Community

This document is also posted on the noticeboard (on the approach to St Michael’s Church)

GREAT & LITTLE GIDDING PARISH COUNCIL

Response to an Application for Planning Consent

To: Cambridgeshire County Council

Ref.: CCC/25/107/FUL

Address: Hemington Lodge Road, Great Gidding, Cambridgeshire PE8 5QS

Description: Road linking the B660 (Main Street, Great Gidding) to Hemington Lodge Road replacing the existing junction; and passing places along Hemington Lodge Road

Response: The Parish Council wish to notify the planning authority that they object to the proposed development and, in this document, set out the reasons for their decision.

The contents of this objection were gathered at a Parish Council meeting held at the Great Gidding village hall on 21^st October 2025.Members of the public chose to attend and share their views.

The Strategic View

Whilst there are concerns about the placement and location of the proposed Anaerobic Digester (AD) plant, we recognise that this is not the matter being addressed by the above application and we will refrain from any detailed comments on that matter. However, the proposed location in Northamptonshire, if granted planning consent, will throw up substantial long term maintenance costs for Cambridgeshire and burden the local villages.

The application is being presented as a straightforward road adjustment issue. If we go back to first principles, the functioning of the AD is totally dependent on the proximity of a main underground gas pipe and the supply and disposal of organic waste. The connecting gas line would be buried and would cause no harm and impact on the environment regardless of its length.

However, the logistics of collecting substantial amounts of material is highly impactful because it requires a fleet of HGV lorries undertaking many journeys. It would seem logical, if this scheme is to be sustainable, to minimise the distance that the lorries need to travel -especially once off the arterial road system.

It would seem sensible to locate the AD in a place where good HGV access is available alongside reasonably good access to the underground gas network.

It isdisappointing, therefore, that the chosen site for the AD is placed centrally in the rural pocket as defined by the A14, the A1 and the A605. The AD would not be close to any of these main roads and would require HGV traffic to utilise inadequate B roads. The AD logistic operation can be imagined as a radial pattern of routes with a capillary function at the edges and a robustly large arterial function at the centre where all the material load and impact is concentrated. In this case the proposal stands on its head where the hub of the operation is the approach through the winding B660, through several small villages to a quiet country track on the edge of Great Gidding known as Hemington Lodge Road (HLR).

Existing Highways

Hemington Lodge Road

Hemington Lodge Road (HLR) is a single track lane: 1.4Km in length. It is edged by drainage ditches and an almost continuous hedge. This track is not in good physical shape but its straight path, gentle gradients and distant views over high open countryside attracts locals.

It is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders forming a network up to bridleways NK8 and NK9. It is also used as a recreational loop between Great Gidding and Luddington. There are occasional slow moving vehicles but there is an easy etiquette of co-usage. Item 4.2.3 records that there have been no recorded collisions in the period of 01 January 2017 and 28 February 2025 but this is because the interaction between non-motorised users and vehicles is balanced.

Main Street – B660

The B660 is a dual track road of 17.2Km linking the A14 and the A1 through four villages – Old Weston, Winwick, Great Gidding and Glatton. It is designated as a secondary route under the Cambridgeshire Advisory Freight Map. As a result it is used as a short cut between the A14 and the A1.

This is an ancient route containing many sharp bends and gradient changes as it traverses the topography of ridges and valleys. Its challenging character make it a favourite route for large groups of cyclists and motor bikes throughout summer. It is a challenging road, especially in the winter, for larger vehicles and for drivers unfamiliar with the route. The statistics record, during the same period (Jan 2017 to Feb 2025 – as that reported for HLR) a total of 47 accidents of varying degrees of seriousness.

The volume of traffic (especially through the villages) has been of particular concern for many years and some traffic calming restrictions are in place. Despite this there are regular ‘near misses’ and many reports of vehicles embedded in hedges, dead domestic animals and wildlife.

This area is largely agricultural with grain production at its heart. Throughout the year, but especially at harvest time, the roads are busy with large agricultural machinery. Being an agricultural area, this type of traffic is expected and essential.

The Proposal

The applicant’s Transport Statement (TS) takes a myopic view on the issue of anticipated traffic impact because it is restricted to the HLR and the junction with the B660. It is understandable that the document (TS 2.2.10)is concerned with efforts to convince that “…the scheme would address the modest additional travel demands associated with the AD plant satisfactorily.” This assertion of only “modest increases in traffic movements” are scattered in the text despite the alarming statistics on future use.

There are several problems with the TS analysis and the ameliorating efforts proposed.

1. The existing road bed of HLR is insufficient to bear the current traffic let alone a significant increase. It would need to be completely rebuilt, widened and metalled to accommodate the substantial increase in heavy vehicles.
2. We are deeply sceptical about usefulness of the ATC survey on HLR as posited in section 4.0. A 7 day survey in the late January countryside cannot be used as a representation of average use patterns. January is a quieter time in the farming year so agricultural traffic is reduced. Also, the weather is less conducive for outdoor activities such as walking, bikes etc. This survey is therefore insufficient to allow a safe planning decision.
3. We understand that the black boxes counting traffic on the B660 were attached high on the lamp post at Townsend Pond and another on the road sign further towards Glatton.  It was observed that the black box on the lamp post was too high to record the majority of vehicles so, potentially,did not produce an accurate reflection of traffic flow.
4. We would also seek some clarification of the type of vehicles recorded during the January 2025 survey. TS 4.1.3 claims that this information was recorded but why was it not included in the TS?The type of vehicle is important because a car does not represent the same impact as an additional HGV. 
5. At present, all users of HLR accommodate each other with few larger vehicles. The proposed passing places, to accommodate HGV’s are not wide enough at 5.5m (TS 6.4.5).  This is insufficient to allow a HGV to pass a horse and rider requiring a 3m (not 2m as in TS 5.3.3) safety gap. It should be noted that even these works are not guaranteed as TS 5.3.3 caveats itself by stating,

“It should be noted that whilst the scheme seeks to avoid impacts on the drainage ditches to each side of Hemington Lodge Road, the extent and deliverability of widening within highway land would need to be confirmed by further engineeringand geotechnical investigations.”

• The restricted analysis presented in the TS constitutes a failure to address the impact of the additional HGV traffic on the villages of Great Gidding, Glatton, Winwick, Old Weston and B660 in general. This road is designated as a secondary route with layout limitations described above and it is coming under ever increasing load from ‘short cut’ traffic. The TS has not considered the impact of the additional heavy vehicle traffic once it reaches the B660.For example, Great Giddingis protected by being a Conservation Area and has many houses close to Main Street, including a 17^th clisted cottage on the roadside. Manyof the cottages are built up to the pavement or verge. It is reasonable to assume thatunrelenting HGV traffic could do structural damage but, more importantly, it will cause distress and nuisance to the occupants as well as pedestrians and horse riders who regularly use Main Street.

Our objections are, 

1. That the logistics of feeding the inappropriately placed BD are fundamentally miss judged. The Parish Council and the residents of Great Gidding do not see why we should bear the environmental consequences of this poorly thought-out proposal.
2. We don’t see why our local highways authority (CCC) should bear the cost (through our taxes) of the ongoing additional maintenance of our overstretched rural road system to facilitate a dangerous and polluting logistical proposal.
3. The proposal does not sufficiently address the practical issues of making co-usage of HLR & B660 safe. We are concerned that, should the proposed changes to HLR proceed, the adjoining community would be pushed off the road for their own safety. HLR is a public thoroughfare and a valued route as described above. The people of the village would lose something cherished without any positive benefit to the community.
4. It is clear that the application is not taking seriously the demands of NPPF 116 (TS 2.2.7)suggesting that developments should only be “…refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.”
5. It is clear that the application is not taking seriously the demands of NPPF(115 TS 2.2.6 &117c – TS 2.2.8)which goes further by demanding that developments “create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles,…and respond to local character…”
6. It is clear that the application is not taking seriously the demands of CCC Local Transport and Connectivity Plan [LTCP](TS 2.3.2) which states that “…improving freight operations will help reduce conflicts with other modes of transport, pedestrians, and cyclists.”
7. The LTCP goes on to say that freight should be moved on the “right routes”. It is not unreasonable to suggest that HLR is not the “right” route to a logistics hub.
8. We are concerned that, should the AD plant be successful, there would be a natural impetus to increase production with increased HGV traffic flow. Once planning consent is granted it will be impossible to control this.

Possible amelioration for discussion

The Parish Council meeting held on the 21^st October 2025 is resolved in its opposition to the proposed highway and logistical re-arrangements. The Parish Council took the opportunity of the meeting to discuss any measures that would be imperative to include as part of a consent should it be granted.

1. That the applicant agrees to leave HLR as is (under the care of CCC) and, as a consortium with adjoining businesses, constructs a new purpose made private service road and junction to the B660 to the north of the HLR and adjoining hedge.
2. That HGV traffic on the B660 – Main Street should be controlled. It should be dispersed, possibly by the installation of a ‘no right turn’ when exiting the proposed new junction onto B660 or other measures. This should dilute the HGV traffic flow in the villages.
3. That the applicant agrees to the implementation of traffic calming measures in Great Gidding and Winwick (to be considered and agreed with CCC) under a Section 106 agreement.

We trust you will consider the objections of the residents and the Parish Council who would be most impacted by this proposal. Please help us protect our valued and cherished village and surroundings from avoidable long term damage.

Great and Little Gidding Parish Council

24 October 2025