Comment

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 9905

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning

Representation Summary:

7. Land south of Bromham Road, Biddenham (Site ID 7432)
7.1 The site comprises a field located south of Bromham Road and north of the A6. It is a well contained triangular site with roads and development to the north and an extant consent for development to the south. The western boundary adjoins an existing field.
7.2 Enclosed as Appendix EP2 is a Vision and Delivery Statement. This shows that:
• It is an infill site lying with the urban area boundary to the north and south;
• The site extends to 1.81 hectares. The site is currently undeveloped and is considered suitable for the delivery of around 40 dwellings.
• HSL have undertaken initial survey work and due diligence and have fully considering any constraints and opportunities presented by the site as a whole. An overview of the key technical considerations to-date is also provided, which helps to demonstrate that the site is Available, Suitable, Achievable and can therefore be considered Deliverable;
• Given the site’s context, the site’s attributes and sustainable location make it an ideal logical location for some housing growth on an SME site which the NPPF considers is important. There is an opportunity to provide a sustainable development that meets borough-wide and local housing needs and supports the local economy
7.3 As set out under Policy DS5(S) sites such as this should have been allocated. We now assess how the site was assessed and discounted.
7.4 Page 105 of the SA states:
“The Council has decided that sites adjoining the edge of the urban area in most instances should not be part of the local plan strategy because, in many locations, the gap between the edge of the town and villages surrounding it is very narrow and the strategic expansion of the urban area in recent years has already reduced that separation. The Council’s strategy is not to infill those gaps but to support only two sites adjacent to the urban area, where there are clear benefits associated with delivering the Council’s strategic green infrastructure priorities (Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway Park and Bedford River Valley Park, including the watersports lake)”
7.5 The omission site is reference 7432. The SA states:
“The location is not consistent with the Council’s preferred strategy. In addition the site is already subject to a development plan allocation (H6) which intended the land to be kept free from development”
7.6 The Site Assessment conclusion on page 878 states:
“The site is outside of the urban area. The location is not consistent with the Council’s preferred strategy. In addition, this site falls within the development area of Policy H6 of the 2002 Local Plan policy for Biddenham Loop which intended the land to be kept free from development.”
7.7 Given how the site has been assessed it is necessary to set out the planning history since the site was identified for development in 1994. This demonstrates that given the consents to the north and south that this site is now suitable as the reasons why it was not shown for development in the revised 2002 Biddenham Loop designation is no longer applicable. Therefore, the constraint to development no longer applies and importantly with regard to page 105 of the SA there would be no reduction in the gap between Biddenham, and Bromham. The extract from the Vision and Delivery Statement encapsulates this in one image.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN
7.8 We now assess why we come to that conclusion.

Planning History and Context
7.9 On the Interactive Policies Map for the current local plan, the site is shown under Policy H6 of the 2002 Local Plan and states “Site Name: Biddenham Loop Development Brief - Policy Number: H6”. The inclusion of the site in H6 is used as a reason to discount the site but given that H6 is to be deleted (Page 123 of the Plan), then the site needs to be assessed on the current position.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN

7.10 In the extract below, which is from the Biddenham Loop Development Brief in 1994, which we have taken from the 2002 Local Plan, the subject site is shown hatched as residential.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN

7.11 The fact that it was identified for residential development demonstrates it suitability as far back as 1994. However, in the Revised Biddenham Loop Development Brief dated 2002 the subject site was shown as part of a wider River Protection Area.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN

7.12 Paragraphs 4.12 to 4.14 of the Development Brief then explains the purpose of that designation as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR ECOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE PARAGRAPH

7.13 In the intervening period, the site no longer has any such ecology or landscape designation on the policies map. In addition, as can be seen from the extract of the Policies Map, with the allocations to the north and south in the 2030 Local Plan and the Upper Great Ouse Rover Valley, then there has been a material change and the site is white land and has no constraint to development.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN

7.14 The omission site also lies between Biddenham and Bromham, however the arrows on the policies map for AD42 do not include this site is within the gap. With the development and allocations to the north and south that can only be correct.
7.15 The developer for Policy 18 applied for 249 dwellings which extended the development area shown in the Plan significantly westwards and was won at appeal where a key issue was the gap between Bromham (AD42) and the development of urban open space (AD43).
7.16 Following the refusal of the 249 dwellings scheme the developer submitted an application for 160 dwellings (18/03100/MAO). The committee report states:
“2.17 It was on this basis that the previous application was partly refused: that the proposal for up to 249 dwellings did not adequately respond to ADLP Policies AD42 and AD43. The current application however constrains the extent to which the proposed development would extend westwards and northwards such that the important open visual attributes of the Biddenham – Bromham Gap would not be significantly compromised. The current proposal which is set further off the northern boundary with the A4280 than the previous application proposal and allows a much greater area of existing farmland to be retained west of the site, along with the proposed mitigation planting, would not significantly alter the sense of ‘visual relief’ and openness experienced, and thus the perception of the ‘Gap’, beyond the Deep Spinney roundabout upon leaving Biddenham / Bedford. By constraining the proposed development area to an area comparable to that shown in Figure 6 accompanying Policy 19 in the ELP (accepting that limited weight should be given to the ELP at this current time), the proposal as it stands would not inappropriately intrude into the ‘Gap’ and alter the perception and sense of arrival when approaching Biddenham and Bedford from the west and / or alter the perception of where the urban edge starts. Both physically and visually the existing ‘Gap’ between Biddenham and Bromham would not be unreasonably compressed, a criticism of the previous scheme.”
7.17 The refused 249 scheme referred to in the above quote was then allowed on appeal (Ref 3227767) in October 2019. Policies AD42 and AD43 were assessed in that decision. The Inspector concluded that “given the presence of the Western Bypass and open space between the Local Gap and the appeal site, along with the additional open space to be retained within the appeal site, this is not a case where the proposed development would adjoin the local gap. Consequently, there is no conflict with policy AD42”. He then states:
“22. Therefore, even taking account of the 160 dwelling scheme as a baseline (to which I have given significant weight) the appeal proposal would compromise the purpose of the Gap contrary to the aims of policy AD43 of the ADLP. Taking account of all my reasoning above, I consider that the level of resulting harm would be moderate.”
7.18 The Inspector states that “whilst the benefits of the scheme are considerable, they would not, under a normally weighted balance, outweigh the need to retain the urban open space and gaps as undeveloped”. However, as paragraph 11(d) was engaged the appeal was allowed (see below).
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR PLAN

7.19 For the outline consent (19/01394/MAO) for Policy 23 to the north of the subject site, the officer report states:
“2.19 The local gap identified between Bromham and the
Bedford urban boundary at Biddenham varies between 200 metres at its closest and 1 km. At the position where the site is located the gap between the two settlements is approximately 570 metres wide. Whilst the intervening open land contains some frontage development on Bromham Road, there is no development at depth, except for a single dwelling which is set back and mainly screened from outside of the site. The application site is an undeveloped grassed area, containing no buildings (except 112 Bromham Road), which contributes to the openness of the area and its importance as a visual break between the settlements of Bromham and Biddenham.”
2.20 The previous planning application on this site was refused in principle (reason 1) and due to the character of the development to the rear (reason 2 and 3) and the impact the development would have on the Local Gap. Since that decision the allocation of the land within the emerging local plan 2030 under Policy 23 for housing has been a significant material change in circumstance. This allocation accepts the principle of development at depth on the site and the impact this may have on the landscape and character of the area.
2.21 Given that the emerging policy 23 accepts the principle of housing on the site the general impact of the development on the gap will be a matter for the details of the reserved matters application. At this stage only the access is being considered with all other details being the subject of the further reserved matters applications.”
7.20 The site was approved. Therefore, the planning history demonstrates the fact that the western boundary of the site is in line with the proposed developable area for Phase 2 of the Gold Lane site for the pending application 21/03302, and with the existing and consented (Policy 23) development to the north.
7.21 With respect to the gap between Bromham and Biddenham these consents are a material consideration for the omission site (south of Bromham Road) as it would be a logical infill with no harm. The approved developable area for Policy 18 is in line with its western boundary of the omission site. Therefore, the evidence base has wrongly concluded that the site should be kept free from development. To the contrary it is a most logical site for allocation and early delivery. Conformity with SA and Policy DS5(S) 7.22 In the assessment in the HELAA the site is scored very highly and should have been given further serious consideration in the choice of allocations, particularly as the SA found growth adjoining the urban area performed almost as well as growth within the urban area, was better than new settlement growth, and was better in relation to economic growth. It was also noted that the Council recognises development in the urban area will be more challenging compared with adjacent to the urban area.
7.23 In terms of the Council’s preference for only two sites adjacent to the urban area (based on their benefits associated with the strategic green infrastructure priorities) there is no clear reason why Omission Site 7432 would not deliver any green infrastructure benefits. Indeed, the HELAA assessment recognises that “the site is within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and is able to enhance the network”.
Conclusion
7.24 To conclude, the site is a logical well contained site that was identified for development as far back as 1994. The gap between Bromham and Biddenham would not be reduced by the allocation of this site. The land south of the A6 (Policy 18) now has consent for 249 dwellings and with the site to the north (Policy 23) also consented, then the development of the subject site will not bring Biddenham any closer to Bromham. With the emerging housing requirement, this site should be allocated.
7.25 This concludes our representations.