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

Area A South & West/M1 Corridor

This area is heavily constrained by the Green Belt and Chiltern AONB designations. Major sites to the north of Houghton Regis are under development and extensive growth is underway at Leighton Linslade. Smaller settlements generally have limited capacity to grow, although there may be possibilities along major transport routes such as the Midland Main Railway Line. Overall, the Council identified some growth potential primarily to serve the needs of Luton & Dunstable, depending upon the justification for release of Green Belt.

The four areas for growth were set out in the Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (Sept-Oct 2016).

SA findings for the four options were presented in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Choices were not made between these four options at the Regulation 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Each option was not selected or rejected as a distinct alternative; however the spatial strategy limits growth in Area D but proposes high levels of growth in Areas A, B and C. The SA supported growth in Areas A, B and C as having positive effects on housing delivery and employment. In Area D, growth of a small-medium scale around settlements with existing good services was supported, in order to minimise negative effects arising from the need to travel by car.

Yes

No further SA work required.

Area B East/A1 Corridor

The broad corridor running north-south along the A1 and the East Coast Main Railway Line is well served with regard to transport and there is the potential for significant upgrades. At Sandy, there is the potential to benefit from the interchange between north-south and east-west links and to attract business growth along the Oxford to Cambridge corridor. Overall, the Council identified potential for major growth on large sites with good infrastructure.

The four main areas for growth were set out in the Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (Sept-Oct 2016).

SA findings for the four options were presented in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Choices were not made between these four options at the Regulation 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Each option was not selected or rejected as a distinct alternative; however the spatial strategy limits growth in Area D but proposes high levels of growth in Areas A, B and C. The SA supported growth in Areas A, B and C as having positive effects on housing delivery and employment. In Area D, growth of a small-medium scale around settlements with existing good services was supported, in order to minimise negative effects arising from the need to travel by car.

Yes

No further SA work required.

Area C East/West Corridor

This area in the north of the CBC area includes an important section of the Oxford to Cambridge corridor with its advanced R&D and higher education centres. Future upgrading of the strategic transport network could support access and economic opportunities, but the timing and commitment of further investment is uncertain. Overall, the Council identified some growth potential depending upon infrastructure and viability of large sites.

The four main areas for growth were set out in the Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (Sept-Oct 2016).

SA findings for the four options were presented in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Choices were not made between these four options at the Regulation 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Each option was not selected or rejected as a distinct alternative; however the spatial strategy limits growth in Area D but proposes high levels of growth in Areas A, B and C. The SA supported growth in Areas A, B and C as having positive effects on housing delivery and employment. In Area D, growth of a small-medium scale around settlements with existing good services was supported, in order to minimise negative effects arising from the need to travel by car.

Yes

No further SA work required.

Area D Central Section

The central part of the CBC area is characterised by small towns and villages with very limited potential to upgrade infrastructure such as roads. Therefore, overall the Council found only limited potential for growth.

The four main areas for growth were set out in the Shaping Central Bedfordshire consultation (Sept-Oct 2016).

SA findings for the four options were presented in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Choices were not made between these four options at the Regulation 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Each option was not selected or rejected as a distinct alternative; however the spatial strategy limits growth in Area D but proposes high levels of growth in Areas A, B and C. The SA supported growth in Areas A, B and C as having positive effects on housing delivery and employment. In Area D, growth of a small-medium scale around settlements with existing good services was supported, in order to minimise negative effects arising from the need to travel by car.

Area D has previously been subject to development from allocations and subsequent piecemeal windfall development. There are limitations in infrastructure and the existence of essential gaps between settlements restricting coalescence, so options for growth are limited.

Yes

No further SA work required.

Option 1: New settlement (village scale) – assumed to be between 2,000 to 5,000 new homes

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option was progressed in Area C (East/West) and Area B (A1 Corridor) as supports economic focus with good access to major transport corridors; maximises opportunities for enabling/supporting infrastructure including sustainable transport and Green Infrastructure. Potential for exemplar design. Not progressed in Area A (South) with Green Belt restrictions or Area D (Central) with transport constraints – both with dispersed rural small settlement characteristics.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This village-scale new settlement option has been amended in terms of the size of a new settlement. A village-scale new settlement is now taken to be 1,500-5,000 homes.

The SA has been revised to take account of the change to the option, i.e. the smaller size of a village-scale new settlement.

Option 2: New settlement (town scale) – assumed to be between 7,000 to 10,000 new homes

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option was not progressed in any Area due to insufficient supporting infrastructure. However, it is noted that Tempsford was included as an Identified Location for Future Growth.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This town-scale new settlement option has been amended in terms of the size of a new settlement. A town-scale new settlement is now taken to be 5,000+ homes.

The SA has been revised to take account of the change to the option, i.e. the smaller size of a town-scale new settlement.

Option 3: Village extensions – especially those with services and facilities

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option was progressed as small-medium scale development (10-700 new homes) and focused on settlements with existing services and facilities, and sustainable transport opportunities – in all areas but particularly in Areas A and D so that these areas can benefit from some new development whilst minimising the scale such that the rural characteristics and assets are protected.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This option is unchanged.

The SA matrix for this group of options has been revised and while there was no change to this option, some changes were made to the SA findings to update the appraisal and ensure that it is robust.

Option 4: Growth in transport corridors

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option was progressed as major development at the strategic level (1,500 new homes or more) in Areas B (A1/East Coast Mainline) and C (East West Rail/A421) and Area A (A6/M1) to maximise opportunities for accessibility and movement.

Progressed as small and medium scale development along the Thameslink line in Area A at Flitwick and Harlington.

Major growth not progressed in Area D recognising the lack of transport corridors and the resulting limits to the transport networks.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This option is amended to focus on growth around strategic roads specifically. Growth around sustainable transport hubs is considered separately below.

The SA has been revised to reflect the fact that this option now represents growth around strategic roads specifically.

Option 5: Urban extensions – assumed to be 1,500-2,000 (and up to 4000) and for the larger settlements

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option was progressed North of Luton in Area A since development would be well-integrated with the existing urban form and would contribute to the unmet housing need for Luton and the Duty to Cooperate for the Councils.

East of Arlesey in Area B offers opportunity to integrate with the existing urban area and to maximise development in a transport corridor, including sustainable transport; also, opportunities for enhancement promoting aims of the Environmental Framework and Green Infrastructure.

Major growth as an urban extension has not been progressed in Areas C and D, recognising the limits to the transport networks in Area D.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This option is unchanged.

The SA matrix for this group of options has been revised and while there was no change to this option, some changes were made to the SA findings to update the appraisal and ensure that it is robust.

Option 6: Urban intensification around transport hubs – for settlements with railway stations, bus stations and park and rides

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that major growth was progressed in Areas A, B and C to maximise opportunities for more sustainable transport.

Development growth limited in Area D due to the rural characteristics and reliance on car transport.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This option is amended to focus on growth around sustainable transport hubs specifically. Growth around the strategic road network hubs is considered separately above.

The SA has been revised to reflect the fact that this option now represents growth around sustainable transport hubs specifically.

Option 7: Higher densities – development offering around 75 to 130 dwellings per hectare

The options were developed during late 2016.

Subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

The options were not clearly selected or rejected at this stage and the Reg. 18 SA Report did not provide reasons for selecting or rejecting each option.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.1 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that the Council will generally support higher densities within urban locations and along existing and potential new public transport corridors. For edge of urban sites and those within or adjoining smaller towns and villages within the rural area, the density of the scheme will be expected to reflect the existing character of the surrounding area.

The suite of options for distributing development growth has been revised to ensure the distribution options are more reflective of the range of schemes being considered as alternative options and to ensure they are sufficiently distinct.

This option relates to density of development which is not considered as part of the spatial distribution options.

The SA matrix for this group of options has been revised to reflect the removal of this option.

Scenario 1: Higher levels of growth across all Central Bedfordshire (30,500 homes)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Para 5.104 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council decided not to progress a preferred scenario from the five scenarios investigated until after the Regulation 18 consultation so that the views of consultees could be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan. Thus, the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan presented a Spatial Strategy Approach that offers a range of housing numbers.

However, para 5.97 (which actually comes further ahead than para 5.104 as the para numbering has some glitches) states that the Council considered the potential benefits and issues arising from each of the five Growth Scenarios and decided that that an approach similar to Scenario 1 offers most development benefits and possibilities for resolving potential issues. Further reasons for not progressing Scenarios 2-5 are not given.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.2 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option has not been progressed as it proposes high levels of growth in Area B and C which are reliant on significant infrastructure delivery.

The suite of options for housing growth scenarios (in this form) have been removed from the SA.

No further SA work has been carried out in relation to these options. The SA instead focuses firstly on the high-level strategic options i.e. whether there are alternative options for the quantum of housing development, as well as the alternative approaches to distributing development growth (detailed in the table above) and the strategic growth locations. The second stage of the supplementary SA work then considers the key questions and decisions to be made by the Council, including possible combinations of sites.

Scenario 2: No growth to the west of Luton and east of Biggleswade (25,500 homes)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Para 5.104 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council decided not to progress a preferred scenario from the five scenarios investigated until after the Regulation 18 consultation so that the views of consultees could be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan. Thus, the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan presented a Spatial Strategy Approach that offers a range of housing numbers.

However, para 5.97 (which actually comes further ahead than para 5.104 as the para numbering has some glitches) states that the Council considered the potential benefits and issues arising from each of the five Growth Scenarios and decided that that an approach similar to Scenario 1 offers most development benefits and possibilities for resolving potential issues. Further reasons for not progressing Scenarios 2-5 are not given.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.2 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option has not been progressed as it proposes high levels of growth in Area B and C which are reliant on significant infrastructure delivery.

The suite of options for housing growth scenarios (in this form) have been removed from the SA.

No further SA work has been carried out in relation to these options. The SA instead focuses firstly on the high-level strategic options i.e. whether there are alternative options for the quantum of housing development, as well as the alternative approaches to distributing development growth (detailed in the table above) and the strategic growth locations. The second stage of the supplementary SA work then considers the key questions and decisions to be made by the Council, including possible combinations of sites.

Scenario 3: No strategic transport infrastructure delivered in the A1 corridor (Area B) (21,500 homes)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Para 5.104 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council decided not to progress a preferred scenario from the five scenarios investigated until after the Regulation 18 consultation so that the views of consultees could be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan. Thus, the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan presented a Spatial Strategy Approach that offers a range of housing numbers.

However, para 5.97 (which actually comes further ahead than para 5.104 as the para numbering has some glitches) states that the Council considered the potential benefits and issues arising from each of the five Growth Scenarios and decided that that an approach similar to Scenario 1 offers most development benefits and possibilities for resolving potential issues. Further reasons for not progressing Scenarios 2-5 are not given.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.2 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that a combination of scenarios 3 and 5 has been progressed. These scenarios provide more development opportunities for the Green Belt villages which the SA supports. In addition, this avoids high levels of development in areas reliant on significant infrastructure delivery.

The suite of options for housing growth scenarios (in this form) have been removed from the SA.

No further SA work has been carried out in relation to these options. The SA instead focuses firstly on the high-level strategic options i.e. whether there are alternative options for the quantum of housing development, as well as the alternative approaches to distributing development growth (detailed in the table above) and the strategic growth locations. The second stage of the supplementary SA work then considers the key questions and decisions to be made by the Council, including possible combinations of sites.

Scenario 4: No growth in the Green Belt (Area A) (22,500 homes)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Para 5.104 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council decided not to progress a preferred scenario from the five scenarios investigated until after the Regulation 18 consultation so that the views of consultees could be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan. Thus, the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan presented a Spatial Strategy Approach that offers a range of housing numbers.

However, para 5.97 (which actually comes further ahead than para 5.104 as the para numbering has some glitches) states that the Council considered the potential benefits and issues arising from each of the five Growth Scenarios and decided that that an approach similar to Scenario 1 offers most development benefits and possibilities for resolving potential issues. Further reasons for not progressing Scenarios 2-5 are not given.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.2 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this option is not progressed as would not contribute to the unmet housing needs for Luton within the Duty to Cooperate for the Councils; nor provide opportunities from limited new development in the Green Belt in Area A, for example to address the lack of investment in services and infrastructure in this area, and to address deprivation which is high in some parts of this area. Development in the Green Belt will take pressure away from non Green Belt areas to help avoid the coalescence of settlements in non Green Belt areas.

The suite of options for housing growth scenarios (in this form) have been removed from the SA.

No further SA work has been carried out in relation to these options. The SA instead focuses firstly on the high-level strategic options i.e. whether there are alternative options for the quantum of housing development, as well as the alternative approaches to distributing development growth (detailed in the table above) and the strategic growth locations. The second stage of the supplementary SA work then considers the key questions and decisions to be made by the Council, including possible combinations of sites.

Scenario 5: A mixed approach with higher growth in villages (20,650 homes)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

Para 5.104 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council decided not to progress a preferred scenario from the five scenarios investigated until after the Regulation 18 consultation so that the views of consultees could be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan. Thus, the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan presented a Spatial Strategy Approach that offers a range of housing numbers.

However, para 5.97 (which actually comes further ahead than para 5.104 as the para numbering has some glitches) states that the Council considered the potential benefits and issues arising from each of the five Growth Scenarios and decided that that an approach similar to Scenario 1 offers most development benefits and possibilities for resolving potential issues. Further reasons for not progressing Scenarios 2-5 are not given.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.2 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that a combination of scenarios 5 and 3 has been progressed. These scenarios provide more development opportunities for small to medium sites in villages, spread across Central Bedfordshire. In addition, this avoids high levels of development in areas reliant on significant infrastructure delivery.

The suite of options for housing growth scenarios (in this form) have been removed from the SA.

No further SA work has been carried out in relation to these options. The SA instead focuses firstly on the high-level strategic options i.e. whether there are alternative options for the quantum of housing development, as well as the alternative approaches to distributing development growth (detailed in the table above) and the strategic growth locations. The second stage of the supplementary SA work then considers the key questions and decisions to be made by the Council, including possible combinations of sites.

Scenario 1: 6,000 new jobs

At the Reg. 18 stage (June 2017) this scenario was appraised, broken down as: A Sundon Rail Freight Interchange (RFI) (2,300); B Biggleswade (2,000); C M1 J13 (1,700) D 0 Total = 6,000 jobs

Para 5.96 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council considered the two scenarios for strategic 'footloose' employment land and will identify a preferred approach after the Regulation 18 consultation.

However, it goes on to say that the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan includes a range of new jobs that could be provided through an approach that is similar to the Scenario 1 option. The difference between the two scenarios is the inclusion of a strategic employment area for Scenario 1 at the M1J11 in Area A – within the Green Belt with potential for negative effects but could be mitigated as adjacent to existing major infrastructure.

No further reasoning is given for the Council's decision making at this stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.3 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that the approach in this scenario has been progressed. This scenario, with the addition of a specialist high technology employment site at RAF Henlow, provides a distribution of employment sites across Central Bedfordshire; utilising existing strategic road and rail infrastructure; offering employment opportunities near to existing towns and villages to provide opportunities for local working, therefore addressing the high out commuting rates in Central Bedfordshire.

These options for employment growth scenarios have been removed from the SA (although the sites included in them are still included in the appraisal of strategic employment locations).

Text has been added to the SA to explain why there are no reasonable alternative options for the quantum of employment development in terms of 'local' need (OAN) – non-strategic warehousing. This is consistent with the Reg. 18 and 19 SA assessments.

Supplementary SA work has been carried out in relation to reasonable alternative options relating to the principle of providing footloose strategic warehousing within Central Bedfordshire.

Scenario 2: 3,700 new jobs

At the Reg. 18 stage (June 2017) this scenario was appraised, broken down as: A 0; B Biggleswade (2,000); C M1 J13 (1,700) D 0 Total = 3,700 jobs

Para 5.96 in the Reg. 18 SA Report stated that the Council considered the two scenarios for strategic 'footloose' employment land and will identify a preferred approach after the Regulation 18 consultation.

However, it goes on to say that the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan includes a range of new jobs that could be provided through an approach that is similar to the Scenario 1 option. The difference between the two scenarios is the inclusion of a strategic employment area for Scenario 1 at the M1J11 in Area A – within the Green Belt with potential for negative effects but could be mitigated as adjacent to existing major infrastructure.

No further reasoning is given for the Council's decision making at this stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix IV).

Table 8.3 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states that this approach has not been progressed. This scenario did not provide employment in Area A.

These options for employment growth scenarios have been removed from the SA (although the sites included in them are still included in the appraisal of strategic employment locations).

Text has been added to the SA to explain why there are no reasonable alternative options for the quantum of employment development in terms of 'local' need (OAN) – non-strategic warehousing. This is consistent with the Reg. 18 and 19 SA assessments.

Supplementary SA work has been carried out in relation to reasonable alternative options relating to the principle of providing footloose strategic warehousing within Central Bedfordshire.

Arlesey

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V). Matrix for the allocation is included in Appendix V11a.

Selected (allocated as Policy SA3 East of Arlesey)

▪ Existing sustainability problem resolved - high levels of congestion and traffic along Arlesey High Street could be alleviated through the provision of relief road in the growth location connecting from south of Hitchin Road to the new A507/High Street link road.

▪ Promotes sustainable transport use with proximity to Arlesey Train Station.

▪ Provision of a mixed-use housing location – mix of housing types, school provision, open space provision, community facilities and a country park.

▪ Provision of a country park between Arlesey and Fairfield to mitigate coalescence and provide open space.

▪ Net gain for biodiversity through the enhancement of Blue Lagoon and Green Lagoon.

▪ Increased access for existing residents of Arlesey and Fairfield for recreational open space and sport pitch provision within the country park

Yes – and two additional reasonable alternative options at this site have also been identified as follows:

The original red line boundary for the site (Option 1) was reduced between its submission through the Call for Sites and Reg 18. This reduced the site's capacity to 2,000 and secured the delivery of the site by reducing the number of landowners. This option was proposed for allocation in the submitted Local Plan.

In response to the Inspectors' concerns regarding the scale of development and risk of coalescence, the site promotors identified a revised proposal (Option 2) which reduces the scale of the country park by approximately 117 hectares by removing land immediately abutting Fairfield Park. The site still has the capacity for 2,000 homes.

A third option (Option 3) has also been identified – this option seeks to address the Inspectors' concern of scale and location of development in a "minor service centre". In addition to the removal of land adjacent to Fairfield Park (as with Option 2 above) the southern extent of the developable area has been reduced by 20 acres which reduces the scale of the overall development to 1,800 dwellings based on the original housing density.

The SA matrix for Option 1 has been reviewed and new SA matrices have been prepared for Options 2 and 3.

Aspley Guise

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V). A matrix for the site was also included in Appendix V11b (SA matrices for Safeguarded Broad Locational Options) as Aspley Guise Triangle.

Selected as an Identified Location for Future Growth: Aspley Guise Triangle

▪ Proximity to the EW Railway & Ridgmont Station, proposed Expressway, and its location in the Cambridge–Oxford Growth Corridor.

▪ Opportunity to support travel to work due to proximity to strategic road network and sustainable transport options.

▪ Potential of the Broad Location to help establish the new Bedford-Milton Keynes Waterway and opportunities for increased biodiversity and open space and leisure opportunities along the waterway, including cycle routes

▪ Opportunity to create a buffer to protect the setting of Aspley Guise

▪ Opportunity to designate Green Belt to protect the setting of Aspley Guise.

▪ Potential for the provision of a Park and Ride to serve Milton Keynes.

Not progressed as a Strategic Allocation to allow time for identification of the proposed Expressway and associated road and junction improvements.

Yes

No supplementary SA work is required in relation to this site. The SA matrix prepared previously has been reviewed and checked.

Biggleswade East

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V – this matrix related to the whole site area i.e. Phases 1 and 2).

A matrix for Phase 1 was also included in Appendix VIIa (this related to the allocated site area).

Appendix VIIb made reference to Phase 2 as a Broad Locational Option but no matrix was included as is was stated that the site was assessed in Appendix VIIa along with Phase 1.

Selected (Phase 1) as an allocation (Policy SA4: East of Biggleswade Phase 1).

Selected (Phase 2) as an Identified Location for Future Growth: East of Biggleswade Phase 2.

Phase 1 progressed as Strategic Allocation because:

▪ Provision of a stand-alone development providing a significant number of homes with infrastructure, services and facilities to meet the needs of future residents.

▪ Development of Phase 1 (western village) will provide cycle and walking routes to services in Biggleswade.

▪ Opportunity for enhancement and extension of the Biggleswade Green Wheel.

▪ Concentrating growth along key transport corridors (A1 and East Coast Main Line Rail).

Phase 2 not progressed as a Strategic Allocation to allow time for implementation of the transport infrastructure improvements that are necessary, including improvements to the A1.

Yes. Both Phases 1 and Phase 2 are still reasonable alternatives.

Phase 1 is for 1500 dwellings.

Phase 2 was previously identified in the SA as having a potential capacity for an additional 1,500 dwellings. The actual capacity of the remaining land promoted is approximately 5,500 dwellings.

Phase 1 (1,500 dwellings) was granted Outline Consent and has been identified as a future Garden Community, receiving £150,000 of funding from Homes England to progress this project. There is a signed S106 agreement in place. There are ongoing issues regarding access to this site. The main point of access from Baden Powell Way crosses a service margin in the ownership of a neighbouring land owner and an agreement between both parties is yet to be secured. Alternative points of access are being explored by the site promoter. A revised Outline planning application was registered on 24^th March 2020 that proposed two alternative points of access to the development. This application has yet to be determined. Following the hearing sessions, the Council has proposed a modification to include this site as a strategic commitment instead of an allocation, to reflect the current status. The full extent of the remaining land (Phase 2) was identified as a Location for Future Growth in the Local Plan due to uncertainty at the time in relation to the capacity issues along the A1 Corridor and key Government decisions of the provision of strategic transport infrastructure (A1, Expressway, E W Rail). Phase 2 has the potential to deliver an additional 5,500 homes in three new villages.

The Inspectors noted that Phase 2 appears to form part of the assessment of the allocation in the SA and the 1,500 dwelling allocation (Phase 1) has not been assessed individually.

A separate appraisal of Phase 2 has now been prepared for 5,500 homes, and the existing SA matrix for Phase 1 has been revised so that it relates only to Phase 1 (1,500 homes).

Henlow Airfield & Camp (also known as RAF Henlow)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V).

Site was also included in Appendix V11b (SA matrices for Safeguarded Broad Locational Options) as RAF Henlow (appraised twice, once for residential use and once for mixed use development).

Rejected. Not progressed as a Strategic Allocation for housing as the site was being allocated as an employment site.

Yes. The site was submitted through the Call for Sites with an indicative capacity of 1,800 dwellings. The Stage A site assessment concluded it was worthy of further assessment for residential uses, albeit only on a reduced portion of the site (to the south of the existing Hangars and to the south of Hitchin Road). The SHLAA identified the site as suitable, available and achievable.

CBC made the decision to allocate the site for specialist employment uses based on proposals being put forward at that time, with provision for some residential development. This scheme is no longer an option.

Given that the site was assessed as suitable for residential development, it should therefore still be considered as a reasonable alternative. The Regulation 18 SA appraised this site for 1,000 dwellings and in order to be consistent this quantum of growth will be re-appraised through the Supplementary SA.

The SA matrix prepared for residential development previously has been reviewed and checked.

Luton – North

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V).

Selected (allocated as Policy SA1: North of Luton)

Progressed as Strategic Allocation for outlined reasons:

▪ Delivers unmet housing need from Luton close to where it arises where there is capacity to do so sustainably.

▪ Resolving an existing sustainability problem by delivery of the A6/M1 Link Road relieving congestion for surrounding settlements and providing economic benefits.

▪ Concentrating growth along key corridor routes (M1 and Midland Main Line Rail) providing mitigation and promoting sustainable transport.

▪ Promoting sustainable development in areas that have seen little growth due to Green Belt restrictions.

Yes – and two additional reasonable alternative options at this site have also been identified:

The original proposed allocation was for 4,000 new homes of which 3,100 were within the plan period. The allocation also identified up to 20ha of employment land. This quantum of growth has already been tested through the SA (Option 1).

However, in light of objections from Historic England and Natural England, CBC commissioned a HIA and LVIA and consequently, the developable area of the site was proposed to be reduced (Option 2). In this option the site can accommodate up to 3,100 homes and 7ha of employment. Land to the east of the allocation adjacent to the A6 corridor, the eastern bowl, has been removed from the developable area of the allocation. As it stands, the red line boundary has not been amended to reduce the area of the allocation due to the route of the M1-A6 link road which now has planning permission.

The site promotors questioned the findings of the HIA and LVIA and have put together a further alternative proposal for 3,600 homes and 7ha of employment land on a slightly reduced site area that excludes the most visually sensitive parcel of land within the eastern bowl, to the north east of the site beyond the M1-A6 Link Road. (Option 3). The land within the eastern bowl to the south of the Link Road remains within the site boundary and the site promoters have prepared an addendum to the LVIA that suggest it may be suitable for development.

A 'no link road' option is not a reasonable alternative now the M1-A6 Link Road now has consent and is a commitment.

The SA matrix for Option 1 has been reviewed for any changes needed and additional SA matrices have been prepared for Options 2 and 3.

Luton - West

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V).

Site was also included in Appendix V11b (SA matrices for Safeguarded Broad Locational Options) as Luton West.

Selected as an Identified Location for Future Growth: West Luton

Progressed as Identified Location for Future Growth for outlined reasons:

▪ Deliver unmet housing need from Luton close to where it arises where there is capacity to do so sustainably.

▪ Potential for the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure benefits through connections to the Guided Busway.

▪ Promoting sustainable development in areas that have seen little growth due to Green Belt restrictions.

▪ Opportunity to provide a new secondary school to meet the needs of the growth location and opportunity to provide land for a secondary school to meet the shortage within Luton.

Not progressed as a Strategic Allocation to allow time for implementation of the significant transport infrastructure improvements that are necessary and the need to consider the impact of aircraft noise and noise from the M1 for the growth location.

Yes – and two additional reasonable alternative options at this site have also been identified:

Originally the site was submitted for 5,500 dwellings. CBC's Stage A site assessment process identified that this level of growth was not acceptable at this location due to a number of variables including landscape, archaeological issues, noise from the M1 and airport (which is due to expand) and significant connectivity concerns due to being physically separated from the Luton Urban area by the M1. The assessment suggested that a reduced scale of development (2000-3600) should be considered further. The Regulation 18 and 19 SA appraised a site of approximately 2,000 homes (Option 1).

Following the Examination hearing sessions, two further options have been identified and have been subject to appraisal through the Supplementary SA:

Option 2 is the site area and number of homes presented by the site promoters in their Regulation 19 representation. The site area is slightly larger than the area identified by the Council in Option 1, including additional land to the north, and has been promoted for 3,500 homes and employment generating uses.

Option 3 is the full extent of the land being promoted by the site promoter with a total capacity of around 4,600 homes and an unspecified quantum of B1, B2, B8 and other employment generating uses. It includes the area identified in Option 2 plus additional land to the south, between the existing settlement of Caddington and the M1 Motorway. This additional land could accommodate a further 1,100+ homes, on top of the 3,500 homes in Option 2.

The SA matrix for Option 1 has been reviewed for any changes needed and additional SA matrices have been prepared for Options 2 and 3.

Marston Moretaine North (later became known as Marston Thrift)

Site was not subject to SA at Reg. 18 stage as it was not considered a reasonable alternative at that stage.

N/A

Site was included in Appendix V11b (SA matrices for Safeguarded Broad Locational Options) – known as Marston Thrift by this point.

Rejected: Identified as a reasonable alternative but not selected. As per the below, Marston Valley was selected and allocating another site raised concerns about overdevelopment in the Marston Vale area.

Yes.

The SA matrix has been reviewed and checked.

Marston Moretaine South (Marston Vale)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V). There is also a matrix for the site allocation in Appendix VIIa.

Selected (allocated as Policy SA2: Marston Vale)

Progressed as strategic allocation for 5,000 homes outlined reasons:

▪ Opportunity to strengthen landscape character, contributing to the Forest of Marston Vale and improvements to existing water bodies.

▪ Opportunity to connect to heat network that may be associated with the Energy Recovery Facility Planned at Rookery Pit South.

▪ Opportunity to support the Cambridge – Oxford Growth Corridor.

▪ Proximity to Ridgmont railway station (East-West Rail)

▪ Opportunity to support travel to work due to proximity to strategic road network and sustainable transport options.

▪ Growth location not located on the best or most versatile agricultural land.

▪ Potential of the site to help establish the new Bedford Milton Keynes Waterway and opportunities for increased biodiversity opportunities and open space and leisure opportunities along the waterway, including cycle routes.

▪ Opportunity to contribute to a net gain in biodiversity supporting the Forest of Marston Vale and Greensand Ridge NIA.

▪ Potential of the site to provide significant opportunities for leisure and recreational activities along the waterway and lakes and country park proposals.

▪ Opportunity to address the healthcare provision issues in the wider area, including a potential hub.

Yes.

An Outline Planning Application has been submitted to the Council.

The level of employment land to be provided has reduced from 40ha to 30ha following a more detailed master planning process.

A signed Statement of Common Ground with O&H Properties identifies some minor policy amendments, but these do not impact upon the overall quantum of growth to be delivered.

There are ongoing discussions with Highways England and the site promotors in relation to mitigation measures at M1, Junction 13.

The SA matrix has been amended to reflect some minor boundary changes to reflect land ownership (these do not affect the quantum of growth to be delivered).

Tempsford South and Tempsford Airfield

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V).

Site was also included in Appendix V11b (SA matrices for Safeguarded Broad Locational Options) as Tempsford.

Selected as Identified Location for Future Growth Tempsford: Up to 10,000 homes

Progressed as Identified Location for Future Growth for outlined reasons:

▪ Potential to develop a new sustainable settlement with the required infrastructure along a key sustainable transport corridor.

▪ Opportunity to provide direct connections to the A1, and potential to connect to a re-routed A428 to the north beyond the plan period.

▪ Potential to incorporate the new EWR interchange with the East Coast Main Line, within the area.

▪ Opportunity of the site to support the Cambridge-Oxford Growth Corridor.

Not progressed as a Strategic Allocation to allow time for implementation of the significant transport infrastructure improvements that are necessary.

Yes.

The SA matrix has been reviewed and checked.

Wixams South

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Effects of the option are described in Section 5 of the Reg. 19 SA report (full matrix is in Appendix V).

Not progressed further at this stage as a strategic allocation for outlined reasons:

▪ Due to resolution to grant planning permission for 650 dwellings in January 2018, it was taken forward as a small/medium allocation.

Yes. The site now has outline consent (CB/17/02575/OUT) for 650 dwellings.

The SA matrix has been reviewed and checked.

Houghton Regis North

Option had not been identified or appraised at this point.

N/A

The SA Report did not include an SA matrix for this option.

Table 8.4 in the Reg. 19 SA Report states: Two sites set out in adopted Framework Plan and options previously subject to SA (2011); Site 1 comprises eastern side from M1 to the A5120 & Site 2 is located to the east of the A5 to the A5120. Outline planning permissions granted for up to 5,150 dwellings (Site 1 June 2014) & up to 1,850 dwellings (Site 2 November 2015).

Progressed as Strategic Allocation (Policy SA5) for outlined reasons:

▪ Delivery over two sites allows are more detailed approach to phasing

▪ Timely delivery of supporting infrastructure will complement and enhance existing services and facilities as well as assisting in the regeneration of the existing urban area

▪ The two sites will be more fully integrated with each other as well as with the urban area of Houghton Regis

Sites 1 and 2 both have outline planning permission, subsequent RM applications have been approved and construction has commenced. The sites were included as allocations in the Local Plan to provide a policy framework to inform the preparation and determination of future planning applications..

Yes.

Houghton Regis North sites 1 and 2 were granted outline planning permission in 2015. Subsequent RM applications have been approved and construction has commenced.

A matrix has now been prepared for this site, for completeness.

North and North East Sandy

Land to the north of Sandy was considered as a strategic growth location option at Reg 18 but wasn't considered to be a reasonable alternative (see Table 5.7 of the Reg 18 SA report).

N/A

Para 8.53 of the Reg 19 SA explains that North and North East Sandy was resubmitted by the site promotors following Reg 18 and was therefore reconsidered in plan-making and subject to SA again in the same way as the other broad locational options.

Full matrix is in Appendix VIIb of the Reg. 19 SA report (as a Safeguarded Broad Locational Option). No matrix in Appendix V with other strategic site options and effects are not described in Section 5 along with the other strategic site options.

Table 8.4 states that this site was not progressed as a Strategic Allocation due to the impact of the site on Sandy and its separation from existing built up area.

Yes.

The site was submitted to the Council following Regulation 18. It was subject to SA again at Regulation 19 in the same way as the other broad locational options. The Regulation 19 SA appraised 4,750 homes and for consistency the site remains a reasonable alternative and will be tested for this quantum of growth.

Part of the land to the north of Sandy has been refused planning permission and has been the subject of an appeal that has been dismissed (APP/P0240/W/18/3219213).

The SA matrix has been reviewed and checked.

Sundon Rail Freight Interchange

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Appraised as a strategic employment growth location option (see Appendix V). Also appraised in Appendix VIIa as a strategic employment allocation.

Progressed as Strategic Allocation (SE1: M1 Junction 11a – Sundon RFI) for outlined reasons:

▪ Opportunity for standalone strategic employment site adjacent to the RFI development.

▪ Proximity to M1 J11a.

▪ Opportunities to enhance and manage Sundon Chalk Pits CWS and Sundon Quarry SSSI

Yes.

SA matrix has been reviewed to check for any updating needed.

Land West of the A1, Biggleswade (Holme Farm)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Appraised as a strategic employment growth location option (see Appendix V). Also appraised in Appendix VIIa as a strategic employment allocation.

Progressed as Strategic Allocation (SE3: A1 Corridor – Holme Farm, Biggleswade) for outlined reasons:

▪ Opportunity for standalone strategic employment site close to Biggleswade.

▪ Proximity to A1 corridor.

Yes.

SA matrix has been reviewed to check for any updating needed.

Land at Ridgmont (M1, Junction 13)

Originally subject to SA in the Reg. 18 SA Report (June 2017).

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Appraised as a strategic employment growth location option (see Appendix V). Also appraised in Appendix VIIa as a strategic employment allocation.

Progressed as Strategic Allocation (SE2: M1 Junction 13 – Marston Gate Expansion) for outlined reasons:

▪ Opportunity for standalone strategic employment site close to the M1 J13.

Yes.

SA matrix has been reviewed to check for any updating needed.

New Spring Farm, Biggleswade

None.

N/A

None.

This site was not included in the SA at Reg. 19 stage. The site was submitted for residential development (approximately 500 dwellings) and/or retirement living but did not pass the SHLAA process and so has not been tested as an alternative residential site in the SA. The site was also identified as having potential to also form an extension to the existing business park at Stratton, including B1, B2 and B8 Uses. It was missed from the employment options and therefore was not assessed by PBA or considered for strategic delivery at the Reg. 19 stage.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land at Bedford Road, Husborne Crawley

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. Site is located at Junction 13 of the M1 but is less well connected to the existing employment area which is on the other side of the M1. The site is less well located to the planned improvements to Ridgemont Rail Station and public transportation.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land at Marston Moretaine and Lower Shelton

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site has the potential to be connected to the A421 but is less well connected to the A1 or M1 Strategic road corridors. The site is not considered appropriate as a stand alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment site as it was submitted for mixed-use development.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land adjacent to Popes Farm

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. This site has potential access on to the A1 but is not considered appropriate for a stand alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment site. The site was submitted as a mixed use scheme.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land east of Junction 11A and north of Vauxhall Plant

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site is located at the new Junction 11a of the M1 and is in close proximity to the employment element of the North Houghton Regis site. The Site is not considered appropriate for stand alone warehousing and distribution employment use.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

West Sunderland Farm

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. This site has potential access to the A1 but this would require significant infrastructure provision. It is not considered appropriate for a stand alone strategic Warehousing and distribution employment site. The site was submitted as a mixed use scheme.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Aspley Guise Triangle/Milton Keynes South East Opportunity Area

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 18 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

Site listed in Table 5.12 in Reg. 19 SA Report but no SA work carried out in relation to the site as an employment option.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. This site is the Aspley Guise Triangle which is being considered for mixed use residential led development. The site is located at Junction 13 of the M1 but is less well connected to the existing employment area which is on the other side of the M1. The site is less well located to the planned improvements to Ridgemont Rail Station and public transportation.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land at Hitchin Road, Shefford

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site was not considered to be appropriate as a stand-alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment sites, and it was not well connected to the A1 or M1 strategic road corridors.

Yes

This site has now been appraised.

Checkley Wood Garden Village

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site has no direct access to the A1 or M1 strategic road corridors and it was not considered to be appropriate as a stand alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment site as it was submitted for mixed-use development.

Yes

This site has now been appraised.

Land at Winterwoods Farm

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site is located at Junction 13 of the M1 but is less well connected to the existing employment area on the other site of the A421. It is less well located to the planned improvements to Ridgemont Rail Station and public transportation. Large, strategic warehousing and distribution would not be considered acceptable at this location on landscape terms.

Yes

This site has now been appraised.

Land at Wharley Farm

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site has no direct access to the A1 or M1 strategic road corridors and it was not considered to be appropriate as a stand alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment site as it was submitted for mixed-use development. Stand alone warehousing and distribution uses would not fit with the Cranfield masterplan.

Yes

This site has now been appraised.

Cranfield University Campus and Airfiled

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site has no direct access to the A1 or M1 strategic road corridors and it was not considered to be appropriate as a stand alone strategic warehousing and distribution employment site. Stand alone warehousing and distribution uses would not fit with the Cranfield masterplan which includes an Air Park with terminals and aviation related facilities.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.

Land East of M1, South of Broughton Road

None.

No decision making at Reg. 18 stage.

None.

This site was discounted through the CBC Employment Technical Paper (Exam Doc F02) and not taken forward in the plan as an allocation. The site is located on either side of the M1 and may require new access onto the M1. CBC would not be against an extension to Magna Park but would not look to cross the M1 at this location. The southern parcel may serve MK if brought forward but on its own, this parcel would not be of sufficient scale to deliver strategic warehousing and distribution employment.

Yes.

This site has now been appraised.