Object

Representation ID: 10275

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

ROXTON PARISH COUNCIL RESPONSE TO BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL (BBC) LOCAL PLAN 2040
Roxton Parish Council (RPC) object in the strongest terms to the proposed policy EMP8 for the following key reasons:
1. Impact on residential amenity
2. Impact on community assets.
3. Impact on conservation area
4. Impact on registered historical assets
5. Impact on the environment
6. Impact on farmland
7. Cumulative impact of EMP8 in conjunction with works at the Black Cat roundabout
8. Size of development proposed by EMP8
9. Lack of a draft masterplan
10. Lack of any prior consultation
11. Quality of consultation material
12. Contrary to saved policies from BBC Local Plan 2030
Each of the above will be explored in more detail in subsequent text.
1. Impact on residential amenity
According to Map 3 (after) in BBC doc ‘Changes to Policies Map April 2022’ the allocation site will abut tight against the boundary of approved housing under planning applications ref: 21/03333/MAR & 21/00014/MAO. The scale and proposed use envisaged by policy EMP8 will have significant harm on the residential amenity of these properties. The scale and proposed use envisaged by policy EMP8 will also have significant harm on the residential amenity of existing properties along Bedford Road, The High Street and School Lane. The harm will result from the height of the buildings associated with the type of development proposed under EMP8. The harm will result from the operations such as noise, light and odour pollution resulting from the type of development proposed under EMP8. Should EMP8 be adopted in its current form RPC insist the boundary of the land be cut back to a minimum of 30m to be provide a buffer. A clause should be added requiring any developer of the land in question to be responsible for the planting a native woodland in this 30m buffer from all existing and proposed properties in Roxton.
2. Impact on community assets
The allocation site will significantly harm the character of existing footpaths bounding the site. The allocation will significantly harm the vision of Highways England’s proposed footpaths and bridleways improvements associated with the works around the Black Cat roundabout along the C44 and over the proposed Roxton Garden Centre bridge to Wyboston. Furthermore, the loss of such assets will have a detrimental impact on the health of wellbeing of the residence of Roxton and the surrounding area. By virtue of the allocation site bounding the A1 north bound carriage the proposed development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 will render it impossible for Highways England to construct the proposed track (envisaged as part of the proposed Black Cat roundabout works) providing access to and from Kelpie Marina. The proposed development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 will also render it impossible for Highways England to provide the proposed soft landscape buffer to the village of Roxton envisaged as part of the proposed Black Cat roundabout works.
3. Impact on conservation area
Pursuant to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the “PLBCA”), in exercising its planning function with respect to buildings or land within a conservation area, the planning authority is to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conversation areas. ‘Preserving’ in the context of the PLBCA means “doing no harm”.3 The duties under section 72 requires the local planning authority to do more than merely give weight to those matters in the planning balance. Rather, “[t]here is a statutory presumption, and a strong one, against granting planning permission for any development which would fail to preserve the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area”. 4 In the context of policy EMP8, the proposed allocation site is outside Roxton Conversation Area, but this does not detract from the assessment that needs to be undertaken under the PLBCA. Were it otherwise, an applicant could construct a very large development that was not in keeping with a conservation area immediately upon its border and point to the fact that it was outside it to defeat the statutory section. The position is more clearly set out in paragraph 200 of the NPPF, which provides that “[a]ny harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification”. A ‘designated heritage asset’ is defined to include a conservation area (Annex 2 of the NPPF). The focus of the NPPF is on whether the development would harm the conservation area, and not where the development happens to be located. Policy EMP8 is contrary to the comments made by its concertation officer under planning application ref 21/00014/MAO where he said “The setting of the CA generally contributes positively to its special interest. To the west, the landscaped Roxton Park forms a key part of the CA’s setting; as do the rural approaches to the village from all directions. These fields help to form a spatial buffer between the CA and the A421 and A1 and form a part of the village’s rural setting”. The description of the “rural approaches to the village from all directions” forming a “key part” of Roxton Conservation Area would be significantly harmed by the type of development proposed under policy EMP8 given the allocation site bounds one of the main approaches to Roxton village and would appear, therefore, to fall within the definition of a “rural approach”.
3 South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141, per Lord Bridge at p.150 A-G.
4 R (on the application of the Forge Field Society & Ors.) v Sevenoaks District Council & Ors. [2014]
EWHC 1895 (Admin), at [45] and [47].

4. Impact on registered historical assets
According to Historic England’s register of historic assets the allocation will lie approx. 300m east of a scheduled monument, known locally as the ‘Round Hill’ (list entry no. 1013521). The scheduled monument is a Bowl Barrow, which are funerary monuments dating from the Late Neolithic period to the Late Bronze Age. They were constructed as earthen or rubble mounds, sometimes ditched, which covered single or multiple burials. ‘Round Hill’ bowl barrow is very well preserved when compared to the majority of barrows within the Great Ouse Valley. The mound stands close to its original height and there is no evidence that it has ever been excavated. The monument is situated in a prominent position on high ground close to the junction of the Rivers Great Ouse and Ivel. The barrow mound stands amidst a wide area of cultivated fields and is a conspicuous local landmark. Open fields which form part of the setting of the scheduled monument contribute positively to its significance. Additionally, the area surrounding the proposed development site has been previously identified as having high potential to contain non-designated heritage assets with archaeological interest. The allocation site lies within the setting of the scheduled bowl barrow and conservation area and the type of development(s) proposed under policy EMP8 has potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets. The type of development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 would result in the extension of the build-up area closer to the scheduled monument and introduction of large-scale industrial building within its setting. The subsequent operation of the facility could additionally impact on the experience of the monument through introduction of additional noise, light pollution, etc. All of these would result in a change to the setting of the scheduled monument and Roxton conservation area which would be likely to result in harm to their significance. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021) establishes in paragraph 189 that heritage assets, including scheduled monuments, are ‘an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’. Paragraph 194 of the NPPF (2021) states that, ‘in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting’. Paragraph 195 of the NPPF (2021) indicates that ‘local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) …[and] should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’. When considering the impact of a proposed development upon the significance of designated heritage assets, NPPF (2021) paragraph 199 requires great weight to be given to the monument’s conservation irrespective of the level of potential harm. As NPPF (2021) paragraph 200 sets out, any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage assets (including scheduled monuments) requires clear and convincing justification. Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a scheduled monument, NPPF (2021) paragraph 202 requires that the harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In the absence of ‘convincing justification’ the development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 will be contrary to the NPPF paras 189, 194, 195, 199, 200 and 202.


5. Impact on the environment
Nature Space (a subgroup of Natural England) in early 2022 designated the area in and around Roxton and Tempsford as a ‘RED’ zone of significant importance for the protection of Great Crested Newts. According to Natural England ‘impact risk maps’ (available via https://naturespaceuk.com/the-scheme/impact-map/) most of the allocation site under policy EMP8 lies within the RED or AMBER zones for the protection of habitat for Great Crested Newts. The type of development(s) proposed by policy EMP8 will result in the loss of these significantly important environment habitat. In addition, this loss will make it extremely difficult for any future applicant to meet Biodiversity Net Gain legalisation coming forward between now on the end of the 2040 local plan period. The allocation site is cut by what is know locally as ‘Rockham Ditch’ which is an historic environmental asset providing natural drainage from a wide area (many miles) feeding into damp wetland habitat along the River Great Ouse. The type of development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 will result in the loss or at best significant degradation of the important function preformed by Rockham Ditch.
6. Impact on farmland
The allocation site is stated as extending to 17heactres, the type of development(s) envisaged by policy EMP8 will result in the loss of 17hecatres of Grade 1 (Excellent) agricultural land, the land covered by EMP8 is and has been actively farmed for at least 40yrs or more; the loss of which should be avoided as stated in Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) technical note TIN049. Furthermore, the 17heatares allocated under Policy EMP8 will render a further circa 13hectares of Grade 1 agricultural land to the south up to School Lane Roxton undesirable due to it size for future cultivation resulting in the potential overall loss of circa 30hectares of Grade 1 agricultural land from the production of food.
7. Cumulative impact of EMP8 in conjunction with works at the Black Cat roundabout
Details of the proposed works at Black Cat roundabout by Highways England can be found via the Development Consent Order (DCO) application documents on the PINS website via https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/eastern/a428-black-cat-to-caxton-gibbet-road-improvement-scheme/?ipcsection=docs. The physical scale, the noise, light and air pollution resulting from the works proposed under in and around the Black Cat roundabout will be without question result in significant harm to character and setting of the village of Roxton. The cumulative impact from the Black Cat works and types of development(s) envisaged under policy EMP8 will only compound these issues to an unacceptable level by any measure. The rural character of the area on the eastern boundary of rural Bedfordshire will be lost forever should policy EMP8 be adopted flying in the face of the NPPF 2021. This cumulative impact cannot be outweighed by a perceived planning gain from the proposed employment allocation when compared to comparable sites on the strategic network. This 17hecatre site adds very little to overall employment allocation for the borough.
8. Size of development proposed by EMP8
As stated above the 17hectares of the allocation site is modest in comparison to similar sites on the strategic network for example the employment sites along A421 from Renhold to Wixams or from Junction 13 of the M1 towards Milton Keynes. Furthermore, once the allocation site is reduced in size to accommodate (a) the proposed Black Cat roundabout works; (b) Rockham Ditch; (c) Biodiversity Net Gain; and (d) a soft landscape buffer; the quantum of developable land will be too small to attract the type of operators envisaged by EMP8.
9. Lack of a draft masterplan
The fact policy EMP8 aspires to allocate 17hectares for employment land while not realising parts of the land are not available either by virtue of (a) the proposed works at the Black Cat roundabout; (b) the presence of Rockham Ditch (cutting right through the middle of the site; (d) the RED and AMBER zones for Great Crested Newts; (e) the need for a buffer zone; to name a few illustrates the lack of considerations on the possible factors limiting the scale of development possible on the allocation site. The production of the most basic of master plans at this stage in the Local Plan process would have provided sufficient evidence for BBC to reconsider the suitability of the allocation for inclusion in the plan. All such allocation should be ‘deliverable’ not just available.
10. Lack of prior consultation
No effort was made by BBC to discuss the proposed policy EMP8 with RPC prior to the start of the June 2022 consultation. Given the scale of the development(s) proposed under policy EMP8 RPC would have thought RPC could offer valuable local insight to allow BBC to consider policy EMP8 with the benefit of such local knowledge. Thus, saving taxpayer money and officer’s time.


11. Quality of Consultation Material
RPC note the core document of the Local Plan 2040 refers to policy EMP8 on page 81. The text describes the location of the allocation site as “land at Roxton southwest of the Black Cat roundabout..”. No map illustrating the allocation site is provided within the body of the core document BBC Local Plan 2040 April 2022. RPC note that 14 other maps are provided against other policies within the body of the core document. There is no logic justifying the lack of a map for policy EMP8 in the body of the core document. RPC contend the lack of a map has hindered the residence of Roxton in gaining a proper understanding of the potential impact policy EMP8 will have on their community. RPC also note that nowhere in this core document is there a statement advising consultees of the presence of maps supporting the polices or directions to further supporting documents that could lead consultees to stumble across the map illustrating the extent of policy EMP8. All this will directly impact on the quantity of comments submitted by the residence of Roxton to BBC Local Plan 2040. In turn this will cast considerable doubt on the validity of the consultation process.
12. Contrary to saved policies from BBC Local Plan 2030
Policy 7S ‘Development in the countryside’ has been saved in BBC Local Plan 2040. This policy sets out the circumstances when development can be granted in the countryside while outside the Settle Policy Area (SPA) of a given area. The allocation site under policy EMP8 sits wholly outside of the demise the Roxton SPA and the village of Roxton is allocated as being in the countryside therefore policy 7S applies.
Policy 7S states Development outside defined Settlement Policy Areas and the built form of Small Settlements will be permitted if it is appropriate in the countryside in accordance with:
i. Policy 65 - Reuse of rural buildings in the countryside
ii. Policy 66 - The replacement and extension of dwellings in the countryside.
iii. Policy 67 - Affordable housing to meet local needs in the rural area.
iv. Policy 68 - Accommodation for rural workers.
v. Neighbourhood Development Plans which have been ‘made’ by Bedford Borough Council.
In addition, exceptionally development proposals will be supported on sites that are well-related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, Small Settlements or the built form of other settlements where it can be demonstrated that:
vi. It responds to an identified community need; and
vii. There is identifiable community support and it is made or supported by the parish council or, where there is no parish council, another properly constituted body which fully represents the local community; and
viii. Its scale is appropriate to serve local needs or to support local facilities; and
ix. The development contributes positively to the character of the settlement and the scheme is appropriate to the structure, form, character and size of the settlement.
x. Where a community building is being provided, users of the proposed development can safely travel to and from it by sustainable modes and it is viable in the long term, ensuring its retention as a community asset. All development in the countryside must:
xi. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and
xii. Not give rise to other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others; and
xiii. Not give rise to other impacts that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, biodiversity or designated Natura 2000 sites.
The type of development(s) envisaged by policy EMP8 will fail to meet any of the criteria (i) to (xiii) as set out in policy 72, therefore policy EMP8 is contrary to policy 72.