Appendix 1

Comment

Representation ID: 9278

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: GB PC

Summary
While in general agreement with the Draft BBLP2040 Plan for submission, it would greatly aid its use by including the full text of all Saved Policies from previous Plans. This would allow it to be used as a standalone document, without the requirement to keep cross-checking other previous Plan Documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 9279

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: GB PC

Appendix 1, Allocations and Designations Local Plan 2013, AD28 states “Partly replaced by Policy DM12...” But DM12 is Tall Buildings NOT Outdoor sports space. Should read “Partly replaced by Policy DM11...”

Comment

Representation ID: 9538

Received: 13/07/2022

Respondent: Ravensden Parish Council

Ravensden PC notes that many of the Policies in the adopted 2030 Local Plan and in the 2013 Allocations and Designations Local Plan, and even some in the 2002 Local Plan, will remain extant after the 2040 Local Plan is finally adopted (see Appendix 1 to the 2040 submission plan). That will mean that anyone using the development plan to formulate or determine development proposals anywhere in the Borough will have to consult up to 4 separate documents and, in the case of proposals in Neighbourhood Plan areas such as Ravensden, some 5 development plan documents, together with associated Design Guides etc. The plethora of documents and policies at Borough level will potentially be overwhelming and confusing, and could give rise to unnecessarily conflicting interpretations of policies. We suggest the Borough Council should take the opportunity to consolidate all the various Local Plan documents into a single publication.

Object

Representation ID: 9771

Received: 21/07/2022

Respondent: Mr George Davies

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy AD40 Village Open Spaces and Views stems from the 2002 Local Plan (paragraph 5.49) and needs updating.
The last review is dated July 2013 but relied on a survey that took place between July and December 2009.
The link between the more recent policy 45 Local Green Space and the much older policy AD40 Village Open Space and Views requires clarification.
This 20 year old retained policy AD 40 now needs to be examined for soundness against a date of 2040. The physical and social landscape has changed over those 20 years and current relevance of this policy needs to be reviewed.

Comment

Representation ID: 9809

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Pertenhall & Swineshead Parish Council

This consultation on the draft Local Plan 2040 relates to the changes made in updating the recently adopted Local Plan 2030, most of the policies of which are retained in Appendix 1 of the Draft. For the most part, it is these (2030) policies that most directly affect our parish and which we broadly welcomed. These included defining Settlement Policy Areas which include Swineshead (apart from Green Lane). Pertenhall is not defined as a Settlement Policy Areas and so is generally considered an “area of countryside”. However, a new settlement character was introduced. 12 Small Settlements across the District were identified, including Pertenhall Wood End. The 2030 Plan policies relating to countryside planning generally, landscape, biodiversity, greenspace, minerals, renewable energy and so on are all retained.

Object

Representation ID: 9860

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CPRE Bedfordshire consider that the Local Plan is not sound (not ‘Justified’ or Effective’) in its approach to the long term management of open green spaces on new developments

Open Space Standards – Ownership of open green space on new developments

In the 2021 consultation CPRE Bedfordshire proposed that all open green space within new housing development should be handed over to Town & Parish Council's for long term maintenance and not held onto by developers who charge residents much higher maintenance costs. There have been many complaints from Parish Council's and residents regarding this practice.

We can find no reference in the Submission Draft to any steps taken to remedy this problematic area.

CPRE Bedfordshire’s full response to the Submission Draft can be found at;
http://www.cprebeds.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/07/Submission-version-reponse-LP-2040-July-22-Final.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 9861

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Local Plan is not sound (not ‘Justified’ or Effective’) in terms of its failure to give adequate consideration to the opportunity available in NPPF para 174 to protect valued landscapes in the Borough and in particular to use this provision to protect the River Great Ouse Valley.

River Great Ouse and Valley Area – a “Valued Landscape”

Current planning policy for the protection of valued landscapes in Bedford Borough relies on Local Plan 2030 (saved) Policy 37. This is entirely inadequate for the protection of such a major environmental asset as the River Great Ouse Valley

CPRE Bedfordshire commented in our initial consultation response that the Local Plan Vision fails to recognise the importance of the "River Great Ouse and its Valley Area" right across the Borough from its point of entry near Turvey to where it exits the Borough in the east. This is a serious omission that should be remedied.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) Para 174, states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by ……… protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan).

The NPPF therefore creates the basis for the protection of “valued landscapes” in planning policies and CPRE Bedfordshire would like to see the Council look positively at the opportunity this creates to protect the Great River Ouse and Valley Area right across Bedford Borough.

The area CPRE Bedfordshire recommends being recognised as a “valued landscape” would be the same as that designated an Area of Great Landscape Value in earlier Local Plans, prior to this national designation being removed by government.

CPRE Bedfordshire’s full response to the Submission Draft can be found at;
http://www.cprebeds.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/07/Submission-version-reponse-LP-2040-July-22-Final.pdf

Comment

Representation ID: 9867

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Open Space Standards – Ownership of open green space on new developments
32. In the 2021 consultation CPRE Bedfordshire proposed that all open green space within new housing development should be handed over to Town & Parish Council's for long term maintenance and not held onto by developers who charge residents much higher maintenance costs. There have been many complaints from Parish Council's and residents regarding this practice.
33. We can find no reference in the Submission Draft to any steps taken to remedy this problematic area.

Object

Representation ID: 10016

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: St Modwen Logistics

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

These representations are made on behalf of St Modwen Logistics. St Modwen Logistics own and manage Thurleigh Airfield, an established business park and existing allocation, classified as Protect and Enhance and subject to Policy 70 of the Local Plan 2030 (adopted January 2020).

St Modwen Logistics request that, for clarity, Local Plan Policy 70 which is to be saved, is updated to reflect the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020. This means removing reference to Class B1 which has been revoked and these business uses have now been amalgamated into the new Class E – Commercial, Business and Service Uses.

These changes are already recognised and reflected in the Emerging Local Plan 2040 text at paragraph 6.12 “The remaining policies of Local Plan 2030 remain appropriate and do not need replacement. However, many of them make reference to Class B. These should now be read as meaning Classes B2, B8 and business uses within Class E.” However, St Modwen request for consistency the saved policies are also updated in line with these changes.

Comment

Representation ID: 10063

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Great Denham Parish Council

The Council also wishes to reiterate that the protected urban gap (policies AD41/42/43) must be maintained between Great Denham and Biddenham, and that no further development should be permitted in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 10453

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Kulwinder Rai

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

On the Council’s decision to save Policy 7S - OBJECTION

During the consultation for the Local Plan 2030 both I and several other parties – including parish councils – made clear that we had fundamental objections to Policies 5S, 6 and 7S.

The basis of the objections were that Policy 7S and in particular its two-part nature, were inherently unfair and not in accordance with the spirit of the NPPF. Criticism, was directed, in particular, the requirement to meet ALL five of the criteria in Part 2 (vi-x) was considered to be inherently unfair and unreasonable, not to mention virtually impossible to meet.

The Local Plan 2030 was adopted on 15th January 2020. The impact of policies regarding development in the Countryside was immediate. Multiple Planning Committee meetings in Q1/Q2 of 2020 questioned the logic and common sense of the aforementioned policy on multiple occasions, overturning Officer recommendations for planning application refusals.

The Council’s begrudging response was to issue a Planning Policy Briefing Note to try and explain the logic of Policy 7S.

https://bbcdevwebfiles.blob.core.windows.net/webfiles/Planning%20and%20Building/local-plan-2030/planning-policy-briefing-local-plan-2030-policies-5S-6-7s.PDF

Subsequently, the Council also cunningly changed the Planning Committee’s terms of reference so that fewer small-scale applications involving Policy 7S were presented to it for consideration, with such applications now delegated for officer decision-making.

Now, as part of the Local Plan 2040, the Council is proposing to save these 7S without reviewing its fitness for purpose in any way, its presumption being that the policy remains acceptable (at least, to itself!)

It should also be noted that the decision to now save the policy is wholly contrary to the explicit promise that was made in the May 2020 Planning Policy Briefing Note, which stated:

‘In particular, Policy 7S seeks to restrict development in the countryside to exceptional situations and there are risks of unintended consequences if the policy is not applied strictly, so it will be monitored to see if it achieves its intended purpose. Future reviews of the plan will provide the opportunity to amend policies if necessary.’

The plan is now being reviewed and yet there has been no mention whatsoever in the supporting documents of what monitoring, if indeed any, has taken place.

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.