A new town - without a new town plan.
24,000 homes. One tiny district. A new town by stealth.
Regulation 19 consultation - how to respond
This is where your comments become part of the legal evidence, and go straight to the Planning Inspector
Huntingdonshire District Council has published the next version of its draft Local Plan, the document that decides where new homes, roads, schools and other infrastructure will go for the next 20 years.
The Council is now asking residents to comment through what’s called the Regulation 19 consultation.
At this stage, the Inspector cannot consider general opinions.
He can only consider questions about whether the Plan is workable, realistic and supported by evidence.
Below, we explain how to do that in simple terms.
Have your say
The Regulation 19 stage is different from earlier consultations. It is not a general survey about whether you like or dislike the proposals. The Inspector can only consider comments about whether the Plan is:
- based on the right evidence
- realistic and deliverable
- consistent with national planning rules
But don't be put off. You don't need specialist knowledge to respond. You just need to point out where things don’t add up, where evidence is missing, or where the Plan doesn’t seem workable.
This stage is about asking clear questions the Inspector can act on.
Most importantly - TRY TO THINK LIKE A PLANNING INSPECTOR
Instead of saying whether you like or dislike a proposal, focus on simple, practical questions about whether the Plan can actually work.
Traffic and roads - instead of: “I don’t like 3,800 houses there.” Ask: “What evidence shows the roads can cope with the extra traffic?”
Wastewater and drainage - instead of: “Our sewage works are already struggling.” Ask: “What evidence shows the long‑term wastewater solution, how it will be funded, and when it will be ready?”
Landscape and countryside - instead of: “This will ruin the countryside.” Ask: “Has the impact on the landscape been properly assessed, including the effect of nearby developments?”
Healthcare - instead of: “We need more doctors.” Ask: “What evidence shows extra GP capacity will be delivered in time for the new population?”
These are the kinds of questions the Inspector can act on.
What to include in your comment
A clear, effective response includes:
- The policy or paragraph you are talking about.
- The issue you have spotted (for example: missing evidence, unclear plans, unrealistic assumptions).
- Why this makes the Plan hard to deliver or hard to justify.
- Any real‑world examples you have (GP waits, school places, road congestion, water issues, flooding, loss of farmland).
- The question you want the Inspector to consider.
Plain English is absolutely fine, and your everyday experience - like waiting for GP appointments or difficulty in finding school places - is valid evidence.
You may like to look at our evidence tracker for further information - button below.
ARCHIVE - EARLY MATERIALS AND INFORMATION
Pause now - and get the plan right
We're calling for a short pause so evidence can be properly gathered before the Local Plan is fixed
The issue
- 24,000 homes clustered in one area
- No cumulative impact assessment
- No infrastructure plan
- Villages at risk of being absorbed
- Alternatives dismissed too early
Affected towns and villages
More than half of the district's population will be impacted - here's the long list of affected towns and villages:
Abbots Ripton & Wennington, Alconbury, Alconbury Weston, Barham & Woolley, Bluntisham, Brampton, Brington & Molesworth, Broughton, Buckden, Buckworth, Catworth, Colne, Easton, Ellington, Fenstanton, Godmanchester, Grafham, Hemingford Abbots, Hemingford Grey, Hinchingbrooke, Holywell cum Needingworth, Houghton & Wyton, Huntingdon, Kimbolton & Stoneley, Kings Ripton, Leighton Bromswold, Old Hurst, Perry, Somersham, Spaldwick, St Ives, The Stukeleys, Warboys, Woodhurst, Wyton on the Hill
33 of those were recorded in the Domesday Book
Why we're concerned
The North Huntingdon and St Ives Cumulative Impacts Group is calling for a short pause at Regulation 18 because key evidence is missing - without this evidence, the plan risks failing at Examination, causing years of delay, higher costs, and loss of local control. Missing evidence includes:
Cumulative impact on roads, health, schools, water and sewage
Infrastructure required for a settlement of this scale
Deliverability of the proposals
Alternatives ruled out early, including the carbon neutral new town concept at Sibson
10 questions the District Council MUST answer
Huntingdonshire District Council’s emerging Local Plan proposes a significant 24,000 new homes in a very small area - that's more than three times the size of St Ives, and over twice the size of Huntingdon.
Although presented as separate sites, the impact of these allocations on existing and new residents would be the same as that of a single strategic settlement.
And the evidence needed to show the area can cope has not yet been produced.
The District Council has a responsibility to existing residents to answer these questions:
1. What is the cumulative impact of the combined 24,000 homes on roads, health, schools, water and sewage?
2. Where is the joined up infrastructure plan for a settlement of this scale?
3. Who is responsible for delivering infrastructure?
4. Why are the sites treated as separate allocations when they will have the impact of a single settlement?
5. Why were alternatives - including the carbon neutral new town concept at Sibson - ruled out early?
6. Where is the evidence that the area can cope with this scale of growth?
7. How will the plan avoid the failures seen in other districts where evidence was incomplete?
8. What is the plan for river crossings and constrained road networks?
9. How will agricultural land loss be mitigated or justified?
10. What safeguards are in place to prevent the plan being found unsound at Examination?
Timeline - where we are now, and what happens next
Now:
We're at Regulation 18 - evidence can still be added and tested,
Plans can still be changed
Next:
Regulation 19 - strategy becomes fixed
Making changes here is nearly impossible
After:
Examination - the plan is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate; here is where weak evidence risks the plan being delayed or even withdrawn
if the Planning Inspectorate throws the plan out due to the evidence gap, the DC will have lost money and time - and, potentially, control