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

Support

Representation ID: 7430

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Trakbak Racing Limited

Agent: WSP

On behalf of our client, Trakbak Racing LTD, we write this letter to set out their representations to the ongoing consultation for the emerging Bedford Local Plan 2040. This letter firstly outlines Trakbak Racing LTD objections to four sites submitted in the call for sites process. Following on from this, representations to the development management policies of the emerging local plan are made.
OBJECTIONS TO FOUR SITES SUBMITTED IN THE CALL FOR SITES PROCESS
Trakbak Racing Limited, the operator of Santa Pod Raceway (SPR), objects to the allocation of the following four sites submitted as part of the local plan consultation:
• Up to 600 homes at Glebe Farm Solar Park, Podington (Site ID:529)
• 800+ dwellings at Land to the north west of Forty Foot Lane, Podington (Site ID: 532)
• Up to 700 dwellings at Odell Solar Park, Odell (Site ID: 531)
• 4,500 dwellings at Land adjacent to Colworth Science Park (Site ID: 1002)
Trakbak Racing Limited objects to the allocation of the sites listed above because their allocation would be contrary to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) which explains that in order for local plans to be found sound, they must be in accordance with policies of the NPPF. The allocation of these four sites would render the local plan unsound because they are not in accordance with the following paragraphs of the NPPF:
• Paragraph 81: which explain that “Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. 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”.
• Paragraph 174: which explains that: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by… preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability” (underline added).
• Paragraph 185: which explains that “Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location…. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life” (underline added).
• Paragraph 187: which explains that “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed”.
Further to the above, paragraph 2 of the NPPF explains that planning permissions should be determined in accordance with the development plan. Owing to this, these four sites are not deliverable (and should not be allocated) because they conflict with the following extant policies in the Bedford Plan 2030. These policies are:
• Policy 28S (Place making): which explains that development will be expected to “have a positive relationship with the surrounding area, integrating well with and complementing the character of the area in which the development is located”.
• Policy 32 (The impact of development- disturbance and pollutions impacts): which explains that “development proposals should ensure that they minimise and take account of the effects of pollution and disturbance. Planning applications should give particular attention to….the suitability of the existing environment in relation to nuisance or pollution in the vicinity of the site”.
• Policy 47S (Pollution, disturbance and contaminated land): which explains that development proposals should: "Avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life or, where appropriate, mitigate and reduce its impact" and that development proposals should "be appropriate for their location, having regard to the existing noise”.
Explanation as to why these four site submissions conflict with the NPPF and adopted development plan is outlined below in this letter. We have also provided supporting documents to back up our objections to the allocation of these four sites (and in relation to the representations to the emerging development plan policies) in the form of:
• Trakbak Racing LTD – Regulation 19 Representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (dated 28-3-18); and the following appendixes in relation to this representation
o Appendix 1: Local Noise Profile Assessment undertaken by Santa Pod;
Appendix 2: Review of Noise Impact in relation to Santa Pod Raceway (27th March 2018)
• Trakbak Racing LTD Regulation 19 Representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (October 2018); and the following appendices in relation to this representation
o Appendix 1 of the above representations entitled “Report in the Examination into the Torbay Local Plan”
o Appendix 2 of the above representations which outlines a composite list of noise assessments undertaken by MAS Environmental
These documents were previously submitted on behalf of Trakbak Racing Limited to the consultation period of the then emerging (now adopted) Bedford Local Plan 2030 in which a previous proposal for a new 'garden village' settlement at Colworth (nearby to SPD) was put forward as an allocation in the previously emerging Bedford Local Plan 2030. However, this allocation was subsequently removed prior to the adoption of the plan over issues over SPR noise. This garden village proposal has again been submitted (Site ID 1002) in the call for sites submission for this emerging local plan. The findings of the supporting documents outline the unacceptably of this garden village proposal, and of the other three housing proposals submitted in the call for sites process nearby to SPR.
The three key reasons why these four housing proposals should not be allocated in the emerging local plan are because they would cause/create issues with:
• Noise issues;
• Unaccepted living environment; and
• Effect on the Santa Pod business and the local economy.
These three key issues are outlined under the subheadings below.
Noise issues
SPR is synonymous with high speed and noise; these two elements are at the very heart of what they do. SPR has consent to operate on 365 days of the year from 9.00am to 9.00pm. It holds in the order of 29 competitive meets a year and this level of mainstream drag racing activity is necessary for the business to remain financially viable and to provide a level of activity to support and maintain the interest of the fan base.
The potential development of a housing proposal in such close proximity to the racetrack would be a serious threat to SPR and its business operations. The power available to members of the public with modern legislation is formidable; this means that the opportunity for a single complainant or a group of complainants to curtail the business activities of a company like SPR is very real. Fortunately, due to SPR being present and active in running drag racing for over 50 years, the community in which they sit is largely accepting of what they do. Existing communities have expectation of intrusion from SPR as they have evolved along with Santa Pod. This same form and level of expectation cannot exist for any new community who naturally expect development is permitted with their quality of life already protected as part of the assessment process.
Trakbak Racing Ltd previously commissioned a ‘Review of Noise Impact in relation to Santa Pod Raceway’ (dated 27th March 2018), from MAS Environmental. This report outlines the unacceptability of a housing proposal nearby to SPR and forms an important part of this representation. Paragraph 1.25 (on page 7) of this report explains that it would not be possible to achieve a satisfactory noise environment for a nearby housing development as it would fail to meet numerous objectives of planning guidance and seeks to introduce a large number of noise sensitive receptors at a distance of 500m - 1km from the SPR site. The same paragraph of this report goes further, to state that “Noise at dwellings would be dominant, at times highly intrusive and significantly above background sound levels. Widespread complaints are expected and control by way of statutory nuisance (whether privately or by the Council), use of Community Protection Notices or common law action should be expected”.
Santa Pod would certainly expect to be the subject of legal injunctions and be in conflict with new residents if houses were to be built this close to its venue. MAS Environmental have previously assessed that, without substantial changes at the Santa Pod site, this potential conflict would likely lead to the demise of the Santa Pod business as a direct result of noise complaints and potential noise nuisance claims1. In this context it is important to state that paragraph 187 of the NPPF explains that "Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established". Therefore, any housing on the sites 1002, 529, 531 and 532 would not be in compliance with paragraph 187 of the NPPF because it relies on placing unreasonable restrictions on SPR and its operations in order to deliver any housing.
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires that in order for local plans to be found sound they must be in accordance with policies of the NPPF. The local plan would therefore be unsound if these sites were to be brought forward in this local plan review, as it would not comply with paragraph 187 of the NPPF.
Unacceptable living environment
In their assessment of the noise issues around site 1002, MAS Environmental explained (at paragraph 1.11 of their ‘Review of Noise Impact in relation to Santa Pod Raceway’, dated 27th March 2018) that the objective is to stop short periods of high noise which is precisely what happens at SPR. MAS Environmental then assessed that (in paragraph 1.12 of the same report) conservative estimated noise levels at site reference 1002, based on levels previously measured in nearby community locations, exceed noise limits used at other raceways including within the Bedford district (42-47dB LAeq,T) by a significant margin, from around 10-30dB(A) depending on source type and meteorological conditions etc. The MAS report provides clear evidence that this is simply too large to be addressable by mitigation such as screening. As sites 529, 531 and 532 are also adjacent to SPR, similar noise survey results can be anticipated.
If site references 1002, 529, 531 and 532 were to be allocated for development in the local plan review, the nearest residential houses would be around 500m from the SPR start line. The sound generated by SPR this close to a family home would be intrusive and impossible to ignore. As MAS Environmental explain (on paragraph 1.26 of their ‘Review of Noise Impact in relation to Santa Pod Raceway’, dated 27th March 2018) this would fail to meet the aims of the NPSE 2,as described within the Planning Practice Guidance on noise, to mitigate and reduce adverse noise impacts to a minimum and to improve the health and quality of life through effective management of noise. It also fails to protect SPR or any future development of the site.
Housing on this site would therefore be in conflict with policy 47S of the adopted local plan (Bedford 2030) which explains that development proposals should "Avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life or, where appropriate, mitigate and reduce its impact" and that development proposals should "be appropriate for their location, having regard to the existing noise". For the same reasons, it would also be in conflict with policies 28S and 32 of the adopted local plan and paragraphs 174 and 184 of the NPPF, owing to noise issues creating an unacceptable living environment.
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires that in order for local plans to be found sound they must be in accordance with policies of the NPPF. The local plan would therefore be unsound if these sites were to be brought forward in this local plan review, as it would not comply with paragraphs 174 and 187 of the NPPF.
Effect on the Santa Pod business and the local economy
Trakbak Racing Ltd (the freehold owner of the raceway and a 50% shareholder in SPR) has a new 30 year lease over the racetrack which started this year and a 25 year lease over additional land which is used mainly for car parking and camping. Since it took over the track in 1996 it has invested £7M on the venture.
As explained under the subheading above, ‘Noise Issues’, if site references 1002, 529, 531 and 532 were to be allocated in the emerging Bedford Plan 2040, the future of SPR and its business operations would be under serious threat. In considering this, it is important to take into account the importance of SPR to the economy and culture of the district and (being the only drag racing track in the UK) to the culture of the UK as a whole.
SPR makes a significant financial contribution to the local economy by providing employment in a rural area. Excluding directors salaries the SPR wage bill for 2016 was £1,315,459. The vast majority of SPR employees live within 15 miles of the venue. As a business SPR spends £1,633,215.76 on goods and services in the locality. The company also pays an annual rates bill of £50,000. Santa Pod is able to operate at this level because of the type of events that are run at the venue.
In reference to the above, any housing on the sites 1002, 529, 531 and 532 would be contrary to paragraph 81 of the NPPF which explains that “planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity”.
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires that in order for local plans to be found sound they must be in accordance with policies of the NPPF. The local plan would therefore be unsound if these sites were to be brought forward in this local plan review, as it would not comply with paragraph 81 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7431

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Trakbak Racing Limited

Agent: WSP

When the Council previously withdrew the garden village settlement at Colworth (nearby to SPD), which was put forward as an allocation in the previously emerging Bedford Local Plan 2030, they recognised that the development of housing in close proximity to Santa Pod is inappropriate. Despite this, there is nothing in the ‘Growth Strategy Options’, on pages 19-23 of the emerging Local Plan 2040, to reflect that or to protect Santa Pod from the effects of alternative development proposals on its business.
Trakbak Racing Limited has concerns about this and, in particular, if the Council fall into a position of failing to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land during the emerging plan period which could result in speculative housing applications being submitted nearby to SPR. At paragraph 3.9 of the document ‘Trakbak Racing LTD Regulation 19 Representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan (October 2018)’ it is explained that there is a known noise issue in connection with Santa Pod. In consequence, there is a risk of unreasonable restrictions being placed on SPR because of new development.
In relation to this, paragraph 187 of the NPPF that “existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established” needs to be complied with to ensure that the emerging local plan is in accordance with policies of the NPPF (as required by paragraph 35 of the NPPF). The agent of change (the housing development) should be required to provide suitable mitigation where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development.
Attached at Appendix 23 is a letter from MAS Environmental dated 25th October 2018. This makes it clear that any development within the previously proposed Colworth garden village development area (Site reference: 1002) would carry significant risks regarding noise impact. Development in the area indicated as the inner buffer zone (highlighted in red) would be subject to noise from the raceway for the majority of events and there is no evidence to suggest that mitigation could adequately resolve the issue. Trakbak Racing has been advised that such mitigation could not be satisfactorily provided within the inner buffer zone without its cooperation. The cooperation of Trakbak Racing has not been secured and it would not be appropriate for housing to be allocated in the inner buffer zone.
In the outer buffer zone it would be essential for the Council to be satisfied, before supporting the allocation of a site, that it would be possible for mitigation within the proposed development to provide an acceptable noise environment. This would need to be supported by robust evidence and the Council should provide guidance in the Local Plan as to what standard should be required.
Adoption of the MAS recommended exclusion buffer zone for residential development around Santa Pod would represent a positive response to the issue of housing around SPR and would ensure that paragraph 187 (‘agent of change’) of the NPPF is complied with. The restriction would need to be in a strategic policy to ensure that it guides the Neighbourhood planning process adequately.
It is significant that in the case of the SPR there is no restriction on noise levels. The distance selected for the buffer zone has been identified based on the measured noise levels experienced in the relevant areas and so is based on a sound evidence base.
The introduction of housing into the inner buffer zone would represent a serious threat to the continuation of the business at Santa Pod, which makes a valuable cultural and economic contribution to the wider area. It would not accord with paragraph 187 of the NPPF and so would render the Plan unsound. Any housing within the outer buffer zone would need to be subject to robust mitigation measures to provide a specified satisfactory indoor and outdoor noise environment and sites should not be allocated unless that can clearly be demonstrated. In this case the plan does not, in the absence of clear policy guidance in relation to the location of housing to avoid noise issues from Santa Pod, provide a clear and adequate strategic framework and that omission goes to the soundness of the plan.
Summary
These representations are made on behalf of Trakbak Racing LTD to object to the allocation of four sites (references: 1002, 529, 531 and 532) submitted as part of the local plan consultation. The allocation of these sites would be contrary to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) which explains that in order for local plans to be found sound, they must be in accordance with policies of the NPPF.
These representations also explain that the ‘Growth Strategy Options’ of the emerging local plan should be amended to protect Santa Pod from the effects of inappropriate housing development proposals on its business. These representations explain that an exclusion buffer zone for residential development around Santa Pod should be outlined in strategic policy, as this would represent a positive response to the issue of housing around SPR and would ensure that paragraph 187 (‘agent of change’) of the NPPF is complied with, and therefore ensure the soundness of the emerging Bedford Local Plan 2040.
We would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt of this representation and we look forward to them being considered in the consultation process of the emerging plan. In the meantime, please contact me if you have any queries in respect of the matters raised in this letter.