns AONB and Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area (NIA), both of which have valued habitats and landscapes which are existing environmental assets. The SA has shown that the area can deliver the social and economic benefits associated with larger-scale development, but that the Green Belt is a planning constraint.

5.29 The constrained nature of neighbouring Luton Borough means that it isn't possible to meet its housing needs within the Borough boundaries. CBC and North Hertfordshire District Council have both committed to meeting the remaining unmet need (Position Paper on Luton HMA Housing Distribution (CBC Duty to Cooperate Statement)). Through Duty to Co-operate discussions, CBC has committed to providing 7,350 homes, preferably within the part of Central Bedfordshire that falls within the Luton Housing Market Area (HMA) to contribute to Luton's unmet need (but with the acknowledgement that locations required testing within the Local Plan), and to providing the housing for Luton as close to Luton as possible

5.30 Table 5.5 below summarises the SA findings for the seven strategic residential site options that have been considered in Area A. Six of these options are alternative versions of development at Luton North and Luton West.

Table 5.5: SA findings for strategic site options in Area A

5.32 Given that the site at Houghton Regis North already has planning permission, the key decisions to be made by CBC in Area A are based around the site(s) adjacent to Luton. As well as considering the relative performance in SA terms of the areas to the north and west of the town, the three alternative options in each location need to be compared to one another.

5.33 Overall, Luton North performs better in the SA than Luton West. All three of the alternative Luton North options are expected to have either three or four significant positive effects on the SA objectives and either two or three significant negative effects. In comparison, the Luton West site options would each have three significant positive effects and between three and five significant negative effects. Although Luton North Option 1 performs better than all the other Luton options with respect to SA objective 4 (employment), it would have a significant negative effect on SA objective 13 (landscape) along with Luton West Options 2 and 3. The three Luton West options would have a significant negative effect on SA Objective 6 (highways and air quality). Comparing the three alternative options at Luton North, Options 2 and 3 perform slightly better in SA terms than Option 1 as the negative effects on the landscape are not considered likely to be significant under Options 2 and 3. This reflects the fact that Option 1 was reduced in size to create the alternative Options 2 and 3, in response to concerns expressed previously by consultees in relation to the impacts of Option 1 on the Chilterns AONB and heritage assets.

5.34 If neither Luton North or Luton West were to be allocated, and the housing required for Luton were to be delivered at strategic sites elsewhere within Central Bedfordshire, it would not be meeting the identified needs of Luton in terms of location, which would have negative effects for SA objective 1 (housing). That approach would also be likely to result in higher levels of car use amongst residents commuting to and from Luton for work and other activities, which would have negative effects on SA objectives 6 (highways and air quality), 7 (sustainable transport) and 8 (energy and climate change). However, providing the housing outside of Area A could help to avoid negative effects on SA Objective 2 (Green Belt) and SA objective 13: (landscape) as the presence of the AONB within Area A means that it is the most sensitive part of Central Bedfordshire in landscape terms.

5.35 An alternative approach of allocating both Luton North and Luton West, albeit at the smallest scale, could also have negative effects in terms of SA objective 1 (housing) as a large amount of development would be focussed in Area A and the amount of housing delivered in other parts of Central Bedfordshire may not be adequately distributed to meet needs in other areas. There may also be more likely to be negative cumulative effects on SA objective 13 (landscape) due to the large amount of development to be focussed near to the AONB in two different locations rather than just one. Smaller-scale development at both locations may also mean that neither allocation is large enough to support a full range of services and facilities onsite, meaning that people have to travel more day-to-day – this could have negative effects on SA objective 3 (services and facilities) as well as SA objectives 6 (highways and air quality), 7 (sustainable transport) and 8 (energy and climate change). As shown in Chapter 4, larger new developments and urban extensions tend to perform better in the SA in terms of creating sustainable self-contained communities.

5.36 Conversely, allocating neither Luton North or Luton West and instead relying on development in the villages within Area A to deliver housing for Luton would still mean that levels of car use would be high and access to services, facilities and job opportunities would be relatively poor - the SA findings for the alternative approaches to development (see Chapter 4) showed that village extensions perform poorly in SA terms for these reasons.

5.37 Therefore, the SA findings indicate that the most sustainable approach would be to allocate development at Luton North (either Option 2 or 3). Houghton Regis North performs better than the other Luton options, and the site already has planning permission. Allocation in the Local Plan could present an opportunity to include appropriate criteria in the allocation policy for that site, to ensure that the potential negative effects are mitigated as far as possible and positive effects are maximised.

Area B: East/A1 corridor

5.38 The broad corridor running north-south along the A1 and the East Coast Main Railway Line is well served with regards to transport, having access to the East Coast Mainline with enhanced capacity from Thameslink services. Railway stations are located at Arlesey, Biggleswade and Sandy. CBC has identified the potential for major growth on large sites with good infrastructure.

5.39 The preferred corridor for East West Rail was identified after the Local Plan was submitted. It passes to the north of Sandy, offering an interchange with the East Coast Mainline and east west connectivity to the higher order centres of Cambridge, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford.

5.40 The SA confirmed that Area B performs well in terms of the opportunities it presents for larger-scale developments and its good transport links.

5.41 Table 5.6 below summarises the SA findings for the seven site options that were considered in this Area.

Table 5.6: SA findings for strategic site options in Area B

5.43 In SA terms, Arlesey is the best performing location in Area B, with Option 1 performing marginally better than Options 2 and 3. Biggleswade East Phase 1 also performs well, and considerably better than Biggleswade East Phase 2. Tempsford South and Tempsford Airfield is the poorest performing site in Area B. North and North East Sandy falls somewhere in the middle, similar to Biggleswade East Phase 2.

5.44 The Arlesey site options perform well because they are of a large enough scale to provide some services and facilities onsite but are also close to the good range of existing and committed services and facilities within Arlesey itself. Development nearby would support the vitality and viability of Arlesey town centre. The three Arlesey options also offer the opportunity for the delivery of a new country park, although this would be more certain under Option 1. This would benefit biodiversity and health.

5.45 The very large scale of development that could occur at Biggleswade East Phase 2 means that effects might have been expected to be more positive than are in fact indicated through the SA, given that the SA findings presented in Chapter 4 showed that larger scale development generally performs well in sustainability terms. Indeed, the option does perform well in terms of access to services and transport links. However, the SA highlights the sensitivity of the site in terms of the historic environment and the presence of designated heritage features within the boundary. The site is also on Grade 2 agricultural land, a large area of which would be lost. The large-scale development could also have negative effects on the setting of nearby settlements including Sutton and Dunton. In contrast, Biggleswade East Phase 1 is of a scale and location that would be easier to integrate with the existing urban area of Biggleswade. The benefits of development near to Biggleswade for both options include proximity to services and good transport links.

5.46 Similar to Biggleswade East Phase 2, Tempsford South and Tempsford Airfield offers an opportunity for a very large-scale development which would offer many of the sustainability benefits associated with larger developments that were highlighted in Chapter 4. The development should operate as a standalone settlement and would offer the critical mass needed to provide a good range of services and facilities, and its scale also means that transport links should be able to be provided to link with the station at Sandy. However, the SA highlights the potential for settlement coalescence between Everton and Sandy and the site is largely greenfield Grade 2 agricultural land which would be lost.

5.47 The site at North and North East Sandy performs well in relation to several of the SA objectives. It is again at the larger end of the scale in terms of the size of the strategic options which means it would be able to incorporate services and facilities and transport links. It is well-connected to existing transport links and would be developed as an extension to Sandy, providing good access to the railway station there and existing services and facilities, although it is noted that the railway station would be located some distance from certain parts of this large site. However, its proximity to the A1 means that it could have adverse impacts on traffic in that area and contribute to poor air quality at the AQMA already declared at Sandy. It is also possible that there could be competition between services and facilities to be provided as part of the development and the existing town centre.

5.48 The SA therefore points to Arlesey being the most sustainable location for development in Area B, with Option 1 performing slightly better than Options 2 and 3.

Area C: East/ west corridor

5.49 This area of Central Bedfordshire is an important economic area with advanced research and development at Cranfield Technology Park and Millbrook Proving Ground and close links with Milton Keynes. The area is well-connected with the upgraded A421 and the M1 as well as the planned Western Section upgrade of East West Rail between Oxford and Bedford. Further improvements to transport infrastructure should be provided by the forthcoming Expressway, the route of which is not yet known.

5.50 The area has a history as a location for growth - it was designated as a growth area in the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy and Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy and this is reflected in the adopted Mid Bedfordshire Core Strategy.

5.51 The SA of the four Areas highlighted the benefits of larger-scale development which can be delivered in Area C, alongside the good sustainable transport potential here.

5.52 Table 5.7 below summarises the SA findings for the four site options that were considered in this Area.

Table 5.7: SA findings for strategic site options in Area C

5.53 Marston Moretaine South (Marston Vale) performs best of all the site options across Central Bedfordshire, not just within Area C. Five potential significant positive effects are identified for that site compared to three or four for the other sites in this Area. The site would deliver a large new settlement of up to 5,000 homes, which offers the opportunity to capitalise on the sustainability benefits of this scale of development that were highlighted in Chapter 4. The development would be of a scale to provide a wide range of services and facilities onsite, building on the range already available at nearby Marston Moretaine and Lidlington. The development would incorporate a large amount of employment land, which would combine with the good access that the site provides to employment opportunities elsewhere. The site is well-located in relation to existing green infrastructure and sustainable transport links and again offers good opportunities to incorporate new provision as part of the development, including the provision of 30% tree canopy cover in accordance with the aspirations of the Forest of Marston Vale and a section of the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway. While the site is in an area of high-quality agricultural land, this is also the case for the other site options in Area C. However, this site is in an area with a history of mineral extraction and so offers an opportunity to remediate any despoiled land.

5.54 Marston Moretaine North (Marston Thrift) performs less well in the SA compared to Marston Moretaine South (Marston Vale). The smaller scale of that option means that the opportunities to develop a relatively self-contained new settlement would be limited and the same extent of employment provision would not be made. Both site options would lead to some degree of coalescence between settlements in the area.

5.55 The proximity of the two Marston Moretaine sites means that if both were to be allocated, this would concentrate a significant amount of development in that area. This could result in similar negative cumulative effects as described previously in relation to Luton North and Luton West, focussing too much housing in one part of Central Bedfordshire with the associated impacts on the road network and landscape. Cumulative impacts on nearby settlement identities would also be significantly negative under that approach.

5.56 Wixams South and Aspley Guise are similar in terms of their SA performance, performing relatively well against the SA objectives as a whole, better than Marston Moretaine North (Marston Thrift), but not as well as Marston Moretaine South (Marston Vale). Neither site would make employment provision. Wixams South is the smallest of the strategic residential site options, with only 650 homes; therefore it would not offer the same opportunities as larger sites to incorporate new services, facilities and employment opportunities.

5.57 The SA findings overall indicate that Moretaine South (Marston Vale) is the most sustainable site option to take forward in Area C.

Area D: Central section

5.58 The submitted Local Plan notes that the settlement pattern and constrained infrastructure in Area D limit the options for strategic-scale growth. This area has been subject to a large number of allocations through the historical plan making process. It has also had a large number of recent permissions as a result of speculative development. This has led to piecemeal development which does not allow for a holistic approach to the delivery of new services and infrastructure.

5.59 The SA of Area D showed that it is generally a less sustainable location for development compared to Areas A-C due to the limited potential for large-scale development. The appraisal of alternative approaches to development growth reinforced this, showing that smaller new settlements or village extensions provide less good opportunities for incorporating services, facilities and job opportunities and therefore do not tend to result in the more self-contained settlements resulting from larger new developments. Area D is also less well-connected than the other areas in transport terms.

5.60 Table 5.8 below presents the SA scores for the only site option in Area D, Henlow Airfield and Camp.

Table 5.8: SA findings for strategic site option in Area D

5.61 The site at Henlow Airfield and Camp performs moderately well in the SA. Like all the strategic site options, it has the potential for significant positive effects in relation to housing and access to services and green infrastructure. But development at Henlow Airfield and Camp has the potential for significant negative effects on the historic environment due to the presence of Grade I listed buildings and the historic airfield within the site. It is also within an area of high-quality agricultural land, although because the site is partly brownfield land means that effects relating to the loss of that land may not be as great as if it were an entirely greenfield site.

5.62 The fact that this site is in Area D which is generally less well connected in relation to the transport network than other areas, is reflected in the potential significant negative effect highlighted in relation to highways and air quality. The SA notes the fact that employment provision as part of this site could result in more HGV traffic on local roads, with the associated negative effects. Limits are in place on the number of vehicle movements on the A600 due to the presence of the arms manufacturer MBDA on this route which is likely to be a significant constraint.

5.63 The particular nature of this previously developed site and the fact that it is located in Area D, which the SA has shown to be generally a less sustainable location for strategic growth, means that it needs to be considered carefully. If this site were to be allocated in the Local Plan, it would be important to give due consideration to how impacts on the historic environment and the transport network in particular could be mitigated.

Employment site options

5.64 The SA findings for the reasonable alternative strategic employment sites were presented in Chapter 4. The Local Plan is not allocating sites to meet local employment needs. However, as described in Chapters 2 and 4, consideration has been given to whether it would be appropriate to allocate sites to meet the identified need for footloose strategic warehousing. This need is recognised across the region and is not specific to Central Bedfordshire although there is an identified demand along the A1 and M1 corridors within Central Bedfordshire. It is also not quantified; therefore there is no target amount for CBC to provide.

5.65 Two alternative options for the employment strategy were appraised (see Chapter 4) – the first being to allocate sites for footloose strategic warehousing, and the second being not to. The appraisal of these options did not conclude that one or other approach was clearly preferable in SA terms. The option of not making provision for footloose strategic warehousing had almost entirely negligible effects as no development would result, although a minor negative effect was identified in relation to SA objective 4: employment.

5.66 The option of allocating sites for footloose strategic warehousing had a broad mix of both positive and negative effects, which were generally more positive in relation to the social and economic SA objectives but potentially negative for the environmental SA objectives. The potential effects identified were largely uncertain because the appraisal did not at that stage consider specific site locations, although it was acknowledged that sites of this nature would need to be located in close proximity to the strategic road network, i.e. the M1 and A1 corridors.

5.67 Because the SA findings for these strategic options did not provide a clear steer on which approach is preferable in sustainability terms, with the likely effects depending largely on the specific sites to be allocated, it can be concluded that the decision on whether or not to allocate sites for this purpose will depend on the individual site assessments, alongside other evidence. If sites perform poorly it may be preferable not to make allocations for strategic warehousing.

5.68 The sites being considered for strategic employment development are all located in either the M1 or A1 corridors, as shown in Figure 4.2 in the previous chapter and summarised in Table 5.9 below. The sites that are currently allocated in the submitted version of the Local Plan are shaded in grey.

Table 5.9: Strategic employment site options

M1 corridor

5.69 Table 5.10 below summarises the SA findings for the 11 employment site options that have been considered in the M1 corridor.

Table 5.10: SA findings for employment site options in the M1 corridor

5.70 The M1 corridor passes through Central Bedfordshire from west to south east. Strategic warehousing sites in that corridor would have good access to the transport network via the M1, which passes from the north of England via Milton Keynes, through Central Bedfordshire past Luton and onwards to London. However, the sensitivity of the landscape around the M1 at Luton near to the Chilterns AONB in the south of Central Bedfordshire means that development in that area could have negative effects on the landscape, particularly given the nature of these types of sites – the appraisal of the employment strategy options (see Chapter 4) highlighted that they can be of a large scale and in some instances may feature prominently in the landscape, as well as requiring supporting infrastructure. Most of the M1 corridor in Central Bedfordshire is within the Green Belt which is also a planning constraint. Where the M1 leaves Central Bedfordshire in the west, closer to Milton Keynes, there is a shorter stretch that is located outside of the Green Belt.

5.71 Most of the employment site options (11 out of 16) considered by CBC fall within the M1 corridor area. The best performing in SA terms was Cranfield University Campus and Airfield, followed by Land at Ridgmont (M1 Junction 13). The Cranfield site offers an opportunity for development on a brownfield site, in a less constrained area in landscape terms as it is in the northern part of the M1 corridor, away from the AONB and is also outside of the Green Belt. Land at Ridgmont is also away from the AONB and performs well in relation to sustainable transport as it is adjacent to the railway station at Ridgmont. This is important because the SA work undertaken in relation to the principle of allocating strategic warehousing highlighted the fact that most people are likely to travel to and from such sites via car - the close proximity of this site to a railway station means that there should be better opportunities for people to travel to and from work via sustainable transport than there may be at many sites for strategic warehousing. However, it is recognised that most of the operational movements associated with such warehousing development will be HGVs using the road network.

5.72 At the other end of the scale, Checkley Wood Garden Village performs particularly poorly out of the sites in the M1 corridor. It has the potential for significant negative effects on the sensitive landscape of the surrounding area and is within the Green Belt. It is also relatively poorly connected in terms of sustainable transport links.

5.73 The effects of Sundon Rail Freight Interchange are more complex than those identified for some of other sites, with more of a mix of significant positive and negative effects. The positive opportunities presented by the particular type of development proposed in terms of sustainable transport by facilitating the bulk transfer of goods movement from road to rail were recognised in the SA, in contrast to the negative effects identified in relation to the Green Belt location and potential impacts on the landscape.

5.74 The SA findings overall point to the Cranfield site and Land at Ridgmont as being the most sustainable sites for employment development within the M1 corridor. Given the potential for strategic warehousing sites to generate a high proportion of car-based commuting, particular consideration should be given to the sites that offer good sustainable transport connections i.e. Land at Ridgmont and Sundon Rail Freight Interchange. However, the benefits of the latter site need to be balanced with the potential landscape impacts and consideration given to how these might be mitigated.

5.75 If multiple sites within the M1 corridor are taken forward, consideration needs to be given to their proximity and potential cumulative effects, particularly in relation to the potential landscape impacts. This could be a particular concern if both Land East of Junction 11A and North of Vauxhall Plant and Sundon RFI were to be allocated, given their close proximity to one another and to the AONB.

5.76 Cumulative effects could also occur if more than one of the following four sites were to be allocated, due to their close proximity: Aspley Guise Triangle/Milton Keynes South East Opportunity Area; Land at Winterwoods Farm; Land at Bedford Road, Husborne Crawley; and Land at Ridgmont (M1 Junction 13).

A1 corridor

5.77 Table 5.11 below summarises the SA findings for the five employment site options that have been considered in the A1 corridor.

Table 5.11: SA findings for employment site options in the A1 corridor

5.78 The A1 corridor links the main urban conurbations of the east of the country from Edinburgh to London. It passes through the north east of Central Bedfordshire, past Sandy and Biggleswade towards Letchworth Garden City. Footloose strategic warehousing sites in that area would be well-connected to the strategic road network via the A1 while avoiding the Green Belt and the more sensitive landscape around the AONB in the south.

5.79 Of the five site options considered in the A1 corridor for strategic warehousing, Land West of the A1, Biggleswade performs best in the SA. The close proximity of this site to Biggleswade railway station means that there should be good opportunities for people to travel to and from work via sustainable transport – as previously noted, high levels of car use could easily occur at sites of this nature; therefore good sustainable transport links nearby can be particularly beneficial.

5.80 West Sunderland Farm performs most poorly of the options in the A1 corridor, being in a sensitive area in landscape terms and being adjacent to a number of heritage designations. The SA of the employment strategy options noted that strategic warehousing developments may be large in scale, making impacts on heritage features potentially difficult to mitigate.

5.81 If multiple sites are allocated in the A1 corridor, consideration needs to be given to the potential cumulative effects, particularly in light of the AQMA that has been declared at Sandy. Cumulative effects may be most likely to occur in relation to Land West of the A1, Biggleswade and New Spring Farm, Biggleswade if both were to be allocated, due to their close proximity to one another.

Figure 5.1