Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Object

Representation ID: 9065

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

8.1. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states that: “Strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period, and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites”.
8.2. Despite the requirement of the NPPF, he Draft Local Plan fails to include a housing trajectory so that consultees can comment on the potential timing of housing delivery and the need for supporting infrastructure that needs to be delivered in close coordination. This makes it rather difficult to comment on any delivery assumptions for particular options or sites when the Council has not considered this despite it selected its preferred development options. The Draft Local Plan states:
“As well as setting the housing requirement for the plan period, the plan for submission will also include a trajectory to provide an indication of the timing of the delivery of the housing sites which are identified to meet the target. This will flow from the identification of the plan strategy and work on detailed site assessment and a greater understanding of the timing of the delivery of infrastructure needed to support growth.”
8.3. CPC considers that BBC has failed to appropriately outline how 12,500 homes is deliverable within the plan period and is concerned that there has been insufficient regard to the time taken for new developments to pass through both the planning and construction phases.
8.4. The Lichfields ‘From Start to Finish’ Review Second Edition (2020) and the Letwin Review (2018) highlight the delays with the delivery of large development proposals should not be underestimated as there will be many aspects of housing trajectory that are beyond the immediate control of a local planning authority.
8.5. For larger sites (2000+ homes), the Lichfield Report(2020) outlines an average lead in time of 8.4 years for the average time from validation of the first planning application to the first dwelling being completed. This is based on an average build-out rate of 160 dwellings per annum. On this basis and in the case of Dennybrook, it would take 15.6 years to deliver the figure of 2,500 dwellings set out in the Draft Local Plan. If one were to add the average lead in time to these 15.6 years, it would equate to 24 years from the validation of the first planning application.
8.6. The Letwin Review (2018) is also helpful in outlining a median build-out rate for large sites at 15.5 years.

INCLUDES FIGURE 8.1 TIMELINE FOR THE DELIVERY OF STRATEGIC HOUSING SITES - LICHFIELDS REVIEW (2020)

8.7. This demonstrates that the Dennybrook site and other larger sites cannot be delivered within the stated plan period of 2040 and would not make any meaningful contribution to the Council’s housing needs for many years to come.
8.8. The land promoted for development at Dennybrook is owned by multiple landowners and by our estimate approximately 56 land parcels. This highlights the complexity of the land assembly and delivery issues that the scheme would likely face if it were to be selected. Please note the landownership map is based on an initial assessment of HM Land Registry information and would need to be confirmed by BBC and the landowners as to its accuracy.

INCLUDES FIGURE 8.2 LANDOWNERSHIP PARCELS DENNYBROOK AREA

8.9. BBC’s options presented fail to reflect the lead times associated with various stages of the planning process, including:
• The preparation of relevant Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents or Design Codes which aid the delivery of larger sites;
• The Pre-application process, including consultation and engagement with relevant consultees and stakeholders;
• Potential delays in determining Outline planning permissions;
• Approval of Reserved Matters and agreement of relevant phasing;
• The discharge of conditions;
• The preparatory site works, to be informed by site-specific survey recommendations and monitoring before commencement;
• Securing of relevant funding (including S106 and CIL); and
• Delivery of on-site and off-site infrastructure, (associated with larger sites and the creation of a new settlement).
8.10. Delivery will also rely on cooperation with adjoining authorities and liaison and negotiation with statutory consultees. Even the slightest delay in the start date will result in a slower performance, which is then likely to render the assumed delivery rates unachievable.
8.11. Overall, CPC considers that the preparation of a potential housing trajectory is urgently needed, considering a more realistic rate of delivery then the crude assumptions included in the Draft Local Plan. Further evidence gathering should also assess whether BBC should be considering a larger number of smaller sites to meet housing delivery across the Local Plan period.
8.12. The potential for up to 2,500 homes in one location such as Dennybrook and potentially other sites nearby could flood the housing market within one location impacting on market choice and resiliency of the local housing market which will further impact on the ability to delivery homes quickly
8.13. The Council’s poorly thought-out assumptions regarding housing delivery and lack of a housing trajectory result in the Draft Local Plan being currently unjustified and requiring much further evidence looking closely at what could realistically be delivered sustainably in the borough.

Object

Representation ID: 9067

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

BBC’s Transport Evidence
9.10. BBC has published 4 transport evidence base documents with the consultation:
• Bedford Borough Transport Model – Draft Local Plan Assessment Report and Summary (2021)
• Bedford Borough Transport Model - New Settlement West of Wyboston (2021)
• Bedford Borough Transport Model - New Settlements and the A6 (2021)
• Bedford Borough Transport Model - New Settlements and the Black Cat Junction (2021)
9.11. BBC does not explain its reasoning for preparing a separate report for Dennybrook but
not a separate report for the other new settlements being promoted.
9.12. We consider the transport evidence to be lacking in detail about the growth assumptions that have been input into the model and seek clarification on this. As BBC will be aware ‘a model is only as good as its assumptions’ and as it currently stands the transport evidence cannot be relied upon as sound evidence base due to the questionable growth assumptions and ‘highway infrastructure schemes’ assumed to be delivered. We explain this in more detail below.
9.13. At the start of all three reports the consultants explain that BBC has commissioned them to develop a multi-modal transport model (BBTM) covering the borough and areas adjacent to the borough in neighbouring authorities. We have a number of questions about this as it is not clear from the evidence documents and the plans and assumptions about growth in neighbouring areas is clearly a key consideration for the modelling. We note there are some maps provided showing the assumptions however these are difficult to read and interpret and we would be grateful for clarity on this matter.
• Did BBC work with its neighbouring authorities in preparing the model? If so, where is the evidence of this joint working?
• What exact ‘areas adjacent to the borough’ were included in the model?
• What growth assumptions were assumed for growth in neighbouring authority areas in the 2030, 2040 and 2050 scenarios?

(SEE OBJECTION TO SITE 977 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)

Object

Representation ID: 9068

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

10. Heritage
10.1. The Council’s evidence base in relation to Heritage is unsound and severely lacking particularly in relation to the fact that BBC has not prepared Heritage Impact Assessments on its options to comply with the NPPF and Historic England’s Advice Notes.

10.2. Chapter 16 of the NPPF places an emphasis on the need to conserve and enhance the historic environment. In the context of Bedford Borough, this sentiment is mirrored in the Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment (2020), which states that “it is important that the many opportunities for the enhancement of the borough’s historic environment, including its historic landscape character, are realised. Any adverse impacts on the historic environment arising from development should be minimised to avoid degradation. The historic environment provides character and identity to places, and a positive template for new development. It can play a key role in creating a ‘sense of place’ and identities as new communities are created and existing ones enhanced”. Despite this, the Draft Local Plan and its evidence base provide very little information relating to the historic environment. CPC is therefore concerned that the absence of historic information could result in the degradation of heritage assets.
10.3. The Bedford Borough Landscape Character Assessment refers to the Church of St Denys, Colmworth, as is states that “the spires of stone-built churches (such as St Denys at Colmworth) are landmarks in this fairly level, open plateaux landscape”. It is worth noting that the Church of St Denys is a Grade I listed church dating back to 1430.
10.4. The Figures below highlight the view from Honeydon Road to the Church of St Denys in relation to the site plan of the proposed Dennybrook scheme. As shown below, the western boundary of the proposed development would sit within the historic setting of the Church of St Denys. With this in mind, it is clear that the Regulation 18 Local Plan does not align with paragraph 195 of the NPPF, as the local planning authority has failed to assess the significance of the Church of St Deny that how it (and its surroundings) would be affected by a proposal.

INCLUDES FIGURE 10.1: VIEW CONE OF PHOTO AND PHOTO OF VIEW ON HONEYDON ROAD WITH THE DENNYBROOK SITE HIGHLIGHTED

10.5. In relation to the Dennybrook site and the impact on the Church of St Deny’s, the Wyboston Garden Village Heritage Impact Assessment (2021) states that “there are views to the Grade I listed Parish Church of St Denys at Colmworth from the western area of the Site (Plate 2), and distant views to the tower from parts of the central area of the Site. The use of open space in the western area of the Site as indicated in the Concept Masterplan would put built form over 1.5km east of the church. It would also avoid built form within the church’s historic parish (Colmworth). While there might be some loss of views to the spire from the wider area, it is not anticipated that this in itself would be sufficient to adversely impact the significance of the listed building.” This argument cannot be justified, as, in acknowledgement that key views to and from the Church of St Denys would be lost, the Wyboston Garden Village is in conflict with paragraph 130c) and d) of the NPPF, as it is clear that the Wyboston Garden Village proposal is not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment and will in fact erode the local area’s sense of place.
10.6. It is also worth noting that a recent appeal regarding 49 dwellings in a Suffolk village was partly dismissed on the grounds that the inspector deemed there to be a high impact on a manor house and two barns and a medium impact on a grade II* church. The Inspector felt that the public benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to heritage assets and therefore this provided a clear reason for refusal in accordance with paragraph 11d) of the NPPF. Similar to the above, the Wyboston Garden Village Heritage Impact Assessment (2021) notes that the following Grade II listed buildings are within or immediately adjacent to the proposed site: “Dairy Farmhouse (1114114), at the northern edge of the Site, west of Honeydon; Chestnuts Farmhouse(4321615), at the northern edge of the Site on the southern side of Honeydon; Sudbury Farmhouse (1146461), within the central area of the Site; Eaton Tithe Farmhouse (1157864), within the eastern area of the Site; Moat Cottage (1146457)”. By applying clause b ii) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it is clear that the adverse impacts of the Wyboston Garden Village proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, and on that basis this site should not be considered for development.
10.7. Historic England has prepared a number of Advice Notes with its guidance on how authorities should approach heritage in the Local Plan and in their selection of potential sites including the potential impacts on heritage that might result from the proposals. There are two of these Advice Notes we would like to bring to the attention of BBC:
• The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans (Historic England Advice Note 3) October 201543.
• Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets (Historic England Advice Note 12) October 2019
10.8. There is no evidence available in the Local Plan or its supporting documents that sets out how the Local Plan process has complied with the NPPF (and the Historic England guidance) in respect of heritage (including archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic, or a combination of these) in terms of considering which development options to select and then the need to assess the heritage impact from these proposals. At a minimum the Council should have undertaken the following staged approach as set out in Advice Note 12 (see paragraph 6):
1. Understand the form, materials and history of the affected heritage asset(s), and / or the nature and extent of the archaeological deposits
2. Understand the significance of the assets
3. Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance
4. Avoid, minimise, and mitigate negative impact, in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF
5. Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance

SEE OBJECTION TO SITE 977 DENNYBROOK FOR CONTEXT AND MORE INFORMATION

Object

Representation ID: 9069

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

12. Biodiversity
Policy NE1 (Environmental Net Gain)
12.1. CPC is concerned that the policy wording of Policy NE1 (Environmental Net Gain) falls hort of what is required to achieve environmental net gain. As stated in best practice guidance published by CIRIA (2019), environmental net gain is defined as (our emphasis added) “development that leaves biodiversity in a better state than before, and an approach where developers work with local governments, wildlife groups, landowners and other stakeholders in order to support their priorities for nature conservation”. However, Policy NE1 (Environmental Net Gain) merely states that “proposals for major development should provide an environmental net gain (in accordance with government policy), which incorporates biodiversity net gain, through the following:
i) enhancement of the existing features of the site, particularly where these deliver significant levels of ecosystem services; or
ii) the creation of additional habitats on the site; or
iii) the linking of existing habitats to create links between ecological networks and where possible, with adjoining features”
12.2. The above policy (NE1) demonstrates a clear disregard and divergence from best practice guidance, as the built-in flexibility effectively allows developers to disregard the quality and innate importance of existing habitats on-site, in replacement for new habitats where there is no criteria to ensure that new habitats are of good-quality or are well-integrated and sensitively sited in respect of the local landscape and surrounding ecological networks. This omission could in practice lead to the degradation of local landscapes, where new developments lead to the continued fragmentation of local habitats. As such, Policy NE1 (Environmental Net Gain) does not comply with paragraph 174d) of the NPPF, as it cannot be demonstrated that Policy NE1 “contribute[s] to and enhance[s] the natural and local environment by […] minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”.

Object

Representation ID: 9070

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

17. Lack of Local Engagement & Support
17.1. The NPPF requires that local plans are “shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees”. CPC considers there to be no evidence of how early engagement with key stakeholders has taken place to shape the Draft Local Plan.
17.2. Given BBC’s chosen timetable for preparing the Local Plan, whereby the next stage of the local plan process is a Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) published for representations, there will have been no opportunity for anyone to be consulted on the selected Local Plan proposals. The current Regulation 18 consultation is one on ‘potential options’ with the majority of the evidence base absent. Following the current Regulation 18 consultation BBC proposes to move directly to preparing its Regulation 19 Local Plan (‘Publication’ plan) – the period for representations to which interested parties can respond is not a consultation, it is limited to matters of legal compliance and soundness. As the PPG explains, the Pre-Submission plan “should be the document that the local authority considers ready for examination…this provides a formal opportunity for the local community and other interests to consider the local plan, which the local planning authority would like to adopt”

Object

Representation ID: 9071

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Issues and Options Results
17.3. As we have explained in our ‘Urban and Settlement Capacity’ section urban based development was the most strongly supported by consultees at the Issues and Options stage. However, the lack of effort BBC has made to explore this important sustainable growth option demonstrates a lack of the Council taking the previous consultation responses seriously.

Object

Representation ID: 9072

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Design Guide / Design Codes
17.4. CPC raises concerns regarding BBC’s stated approach to preparing a Design Guide for the whole Borough. It states that the Council is currently preparing a Design Guide to supplement the policies in the Local Plan 203054. From the description of the Design Guide it sounds like it will provide ‘general design advice’ which is not what is needed. There is already a Government prepared National Design Guide which is to be used where a local authority does not have its own.
17.5. A key tenet of the preparation of a Design Guide and Design Code is engagement with the community from the ‘scoping stage’. Whilst we are aware of the Design Guide SPD Scoping Document and consultation, CPC is not aware of there being any engagement strategy or consultation strategy with Parishes or other community groups on the preparation of a Design Guide. We seek clarification from BBC on this and what its proposed process for engagement will be.

INCLUDES FIGURE 17.1: NATIONAL MODEL DESIGN CODE PAGE 7

17.6. Linked to the above point, the Draft Local Plan and Local Development Scheme is entirely unclear as to what the Council’s proposed approach is for new Design Codes, SPDs and / or DPDs in relation to potential strategic development in its Local Plan. For instance, if a new settlement were to be proposed would the Council seek to prepare a separate specific DPD, SPD or Design Code for the new settlement? One would expect this to have been thought through by this point in the process and communicated to the public as it has significant impacts not only on the programme and timetable for when a site could potentially come forward but provides more certainty for all involved as to the roadmap ahead is.

Object

Representation ID: 9073

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

17.7. As it currently stands and for the reasons highlighted above [SEE OBJECTION TO PARA 7.27], the process ahead for the Local Plan and how the wider community including CPC can get involved is entirely unclear. The only indication BBC has given is in its table at paragraph 1.13 of the Draft Local Plan where it says that it will ‘consider responses and prepare plan for submission’ in Autumn 2021 – Spring 2022 and that in Summer 2022 it will ‘plan for submission consultation. This is not early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities as required by the NPPF and we respectfully request that BBC greatly improves its efforts to engage with the community and allow the community to influence the Local Plan.