Policy EMP8 Land at Roxton, south west of the Black Cat roundabout

Object

Representation ID: 9464

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rutherford

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This makes a beautiful rural area into an urban area.
Not needed

Comment

Representation ID: 9694

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site, the Roxton Conservation Area and associated listed buildings including the grade II* Church of St Mary Magdalen lies to the south west of the site. Tempsford Bridge scheduled monument and listed structure lies to the south east of the site. Any development of this site has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets and their settings.
An initial heritage assessment has been prepared for the site. The assessment identifies some harm, albeit less than substantial harm by the proposed development. The assessment makes some broad recommendations about open space buffers and landscaping but is not specific about where these should be. We suggest that the heritage assessment is revisited to confirm the mitigation needed, including considering the issue of heights etc and the impact on the nearby heritage assets and their settings.
These recommendations should then be incorporated into the policy wording of the Plan.
The site appears to come very close to the listed farm at the northern end of the Conservation Area which would presumably include land that was historically associated with the farm. Therefore we suggest some public open space here would help retain the setting’s essential character.
There is also intervisibility between the site and the Church and therefore careful considerations with regard to layout, siting, heights etc will be crucial in mitigating the visual impacts. We suggest that these requirements are included in the policy wording.
Criterion vii should be made more specific about mitigation (including recommendations from the revised HIA, as well as the suggested open space, and careful consideration of layout, siting and heights) and presumably it is cross referencing criteria vi rather than iv as currently worded.

Comment

Representation ID: 9725

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Historic England

For some sites an HIA has been prepared but is incomplete. Some are still marked Draft. Others only complete 2 or 3 steps of the 5 step methodology for HIAs set out on page 5 of the HE Advice Note 3 – Site Allocations in Local Plans:
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-andsite-
allocations-in-local-plans/ Some do not identify impact (step 3), others do not consider maximising enhancement, avoiding harm and mitigation (step 4), others do not determine whether the proposed site allocation is appropriate in light of the NPPFs test of soundness (step 5).
These include sites EMP6, EMP7 and EMP8.
In these cases, please ensure that the HIA is complete and that any recommendations have been used to inform the policy wording in the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 9922

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Amnaat Ltd

Agent: Aragon Land and Planning

Employment and the nature of the local economy has seen significant changes with regard to the needs for employment in the region and Bedford Borough. Some of these changes have also been influenced by the Pandemic which has resulted in a number of employment changes, including a significant growth in home working and a greater demand for logistics and storage. The trend locally has also seen both a significant increase in large warehouse development on the edge of Bedford/A421 and second, very little or new employment in the older and historic employment areas whilst some re use has occurred very little inward investment in the older employment areas has taken place.

There have been notable changes of use away from employment uses to retail and leisure opportunities within these historic employment areas as the market readjusts to try and re use some of these sites. Bedford with its connections to the M1 and A1 and central location is also well positioned to provide for logistics. The Pandemic has highlighted the importance and value of logistics and with retail changes this continues to be change in the type of employment being delivered.

The Framework in para 85 strongly recognises that sites are needed to meet local business and community needs in the rural area.

Accordingly, this is a submission seeking changes to the employment approach in the local plan polices to facilitate development on land outside the settlement areas and allocate land close to Great Barford for Employment purposes. This is an area which is going to see considerable infrastructure improvements as a result of the A421/East West Rail Link. The new allocation of EMP8 (and EMP7) now recognises the principle that land around the black cat roundabout can be developed for employment, however land closer to settlements like Great Barford would achieve a fundamental sustainable objective of placing employment need housing.



Some of this B8 demand is described as “footloose “and it will not all be achieved within Central Bedfordshire. It is likely this further footloose demand around the transport interchanges can be expected to continue and again will contribute to employment supply and this further weakens the need for these smaller older central sites to remain as part of the employment supply. The concept of storage and employment located towards the east of Bedford is now established in principle.
The infrastructure changes with the A421, the East-West rail link will see a much wider opportunity to locate employment and distribution around these hubs which are significantly better served for more up to date forms of employment and closer to transport links. The employment study at 9.3 recognizes
The local plan should make sufficient land allocations to meet this quantitative requirement, however it should also recognise that non-B class employment and complementary uses also need land. Experience has shown that the attributes that make employment land attractive to B class activities also attracts a variety of ancillary and complementary non-B class activities.

The Employment Study needs to take a more critical look at the existing employment vacancy and how realistic it is for sites having remained vacant to realistically contribute to employment land supply. This vacant land needs to be taken out the supply figures and new sites such as land at New Road Great Barford allocated or the area identified as one supporting local employment growth. The point(s) made at 9.11 in the Employment Study which lists the characteristics for identifying land. This is a site which sits next to an existing employment use and is well screened with a mature tree cover and can meet the site characteristics needed for identifying the land. Some further changes to DM8 could also support the allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 10013

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Steve Eldridge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

EMP8 repeatedly states that there must be “adequate separation from the existing residential buildings” in Roxton to minimise its impact on them. It then shows an area which extends virtually right up to the back gardens of those properties. It also covers the area extending south alongside the A1 yet this area is clearly visible by residents in Roxton which would be an eyesore.

Comment

Representation ID: 10054

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr - Brown

Agent: Aragon Land and Planning

Employment and the nature of the local economy has seen significant changes with regard to the needs for employment in the region and Bedford Borough. Some of these changes have also been influenced by the Pandemic which has resulted in a number of employment changes, including a significant growth in home working and a greater demand for logistics and storage. The trend locally has also seen both a significant increase in large warehouse development on the edge of Bedford/A421 and second, very little or new employment in the older and historic employment areas whilst some re use has occurred very little inward investment in the older employment areas has taken place.

There have been notable changes of use away from employment uses to retail and leisure opportunities within these historic employment areas as the market readjusts to try and re use some of these sites. Bedford with its connections to the M1 and A1 and central location is also well positioned to provide for logistics. The Pandemic has highlighted the importance and value of logistics and with retail changes this continues to be change in the type of employment being delivered.

Accordingly, this is a submission seeking changes to the employment approach in the local plan polices to facilitate development on land outside the settlement area, in and around the A421/Roxton which can add to the employment provision. This submission seeks to include land between Bedford Road and Roxton Road Roxton (site 820) as an area which can accommodate employment provision. This is an area which is going to see considerable infrastructure improvements as a result of the A421/East West Rail Link. The new allocation of EMP8 now recognizes the principle that land around the black cat roundabout can be developed for warehousing and distribution.

Some of this B8 demand is described as “footloose “and it will not all be achieved within Central Bedfordshire. It is likely this further footloose demand around the transport interchanges can be expected to continue and again will contribute to employment supply and this further weakens the need for these smaller older central sites to remain as part of the employment supply.
The infrastructure changes with the A421, the East-West rail link will see a much wider opportunity to locate employment and distribution around these hubs which are significantly better served for more up to date forms of employment and closer to transport links. The employment study at 9.3 recognizes

The local plan should make sufficient land allocations to meet this quantitative requirement, however it should also recognise that non-B class employment and complementary uses also need land. Experience has shown that the attributes that make employment land attractive to B class activities also attracts a variety of ancillary and complementary non-B class activities.

The Employment Study needs to take a more critical look at the existing employment vacancy and how realistic it is for sites having remained vacant to realistically contribute to employment land supply. This vacant land needs to be taken out the supply figures and new sites such as land at Bedford Road Roxton allocated or the area identified as one supporting further logistics and warehouse growth. The point(s) made at 9.11 in the Employment Study which lists the characteristics for identifying land. This is a site which sits next to an existing employment use and is well screened with regard to the A421/ Bedford Road and would make a useful contribution as an employment allocation. It would meet those identifiable site characteristics. It would be a supportive allocation to EMP7 & 8.

It is correct CBC has allocated some supply for “footloose” demand, these sites were not to address supply in the immediate area and therefore these allocations should not be used to minimize the proposed current local plan allocations.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 10288

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Section 4.99 Roxton
Policy EMP8 Land at Roxton Southwest of the Black Cat Roundabout
17 Hectares allocated for Employment but no indication of the shape and scale of this development. No detailed map is provided in the body of the core consultation document ‘Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission April 2022’ to show the scale of the development in the context of the land between Roxton and the Black Cat roundabout.
Item iii states the need to ensure separation from nearby residential properties in Roxton but there is no policy indication of the extent of this separation, or the nature of it. Will it be a small area of farmland? Or a tree lined boundary, or as little as a footpath?
Item vi – while this is welcomed as a statement of intent, it is difficult to see how such a development can possibly 'enhance the significance of heritage assets' in the Roxton Conservation Area, or how it can be mitigated as stated in item vii.
Fig 12 Key Diagram – No details provided. All other proposed developments in the Local Plan 2040 show a clear outline of the area to be considered for development. For this development of land immediately adjacent to Roxton, there is no such detail provided.
Roxton PC questions how the Local Plan can be submitted and approved with regards to this topic given the potential impact on the local heritage around Roxton, a village that includes a significant number of historic and listed buildings including a Church and a Congregational Chapel. How can the key criteria for development listed throughout the Local Plan be considered in the case of this clause given that there is no detail provided as to the specific location of any development and its proximity to the village of Roxton.
Roxton PC strongly object to this development in the immediate area adjacent to Roxton. This location is already being significantly impacted by the development of the Black Cat roundabout and the potential route corridor for East West Rail. Any further development in the area around Roxton is unacceptable. The proposed plans will further impact the heritage of this area and significantly reduce the quality of life of the residents of the village.

Support

Representation ID: 10310

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Sharman, Mrs Banks, Huntingdon Freemen’s Charity, Mr Russell and the Rowanmoor Trustees Limited

Agent: Bidwells

My clients would like to express their support for the draft plan which includes the identification of their
site ‘Land to the South West of Black Cat Roundabout’ as an employment allocation (LPA ref: EMP8).
My client confirms that this site remains available for development and is deliverable within the plan
period.
In this representation I will identify key matters of note in the emerging plan and will seek to highlight
areas which I consider require further attention.
At the outset, it is important to note that paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
(2021) is clear in that planning policy should identify strategic sites ‘to meet anticipated [employment]
needs over the plan period’. Paragraph 81 of the NPPF also states that ‘significant weight should be
placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business
needs and wider opportunities for development...’
In terms of ‘anticipated needs’, there is significant demand for warehouse and distribution units in
Bedford Borough, surrounding authorities and in the country as a whole. Warehousing and distribution
need in Bedford Borough is recognised by the Council in the Bedford Employment Land Study (May
2022) where it states that ‘additional land should be allocated in the local plan to meet a range of
employment needs, including some warehousing’ and that ‘warehousing sites will be required in the
borough to meet local needs and ‘final mile’ distribution.’ The report further notes that local agents have
expressed that in Bedford Borough there is a ‘strong demand and occupation of ‘big box’ warehouse
permitted premises, whether new build or second hand, with consistently short void periods’.
We consider that the need for warehousing and distribution units goes beyond just Bedford Borough. It is
noted that the Council have argued in the Bedford Employment Land Study (May 2022) that
regional/national distribution centre warehousing need has been met by allocations from neighbouring
authorities. However, my clients would instead argue that the Council have downplayed this need and
that market evidence continues to show a severe supply restriction and significant demand for warehousing/distribution units along the M1 (see Bidwells Arc Market Databook Spring 2022), the A421,
the A428, the A1 and other key road routes through the wider region and the country. We therefore
believe that this adds to the justification for allocating sites such as EMP8 through the Local Plan, in
accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.
When considering potential warehousing and distribution locations, Bedford Borough Council have
logically sought to align these with key transport links and interchanges. According to the Bedford
Employment Land Study (May 2022), the Council consider that ‘the local plan should emphasise the
need for a number of well-located sites that are close to transport networks’ and that future sites should
‘have good access to strategic transport routes (road and rail)’. This is in line with paragraph 11a of the
NPPF states that development plans should ‘align growth and infrastructure’ and paragraph 83 of the
NPPF, which adds that storage and distribution uses should be positioned at ‘suitably accessible
locations’.
EMP8 is located at a strategically important position to the south-west of the Black Cat Roundabout
between Bedford Road and the Great North Road (A1,making it an ideal location for warehousing and
distribution use. The site benefits from exceptional access to the existing and proposed road network,
including the A421 which heads west towards Milton Keynes and the M1, the A1 and the soon to be
upgraded A428 which will improve connections between Bedford and Cambridge. Improvement plans for
the A428 and the Black Cat roundabout are now at an advanced stage, with final proposals being
examined by an Examination Authority and a decision expected from the Secretary of State in August
2022.
Overall, the approach taken by the Council to assessing the need for new employment floorspace and
identifying a strategy to deliver it, aligning warehousing and distribution use with key road links in this
location, is considered sound, with the strategy being positively prepared, effective, justified and
consistent with national policy, as per the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
In addition to the strategic considerations, and as noted in previous representations, it is reiterated that
the site is suitable for development. The majority of the site is currently in arable use. There is, however,
an element of previously developed land comprising buildings and hardstanding of an existing garden
centre. These would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development.
There are limited landscape features on the site, however Rockham Ditch runs west to east through the
site and links to the Great Ouse river to the east. The entirety of the site is within Flood Zone 1 and
therefore it is not identified as an area at risk of flooding, and there are no known heritage assets on this
site or that will be impacted by the development of this site.
In terms of ecology, there are a number of priority species including Corn Bunting and Lapwing identified
in this area. However, the site’s location sandwiched between two major roads is likely to act as a hard
barrier to wildlife, making it a poor habitat for many species.
Access to the site is also considered achievable in this location.
Necessary surveys and supporting evidence would accompany any planning application for this site and
mitigation put in place where required.
Overall, the site is considered to be suitable for development with no constraints that would limit the
delivery of the proposed employment use.

Comment

Representation ID: 10311

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Sharman, Mrs Banks, Huntingdon Freemen’s Charity, Mr Russell and the Rowanmoor Trustees Limited

Agent: Bidwells

General Comments on EMP8
My client would like to note the following in relation to allocation EMP8 which they would welcome a
further review of:
- The Bedford Employment Land Study (May 2022) states that ‘the borough has in the last few years
had a number of high value business inward investments into larger industrial space for uses other
than warehousing and which would more suitably fit within a light industrial permission profile’. My
clients consider that in order to create flexibility in terms of what can come forward in allocation
EMP8, the policy should be amended to include ‘industrial’ as a potential end use alongside
‘warehousing and distribution’. It is noted that this provision is made in Allocation EMP7 and that
there is little to distinguish these sites in terms of nature and location.
- The Council could consider amending policy EMP8 and/or the proposals map in order to clarify the
site area that is proposed. The evidence base for this site (including the Call for Sites submission,
Site Assessment form and Regulation 18 representation) state that the site has an area of circa 22
hectares, however Policy EMP8 states that the site is 17 hectare employment site. It is noted that
difference is likely to reflect the fact that land on the eastern boundary of the site is being compulsory
purchased in order to facilitate improvements at the Black Cat roundabout and the surrounding
highway network. This leads to a discrepancy between the size of the site and the area identified for
the site on the proposals map. Whilst I do not think this affects the soundness of the plan, for clarity
and to allow comprehensive development of the site, it is best to retain the red line as currently
shown (i.e. around the full 22 hectare site) and clarify the position with appropriate wording in the
policy. If the Council are though to make any amendment to the red line, this should only remove the
area explicitly identified for CPO.
Given the location adjacent to two major highway routes, it is considered that there may be some
merit in the policy allowing roadside uses on the part of the site nearest the Black Cat roundabout. It
is noted that policy EMP7 makes reference to such a use and we consider that there is no material
reason why policy EMP8 could also not have this use built into the policy to allow flexibility for such a
use to come forward in the future if there is demand.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my client considers that the emerging Local Plan is sound, as per the tests of soundness
set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF and would note that:
- There is a significant demand for and a need to create additional supply of warehouse and distribution
units in Bedford Borough and the surrounding area, justifying the allocation of land to meet this need.
- Bedford Borough have correctly sought to locate additional warehouse and distribution sites at key
road and infrastructure locations as part of their growth strategy, in keeping with national policy
expectations.
- Allocation EMP8 will help to meet identified warehouse and distribution needs and is located at a
strategically important location in the highways network in keeping with national policy.
- Allocation EMP8 represents a suitable site for warehouse and distribution uses, and remains
available for development.
- The Council should consider adding industrial and roadside uses to the allowed employment uses on
EMP8 to provide flexibility when developing this site, consistent with EMP7.