Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 9773

Received: 22/07/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS1(S) has many positive elements to it and we support the Council’s aim to be carbon neutral and deliver climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The development strategy (paragraphs 4.3 and 4.7) explains that to meet assessed needs to 2040, there has been an uplift of the housing requirement of 40% from 970 dwellings per annum (2030 plan) to 1355 dwellings per annum. We have reviewed sections 5.3 Potable Water and 5.4 Wastewater of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan dated May 2022. We are concerned that the IDP doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed growth put forward by the plan can be delivered sustainably, and not place further pressures on a water environment (notably rivers and groundwater) which is already under pressure from abstraction for public water supply and wastewater discharges. We are therefore concerned that Policy DS1(S) ‘Resources and Climate Change’ and potentially Policy DS3(S) ’Amount and timing of growth’ are unsound as they are not consistent with paragraphs 20 and 153 of the NPPF. Paragraph 20 sets the baseline in requiring that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for (b) infrastructure for water supply and wastewater (amongst other strategic issues). Paragraph 153 is requiring that plans take a pro-active approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for (amongst various issues) water supply.

Section 5.3 (Potable Water) of the IDP describes the predicted deficits in future water supply faced by Anglian Water as detailed in their Water Resources Management Plan (2019). A draft update to the company’s WRMP is about to be published in Autumn 2022, with the final plan expected in 2024. The Council at the earliest opportunity should seek advice from Anglian Water on how relevant the 2019 WRMP remains as a long-term planning tool. This particularly relates to the figures quoted in 1.4.12 and 5.3. We advise extreme caution in using the figures quoted in the 2019 WRMP unless they are demonstrated to remain relevant in the context of the company’s forthcoming WRMP24. The 2015 Anglian Region River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) that current levels of water abstraction are causing, or risk causing, environmental damage in various river catchments across East Anglia and measures have been identified in the RBMP to address this. We have recently undertaken abstraction licence reviews to ensure waterbodies comply with the Water Framework Directive objectives. Given the water resource pressures in the region, we cannot rule out further reductions in the supplies available to Anglian Water to prevent deterioration of water related ecology. Any resultant loss in available supplies will need to be addressed in the company’s WRMP24. It should be noted that replacement supplies are likely to require strategic supply options (for example, reservoirs and long-distance transfers) that could have significant delivery times. This should be an important consideration and inform Policy DS3(S) which sets out the amount and timing of growth. The stepped trajectory noted in Local Plan paragraph 4.25 refers to ‘critical infrastructure’ and paragraph 4.27 alludes to transport infrastructure. However, for the plan’s policies to be effective and deliverable, it needs to be proven that water supplies can be delivered sustainably and review the trajectory of growth accordingly.

Whilst section 5.3 of the IDP notes that Bedford is not the only local authority supplied by the Ruthamford Water Resource Zone, the effects of growth need to be considered at the company/regional scale and in combination with the other authorities’ local plans to assess the overall effect on the ability to supply water whilst meeting environmental obligations. Spare capacity in the Ruthamford resource zone may already be allocated to 1. Growth in resources zones elsewhere in the company’s network, 2. Transfers to other companies in the region, or 3. To offset supply reductions to protect the environment. The local plan needs to take account of the combined effect of growth across the region, including in neighbouring authorities, and therefore the overall increase in demand for water and not just that of Bedford Borough area.

For wastewater we are concerned that the IDP relies on Anglian Water’s now out-of-date Water Recycling Long Term Plan 2018 which will be reviewed as part of the forthcoming Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan due in Autumn 2022. It’s not demonstrated whether the proposed level of growth in the 2040 (or indeed 2030) plan has been accounted for in the water companies plans and the in-combination effects of proposed growth in neighbouring districts whilst utilising infrastructure in Bedford has been accounted for. It needs to be demonstrated that the delivery of the 2040 plan will not result in a breach of environmental legislation due to the increase in foul drainage generated (and discharged via sewerage infrastructure into local watercourses). Assessments carried out should highlight locations where upgrades to the foul water infrastructure are necessary and identify measures, including phasing new development, so that wastewater infrastructure will be in place to avoid creating local environmental problems.

There also doesn’t appear to be an assessment of whether there are likely to be significant effects from the plan’s proposed growth on habitat sites or features from a reduction in water quality because of increased discharges of sewage and surface water drainage. Although the existing Local Plan 2030 policies 33, 34 and 48 do provide a means of protecting the local water environment from increased volumes of wastewater generated from new development, the strategic assessment to ensure growth can be accommodated by wastewater infrastructure is insufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 9774

Received: 22/07/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS1(S) has many positive elements to it and we support the Council’s aim to be carbon neutral and deliver climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The development strategy (paragraphs 4.3 and 4.7) explains that to meet assessed needs to 2040, there has been an uplift of the housing requirement of 40% from 970 dwellings per annum (2030 plan) to 1355 dwellings per annum. We have reviewed sections 5.3 Potable Water and 5.4 Wastewater of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan dated May 2022. We are concerned that the IDP doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed growth put forward by the plan can be delivered sustainably, and not place further pressures on a water environment (notably rivers and groundwater) which is already under pressure from abstraction for public water supply and wastewater discharges. We are therefore concerned that Policy DS1(S) ‘Resources and Climate Change’ and potentially Policy DS3(S) ’Amount and timing of growth’ are unsound as they are not consistent with paragraphs 20 and 153 of the NPPF. Paragraph 20 sets the baseline in requiring that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for (b) infrastructure for water supply and wastewater (amongst other strategic issues). Paragraph 153 is requiring that plans take a pro-active approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for (amongst various issues) water supply.

Section 5.3 (Potable Water) of the IDP describes the predicted deficits in future water supply faced by Anglian Water as detailed in their Water Resources Management Plan (2019). A draft update to the company’s WRMP is about to be published in Autumn 2022, with the final plan expected in 2024. The Council at the earliest opportunity should seek advice from Anglian Water on how relevant the 2019 WRMP remains as a long-term planning tool. This particularly relates to the figures quoted in 1.4.12 and 5.3. We advise extreme caution in using the figures quoted in the 2019 WRMP unless they are demonstrated to remain relevant in the context of the company’s forthcoming WRMP24. The 2015 Anglian Region River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) that current levels of water abstraction are causing, or risk causing, environmental damage in various river catchments across East Anglia and measures have been identified in the RBMP to address this. We have recently undertaken abstraction licence reviews to ensure waterbodies comply with the Water Framework Directive objectives. Given the water resource pressures in the region, we cannot rule out further reductions in the supplies available to Anglian Water to prevent deterioration of water related ecology. Any resultant loss in available supplies will need to be addressed in the company’s WRMP24. It should be noted that replacement supplies are likely to require strategic supply options (for example, reservoirs and long-distance transfers) that could have significant delivery times. This should be an important consideration and inform Policy DS3(S) which sets out the amount and timing of growth. The stepped trajectory noted in Local Plan paragraph 4.25 refers to ‘critical infrastructure’ and paragraph 4.27 alludes to transport infrastructure. However, for the plan’s policies to be effective and deliverable, it needs to be proven that water supplies can be delivered sustainably and review the trajectory of growth accordingly.

Whilst section 5.3 of the IDP notes that Bedford is not the only local authority supplied by the Ruthamford Water Resource Zone, the effects of growth need to be considered at the company/regional scale and in combination with the other authorities’ local plans to assess the overall effect on the ability to supply water whilst meeting environmental obligations. Spare capacity in the Ruthamford resource zone may already be allocated to 1. Growth in resources zones elsewhere in the company’s network, 2. Transfers to other companies in the region, or 3. To offset supply reductions to protect the environment. The local plan needs to take account of the combined effect of growth across the region, including in neighbouring authorities, and therefore the overall increase in demand for water and not just that of Bedford Borough area.

For wastewater we are concerned that the IDP relies on Anglian Water’s now out-of-date Water Recycling Long Term Plan 2018 which will be reviewed as part of the forthcoming Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan due in Autumn 2022. It’s not demonstrated whether the proposed level of growth in the 2040 (or indeed 2030) plan has been accounted for in the water companies plans and the in-combination effects of proposed growth in neighbouring districts whilst utilising infrastructure in Bedford has been accounted for. It needs to be demonstrated that the delivery of the 2040 plan will not result in a breach of environmental legislation due to the increase in foul drainage generated (and discharged via sewerage infrastructure into local watercourses). Assessments carried out should highlight locations where upgrades to the foul water infrastructure are necessary and identify measures, including phasing new development, so that wastewater infrastructure will be in place to avoid creating local environmental problems.

There also doesn’t appear to be an assessment of whether there are likely to be significant effects from the plan’s proposed growth on habitat sites or features from a reduction in water quality because of increased discharges of sewage and surface water drainage. Although the existing Local Plan 2030 policies 33, 34 and 48 do provide a means of protecting the local water environment from increased volumes of wastewater generated from new development, the strategic assessment to ensure growth can be accommodated by wastewater infrastructure is insufficient.

Support

Representation ID: 9775

Received: 22/07/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

We generally support policy DM7 Environmental Net Gain. We welcome the references to natural capital and the requirement for wider environmental net gains to be demonstrated as part of an environmental net gain plan. We also note the references to the OxCam LNCP and the Environmental Principles.

We have made some further observations and suggested amendments for the Council to consider below, to strengthen/clarify the policy or supporting text.


• The policy sets out the requirements for ENG and BNG for major development (e.g. 10 or more dwellings). Is the Council aware that Defra hasn’t ruled out BNG for smaller sites in latest consultation e.g. use of a small sites metric?

• The Policy requires a minimum of 10% BNG (although this is not yet mandatory) but the Council should consider whether they want to go beyond the 10% BNG outlined in the Environment Bill. The resultant policy should not encourage a race to the bottom when only 10% is delivered, when more than 10% can be achieved for the long-term benefit of people and wildlife in the district.

• It should also state that Biodiversity net gain should be submitted using the Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0 or its successor (version 3.1 is being consulted on), but that ways of measuring Environmental Net Gain are currently being developed at a national level. The Defra BNG Metric requires each of the various habitat types within a development site to be enhanced by a minimum of 10%. The metric does not allow for the minimum 10% requirement to be an ‘averaged’ figure with some habitats being enhanced by more than 10% and some by less than 10%. The policy wording needs to reflect the metric requirements. The supporting text needs to make clear that whilst enhancement of habitat types by more than the minimum 10% will be very much encouraged, that cannot occur at the expense of another habitat type on site being enhanced by a minimum of 10%.

• We are pleased to see that the policy follows the mitigation hierarchy. It should be made clear that BNG is in addition to the standard requirements of the mitigation hierarchy i.e., avoid harm where possible, mitigate for the effects or compensate (paragraph 180 of NPPF).

• Suggest the policy references the need for a long-term monitoring and management plan of biodiversity net gain sites, whether within the development area or off site. Also should state that for the net gain sites to become established and effective, 30 years is a suggested period for monitoring/maintenance.