Calls for underpass for people to cross 'death trap' A1 - but current plans still propose bridge
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
It is claimed that for years people have "risked their lives" dashing across the road from Tingey’s Corner (Biggleswade Road junction) or Footpath 7, with the journey particularly hazardous for those with disabilities or accompanying children.
Plans for a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the A1 at Footpath 7 have now been submitted by Solai Holdings Ltd as part of its application to develop the former site of Woodlands Nurseries. But Central Bedfordshire Councillor, Paul Daniels (Northill ward) argues that a bridge is not a sustainable option – and both he and fellow community members are urging the developers, Central Bedfordshire Council, and National Highways to build an underpass instead.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHowever, Solai Holdings Ltd says it "remains flexible on what sort of crossing is provided" – but that its understanding is that National Highways does not support an underpass. National Highways declined to comment.


Councillor Daniels claimed: "Residents are unanimous that an underpass is the only sustainable option. It will allow pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users a safe and effective way to cross the A1 to Biggleswade and vice a versa. The walk to Biggleswade train station is then only another 20 minutes.
"The proposed bridge is not adequate for the needs of local people and does not meet the design criteria as laid out by National Highways. It is not wide enough, there are no deceleration areas for cyclists and there is no provision for the bridge to be enclosed.
"Once the deceleration areas have been added it will add another 250 metres to cross the road after also taking the ramps into account. It cannot even be called a pedestrian/cycle bridge, because cyclists would be required to dismount. Due to the huge incline of the bridge, disability scooters would not have the battery power to make a round trip to Biggleswade."
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCouncillor Daniels recently leafleted 800 residents about the matter, and received "unanimous" feedback that called for an underpass.


One person claimed: "Wheelchairs, cycles and motorised disabled scooters would find it difficult to cross a bridge as extended ramps maybe problematic for some.
"I would also be concerned for potential jumpers who may use the bridge to attempt self-harm. And things may be thrown or dropped from the bridge by undesirables."
A parent claimed: "I imagine the proposed footbridge would resemble the footbridge at Beeston, which I have used a few times and find extremely frustrating and time consuming to use with my bicycle. My young daughter is also unable to push her bike up or down the ramps without my assistance."
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCalling for swift action, one respondent claimed: "Someone, adult or child, is literally risking their life every time they attempt to cross the A1. We desperately need a safe option to enable crossing this death trap."


In light of the feedback, Councillor Daniels recently asked the planning officer to refuse the application because it is not in line with residents’ expectations.
Meanwhile, Biggleswade Town Council and Northill Parish Council both support an underpass.
A spokesman for DLA Town Planning Ltd, on behalf of Solai Holdings Ltd, said: "Our understanding is that National Highways do not support an underpass due to the technical challenges and the disruption that would be caused by reducing the A1 (including the Biggleswade North roundabout) to a single lane for a period of six months [during construction]. We also understand that there is no funding available for a crossing and that the only realistic source is developer funding.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad"However, we remain flexible on what sort of crossing is provided. Solai have committed to a contribution of up to £3m that would fully fund a bridge. But we’ve always said that this contribution could be put towards an underpass instead if that is what Central Bedfordshire want to do.


"If National Highways can be convinced that an underpass is acceptable, and if the technical challenges can be overcome, and if the additional funding can be found, then we have no objection to contributing towards an underpass instead of a bridge.
"However, a development of the size we are proposing cannot fully fund an underpass on its own.
"We have participated in meetings with relevant stakeholders (including councillors) over the past 18 months and it may be useful for this group to reconvene to try and reach an agreed position. As things stand, we are caught between local aspirations for an underpass and National Highways who oppose an underpass."
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe developer's Design and Access statement says: "Outline plans have been produced showing how this bridge can be delivered within land owned by the applicant or by National Highways. These plans have been costed and the bridge is expected to cost around £1.88 million. A financial contribution of up to £2 million will be made available from this development by way of a section 106 payment.
"There has been discussion locally about whether an underpass would be more appropriate in this location. Having considered the feasibility of an underpass, the cost, the difficulties in relation to flooding and groundwater and the practicality of implementation, the applicant’s view is that a bridge is the only realistic prospect.
"However, if these difficulties can be overcome and an underpass becomes a feasible option, then the applicant would be content for the £2 million financial contribution to go towards an underpass instead."
Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) did not wish to comment.
The Chronicle contacted National Highways to see if it could clarify its position on the underpass. However, National Highways said they did not wish to comment – and confirmed that they are letting the planning application process run its course.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe application for the former Woodlands Nurseries site also includes: redevelopment for the erection of up to 26,800m2 of B2/B8 floorspace, a lake, a coffee shop, a community garden, and a playground.
To view the plans, visit the CBC planning portal and search for CB/24/01037/OUT.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.