Object

Representation ID: 10504

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr David Ray

Agent: Laister Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The following representations are made. However, we strongly consider that it is premature for the Council to be submitting this Local Plan for Inspection for two reasons:
 The Government has confirmed that a new NPPF consultation will take place shortly and it is expected a new NPPF will be made available later this year (see: https://www.slcc.co.uk/revised-national-planningpolicy-
framework-to-be-published-next-month/).
 Indeed, it is understood that the Government will be launching a new national development management policy program which will standardise some development plan policies throughout the UK. This would substantially change the nature of many parts of the Local Plan,
and given the early stage of the Local Plan, which has not yet been submitted for independent examination, it would be advisable to wait until further details have been provided so that these can be considered within the Local Plan 2040.
 The Council has yet to complete its evidence base. It is understood that the Council has sought to prepare an update its Hotel and Accommodation Study but no results are available within the consultation page. As such, it is impossible to make comment on proposals put forward regarding Policies 7S and 76, which the Council seeks to retain.
The absence of the Hotel and Accommodation Study update renders the Local Plan ‘unsound’, as it is therefore not ‘justified’ and it could not possibly be ‘positively prepared’ to meet identified needs. There are also question marks regarding the ‘effectiveness’ of the policies without a clear understanding of demand for accommodation in the Borough going forward.
This is particularly in light of the fact that previous study was published some years ago and there has been a pandemic and other economic changes, as well as customer expectations changes, which should be reflected within the new Local Plan.
7. We therefore kindly request that the Council withhold submission of the Local Plan until the Study is complete, and the public is given a full opportunity to comment on the Study and the policies to which the outcomes pertain
(Policies 7S and 76) as might be amended by the Council to reflect the Study’s outcomes. Without doing so, the Local Plan fails to also provide adequate public consultation and may be subject to a legal challenge on this basis.

Turning to our detailed representations, our comments relate specifically to
Policies 7s and 76, which the Council proposes to bring forward from the
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 into the new version of the Local Plan.
9. We consider that this is an unsound approach to the policies, as it is not clear
that these policies are remain consistent with the new NPPF. The policies
named were initially created under an outdated version of the NPPF. The most
recent NPPF (2021) which supersedes the previous has introduced factors
which have not been incorporated into the emerging policies. The
consultation period under which these comments are submitted is the
chance for the Council to remedy these omissions.
10. It is our assertion, as will be evidenced, that the above policies are currently
incomplete and unjustified, and that the Regulation 19 consultation of the
Council in preparation of the implementation of the emerging plan is
premature.
11. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that planning policies should set out a clear
economic vision and strategy which positively and proactively encourages
sustainable economic growth, having regard to Local Industrial Strategies
and other local policies for economic development and regeneration; be
flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, allow new
and flexible working practices (such as live-work accommodation), and to
enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.
12. Paragraphs 84 and 85 specifically fall under the subheading ‘Supporting a
prosperous rural economy’ and are pertinent to emerging policies 7S
(development in the countryside) and 76 (improvement and provision of new
visitor accommodation).
13. Paragraph 84 states that planning policies should ‘…enable the sustainable
growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas; sustainable rural
tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the
countryside; and the retention and development of accessible local services
and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues,
open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.’
14. Paragraph 85 states that planning policies should recognise that sites to meet
local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found
adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well
served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an
unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make
a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access
on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed
land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should
be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.
15. Though the Council’s policy does attempt to acknowledge some elements of
the criteria and requirements of the NPPF, it is our opinion that they do not go
far enough to replicate and incorporate the NPPFs specific requirements. It is
on this basis that the above-named policies are unjustified and inconsistent
with the NPPF, they provide exceedingly stringent criteria which go beyond the
requirements of the NPPF, and do not reflect the essence of paragraphs 84
and 85 in relation to supporting leisure and tourism developments in the rural
area and all sites which are physically well-related to settlements.
16. The second section of Policy 7S does not, in its present form, consider
paragraph 85 in that sites which meet local and business needs in rural areas
may be found beyond existing settlements, and that such developments may
be in locations which are not well served by public transport. The criteria within
the policy are excessively stringent and impose barriers against ensuring that
proposals which do demonstrably meet local and business needs are not
impeded in their obtainment of planning permission.
17. The Policy wording states:
‘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;
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;
viii. Its scale is appropriate to serve local needs or to support local facilities;
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’ The policy fails to account for the NPPFs intention that developments which
are beyond existing settlement boundaries but not well-related (including small settlements (the definition of which will be addressed further in this
statement)), may also be supported in obtaining planning permission where adherence to the criteria found in paragraph 85 (as reiterated above) can be accomplished. In omitting this stipulation, the policy 7S imposes barriers to those sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside. Developments which paragraph 84 specifically requires policy to remain flexible in considering.
19. Policy should also be devised to provide flexibility in order to ensure that if certain elements of any particular policy are not met but the context of the wider plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations weigh in favour of the proposal, then support for permission is still available.
20. Policy 7S also does not recognise that there is an identifiable need for certain types of accommodation. The Council have not provided an accommodation
study as part of the consultation which addresses this. The Council have had three years to provide this evidence base for public perusal however it has not been forthcoming. The public must have the opportunity to review and comment on all evidence bases relating to the development of policy prior to implementation. The local plan should therefore not be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and a further public consultation organised when all evidence bases on which policy relies have had the opportunity to undergo public consultation. Policy 7S is therefore not fully justified in this respect as the Council cannot evidence that they have accommodated for and met an outstanding need and the current evidence base on which they may be reliant will be 10 years out of date by the time the Local Plan is implemented.
21. To do so, it is assumed that Policy 7S would require an additional section to be added, along the lines of: “Proposals which respect the character of the countryside or are located on sites which are either previously developed or
physically well-related to settlements and there exists opportunities to exploit public transport and other sustainable modes of transport will also be supported, subject to other policies of the plan”
22. Policy 76 is similarly afflicted in relation to paragraphs 84 and 85. 7s and 76 seem to conflict with each other on the issue of proposals outside of settlement boundaries.
23. The criteria in policy 76 state:
‘Planning permission will be granted for new visitor-related buildings including hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and self-catering facilities where
the following criteria have been met:
i. the proposal is located within the urban area, a Key Service Centre, a Rural Service centre or a Small Settlement; or settlement;
ii. where the proposal is located within the countryside, it is well related to a defined Settlement Policy Area, a Small Settlement or the built form of other
settlements in accordance with the principles set out in Policy 7S.
In all other locations, development for new visitor facilities will only be supported in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the proposal cannot reasonably be achieved from a location set out in i. or ii.
of this policy.’”
24. The policy does not clarify the Councils position on visitor related accommodation which does not fall into the definition of a building (such as caravans and holiday lodges). The Council must clarify whether the policy encapsulates both buildings and caravans/holiday lodges, as it is not effective to refer to solely ‘buildings’ in the policy, but also refer to caravans in the supporting text at Paragraph 11.38.
25. In any event, the basis of the policy is to be led by the outcomes of the Hotel and Visitor Accommodation Study, but this report is not yet available and therefore it is unreasonable to assume that the policy should remain the same in light the absence of any clear information. It therefore is not justified, positively prepared or effective.
26. It would be more likely that once the Visitor Accommodation Study is available, either a new policy must be created which addresses the Councils specific approach, and which would be subject to consultations in the normal way, or Policy 76 must be amended to ensure it is ‘sound’. Indeed, the policy sets out that there must be ‘exceptional circumstances’ to allow such development in areas outside of criteria i or ii as listed. The NPPF clearly does not specify such a high test, and allows for a variety of new rural developments, including sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments, in all parts of the countryside. It is a disproportionate test which prevents economic growth including meeting the needs of local and new businesses in Bedfordshire.
27. In our view, the Local Plan 2040 is currently unsound and premature for the reasons outlined above, and the Council should consider pausing the consultation until all of the evidence is available and the outcomes of the
Government’s review of the NPPF are known.