Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations DPD: Draft Submission

Transcription

1 Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations DPD: Draft Submission An interactive version of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document is available on the Site Allocations website: Instructions on how to enter representations are provided on the website. This is the Council s preferred method of receiving comments as it will help us to handle your representation quickly and efficiently. If you are unable to use the online representations system, you may submit representations using this form electronically or by hand. If you are completing the form by hand please write as clearly as possible. All comments must be received by 5pm on Monday 8 th March Late comments will not be accepted. Return you comments by to ldf@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk or by post to LDF(North) Team, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5QT. Please read the Guidance Notes that come with this form before you complete it. Your contact details *Title & Name: F M Fry Vice Chair *required information Organisation (if applicable): Woburn Sands and District Society *Address: *Post code: Telephone: Your Agent s details If you have appointed someone to act on your behalf please give their name and contact details. Name: Organisation: Address: Post code: Telephone: Groups: (see Guidance Notes) If you are representing a group, please supply the name of the group, the number of people and how the representation has been authorised. Group: Number of individuals: Authorisation details: 1

2 1: Which part of the document do you wish to make a representation on? (a separate form is needed for each representation) Brogborough - Para Policy EA6 including Annex 3 & 4 pertaining to Brogborough Do you support, object or are you commenting on the paragraph/policy? Object 2: Do you consider the document to be: (Use two separate forms if you wish to answer no to both) Legally Compliant? Sound? No No 3: Tests of Soundness If you have identified that you think the document is unsound in question 2, please identify why. The paragraph/policy is unsound because it is not: ALL Justified (Founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and be the most appropriate strategy) Effective (deliverable, flexible and able to be monitored) Consistent with national policy (if not, there should be clear reasoning to justify the approach) 4: Your comment Please give details of the reason(s) for either why you support the paragraph/policy, or why the paragraph is not legally compliant or is unsound. If you have ticked more than one box in question 3, give separate reasons. Please be as precise as possible. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary. LDF Site Allocations Main Document Brogborough only Serve an important strategic role for the storage and distribution industry Due to its proximity to the M1 and Milton Keynes it will continue to build upon its role as a storage and distribution hub. To achieve this, additional employment land will be provided during the plan period. Not legal or sound Policy EA6 Site reference E15, Site Area ha 8 ha allocated for B1, B2 and B8 uses Not Sound Annex 3 New Allocations Site Map for Brogborough proposes E15 as new allocation. Not sound Annex 4 Key Employment Sites Map for Brogborough shows Prologis Park Site as Key Employment Site Not Sound cont/.p4. 2

3 5: Changes If you think the document is not legally compliant or is unsound please give details of what change(s) you consider are necessary, having regard to the test (s) that you have identified above and the guidance notes, to make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be very helpful if you could also put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary. Removal of Para 12.15, and Removal of Policy EA6 Removal of Brogborough from Annex 3 New Allocations Site Maps Removal of Brogborough from Annex 4 Key Employment Site Maps 6: Examination If you are seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to appear in person at the oral part of the examination? Woburn Sands and District Society would be happy to appear in person if the Inspector considers that appropriate. If you wish to appear in person at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary. The Society has set out is reasons why we consider the document is not legally compliant, or sound, and would be happy to attend if required to further clarify our position. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination. Signature: NB: A signature is not required on forms returned electronically Date:

4 WS Woburn Sands and District Society Brogborough LDF Site Allocations Statements challenged on both legality and soundness LDF Site Allocations Main Document Brogborough only Serve an important strategic role for the storage and distribution industry Due to its proximity to the M1 and Milton Keynes it will continue to build upon its role as a storage and distribution hub. To achieve this, additional employment land will be provided during the plan period. Not legal or sound Policy EA6 Site reference E15, Site Area ha 8 ha allocated for B1, B2 and B8 uses Not Sound Annex 3 New Allocations Site Map for Brogborough proposes E15 as new allocation. Not sound Annex 4 Key Employment Sites Map for Brogborough shows Prologis Park Site as Key Employment Site Not Sound Background Description Main Report Brogborough a very small village, that was once a part of Ridgmont, was originally built to house workers on the nearby Ridgmont Brick Works but when this ceased, with the exception of the derelict brickworks, it became a rural village. The village is adjacent to both an area of Great Landscape Value and the South Bedfordshire Greenbelt. Brogborough became a separate parish in the late 1980 early The site of the Ridgmont Brick Works owned by London Brick Property was the subject of a major battle planning battle in the late 1980s, when London Brick Property appealed its refused planning applications to redevelop the site plus some adjoining land amounting to some 58.8hs for industrial and warehousing/distribution purposes. Following detailed local processes including a public inquiry the application was refused by the Secretary of State, whose decision was then quashed following legal challenge, and was called in for redetermination and decision by direction made under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by the Secretary of State in order to satisfy himself whether the proposed redevelopment constituted an appropriate use of the site. Following a detailed report, the Secretary of State agreed with the conclusions of that report and the application was again refused with the applicant being advised to enter into discussion with the local planning authorities to negotiate a package consisting of development and restoration which would relate to a wider area and be acceptable to all. Prologis Park built on 29ha was the result, and former Mid Bedfordshire ended with a sprawling eyesore, with intrusive lighting in a rural area, close to areas of Great Landscape Value, the South Bedfordshire greenbelt and away from any of the main settlement centres in respect of sources for employment, public transport, services etc. The knock on consequences to surrounding rural villages was considerable. 4

5 Some of the conclusions of this report are still relevant today, despite changes in planning etc 1. It was considered that the proposed redevelopment would exceed the policy requirements for Mid Bedfordshire which was a factor in considering whether the site should be made an exception. 2. The reclaiming of derelict brick works land was not sufficient to make an exception as due to the extent of brick working throughout Mid Bedfordshire 3. The proximity of the M1 and Junction 13 whilst advantageous, again did not make it an exception, the same argument could be made about any land close to a strategic travel route. 4. Lack of agricultural use or landscape quality also did not make it exception. 5. The site was in a rural area, and development of this nature under policy was opposed 6. There was little indication that there was a need for employment in the local area that would justify the development. 7. The development would have a substantial visual effect out of character with is rural surroundings 8. Whilst the highways authority was content, there was concern that in terms of traffic increase through nearby villages whilst not serious, was not satisfactory 9. However my opinion is that the proposed development would cause positive harm to the objective of considering and improving this part of the countryside and could be seriously disturbing both for local residents and nearby villages. The Society attaches a scanned copy of the Secretary of State s Letter, and annex containing the conclusions of the report. A hard copy of the full report is available. As was forecast at the time, and has been repeatedly advised to the former Mid Bedfordshire, this was a most ill advised and unsustainable development. The proposal was for some 2,000 jobs to be created but for whom? Certainly it was not for the local community or indeed the surrounding area where there are only very small settlements. As has been repeatedly advised, the jobs in this sector are mainly low paid, and therefore large number of employees including migrant labour are coached in from counties outside Bedfordshire Leicester, Northampton, Oxford etc. thereby adding to the HGV and indeed car traffic it generated, which of course impacts on the rural settlements in the locality. The Bedford Bletchley rail line is at capacity, and as was demonstrated by the recent study of the proposed east west rail link, is probably facing a loss in the hourly stopping service between Woburn Sands, and Bedford, if the link becomes reality, due to capacity issues. Any nearby bus route like those in most of rural Bedfordshire is infrequent and inadequate The former Mid Bedfordshire was of the view that this development was and is a success though as an employment site, it is clearly not. A theory is put forward that Mid Bedfordshire saw the Prologis Park as an advertisement. and entry landmark to attract business into the Marston Vale, in competition with Milton Keynes. This theory would certainly account for the totally inappropriate lighting and signage in what is a rural area, irrespective of the effect of this on local village settlements. However if this was the intent, it should have been made part of the consulted and adopted local plan, and the consulted and adopted Core Strategy.. Failure to Consult Arguments in respect of legality and soundness 1. There has been no planning proposal or public process in respect of making Brogborough, designated as a small village under the settlement hierarchy in the published Core Strategy, either Serve an important strategic role for the storage and distribution industry or to have a role as a storage and distribution hub 5

6 2. With the exception of the consultation process on the sites put forward by developers, there has been no consultation on the LDF Site Allocation Submission Document. Central Bedfordshire is of the view that it had no statutory duty to do so. The Society is of the view that with such a substantial change of role from small village under the Core Strategy, which is a) in a rural area, b)designated under the proposals map as part of the Marston Vale Community Forest Community Forest, and c)identified as an important area in the former Mid Bedfordshire Green Infrastructure Plan, to being a Storage and Distribution Hub there should have been both consultation and examination of this substantial change of role. It should be noted that prior to the publication of the Core Strategy, i)the Local Plan, whilst identifying the Ridgmont Brickworks, a brownfield (E15 is of course reenfield) site, for development for B1, 2 and 8 employment use (the Prologis Park), did not in any of its policies identify Brogborough as such, nor was it proposed in any consulted document. The plan also clearly set out that, when considering additional employment land sites, the key criteria should be a)new housing developments should have nearby employment, b)that the sites meet modern industry needs e.g. expand university facilities, c) replace loss of existing employment sites and d)ensure that employment sites are located to meet local employment needs. ii) there was no suggestion in the emerging Core Strategy policies that Brogborough would be designated a strategic and distribution hub, nor that it served that role. It was clearly set out as small village in the draft settlement hierarchy. Draft Policy CS10 did not identify the area as a new employment allocation, nor was it identified for growth/intensification of employment use. Again it is clearly stated in the policy that employment provision should be allocated at the main settlements and growth areas noted in the new allocations listed. This did not include Brogborough. The proposed new allocation and change of role is against the policies of the Adopted Core Strategy Document Main Report Para and and Policy EA6 (Comment considering the policies in the adopted Core Strategy and the statement in the LDF Site Allocations Submission document that Brogborough is a strategic distribution hub, the Society experience a feeling of déjà vu to 20 years ago) 1. Policy CS1 Development Strategy - Brogborough falls within the Rural Areas Small Villages, which states In the rural part of the district new development will be limited in overall scale. The Site Allocations DPD will make small-scale allocation of new homes, jobs and community facilities that reflect the size and character of the community It is of note that in respect of the developer submissions made for the Brogborough area: H196 for 85 houses Mid Bedfordshire s initial comment was that Brogborough is identified in the emerging Core Strategy as a Small Village. Allocations will only be considered here if there is an exceptional need for development. A development of this scale is unlikely to fit with the approach of the Core Strategy. However in respect of the three other submissions E ha, B8 storage and distribution, E ha B8 storage and distribution and E ha B1 business B2 General Industrial and B8 storage and distribution the only initial comment made by Mid Bedfordshire was Brogborough is well located to the M1 and is within the Marston Vale Growth Area 6

7 We would argue strongly any allocation of either housing or employment of whatever nature should only have been considered if there was an exceptional need as set out in CS1. We can find no evidence anywhere in the Core Strategy that there is an exceptional need for employment either within Brogborough or in the wider rural locality for a further ha of B8 employment, to add to the existing 29ha of the existing Prologis site. The LDF site allocation notes the size to be 8ha, but the site is in fact 11.38ha As previously stated, the existing Prologis Park is unable to source sufficient labour now for its existing function from the locality and workers are being coached in from outside the county, as well as large numbers arriving by car. The developers of course find the site attractive, due to it being close to main strategic road routes, as was the case 20 years ago, but as was the case then, that is not sufficient reason to overturn adopted council policy. It is of course worth noting that the current A421 will, become a rural road, on completion of the work planned for the A421 and Junction 13. We can find no justification in either the adopted core strategy or the LDF submission Sites allocation as to why Policy CS1 should be overturned in respect of Brogborough. We must only assume that as 20 years ago, the Council is acting outside its own policy for reasons unknown. 2. Policy C10 Location of Employment Sites Sites will be allocated in sustainable locations close to major transport routes that will include a mix of type and scale of premises, allowing for employment uses to fill any acknowledged gaps in the employment market or to meet demand for a particular use. Whilst no doubt Central Bedfordshire will argue that there is a demand for B8 use as was explored 20 years ago, developer demand, is not a sound planning argument. There needs to be sound planning decisions made in accordance with planning policy. The critical aspect in respect of the policy in respect of sites allocated for B1-8 use, are that they are sustainable and are of mixed use. It is difficult to see how the submission site of E15, or even the existing Prologis Park could be argued to be sustainable.. It is set in a rural area, with limited bus and rail transport, there is no nearby accessible major or minor residential centre, no supporting infrastructure. There is certainly no way that an additional site allocation of ha of B8 use in addition to the 29ha of existing B8 use, could be characterised as a mix of type and scale of premises as required by the policy. The total requirement for the whole of the former Mid Bedfordshire (Central Bedfordshire North) for B1-8 for the period 2010 to 2026 is around 77ha, which includes a 50% over allocation of land required in line with the recommendations of CB Hillier Parker Study to enable a wide range of sites to be identified in the district providing a choice in terms of size, type and location, to ensure a healthy and growing economy. The Marston Vale extends from Brogorough to the outskirts of Bedford. The northern part of the Marston Vale is designated as part of the Bedford/Kempston/Northern Marston Vale growth area, which is supposed to provide urban renaissance at Bedford and support the environmental regeneration of the wider Marston Vale (including the support of the Forest and Waterway Park). As set out in the Core Strategy, the largest settlements in the Northern Marston Vale are Marston Moretaine and Houghton Conquests, and the emerging new settlement of Wixams. As stated at 3.8.2, the focus of employment provision will be on the parishes of Marston Moretain and Houghton Conquest although surrounding areas will have an important role to play in providing employment to support the growth area. Policy CS10 states that support will be given to the growth/intensification of employment uses at Cranfield University, and Technology Park, Shuttleworth College and Milbrook 7

8 Proving Ground. The growth of these sites will be subject to Development Management Policy DM11. Note that this does not include Brogborough, but even if it did it would not be assessed as appropriate in respect of the assessment criteria:-. impact on open countryside provision of sustainable transport justification scale layout and design which must be appropriate to the establishment and the setting Policy CS10 sets out the indicative range of new allocations, and for the Northern Marston Vale the range is ha. That indicative range would include employment provision at the main settlements of Marston Moretaine, and Houghton Conquest and growth/intensification of employment uses at named existing sites which do not include Brogborough. Under the LDF Site Allocations submission document this means that the new unsustainable and non mixed use allocation of submission site E15 for B8 use in what is designated a rural small village under the CS1 policy, would meet the totality of the lower range figure for the whole of the Northern Marston Vale, and half that required of the higher range figure, AND 1/7 of the totality for B1-8 use for the whole of former Mid Bedfordshire (Central Bedfordshire (north) area. There is also the aspect of how the E15 B8 use allocation would contribute to the regeneration of Bedford and the environmental regeneration of the wider Marston Vale under the adopted Core Strategy, about which we are totally at a loss. We are aware that buried in the text at is the sentence New sites of 10-20ha will be allocated through the Site Allocations DPD in the parishes of Marston Moretaine and Houghton Conquests and in the surrounding area that includes the important existing employment areas of Prologis Park, and Milbrook Proving Ground. But this is not set out in policy CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy, and this sentence does not make the submission new employment site allocation and statement in respect of Brogborough being a storage and distribution hub any less sound, as set out above. The allocation of submission site E15 (a Greenfield site), and designation of Brogborough a rural small village as a storage and distribution hub is totally and irrefutably unsound against adopted planning policy. 3. Policy CS11 Rural Economy and Tourism Brogborough, irrespective of the Prologis Park is designated as a rural small village under Policy CS1 and therefore would fall within this policy Providing for new small scale employment allocations in the rural area where appropriate and there is a demand locally. The presence of Prologis Park does not alter this, one iota. It is quite clear from planning cases, including the previous battle in respect the application by London Brick Properties that decisions of the past cannot and should not form a precedent in terms of planning decisions. Each application or potential site must be assessed individually against the planning policy of the time in this case the adopted Core Strategy. The Society has not been able to find any national policy or guidance that require applications for non mixed B8 use to be given priority over local planning strategy or policy. Annex 4 Key Employment Sites Brogborough In respect of the existing Prologis Park, the Society has difficulty with the identification of the Prologis Park as a Key Employment Site. For the Society a key employment site in a locality is one, 8

9 like Vauxhall in Luton, which provides employment to Luton residents, and the surrounding area. The loss of which would mean unemployment and hardship for a large number of residents in the immediate and surrounding area. From the evidence, we have been advised, the Prologis Park is not such a site. Only a small number of employees are from the locality or indeed the county, indeed we are advised the site is dependant for a substantial number of its workforce on migrant labour from outside the county as the majority of the jobs provided in the B8 industry are low skill, and low paid. This we would argue, is insufficient to assess Prologis Park site as a Key Employment Site as there is no employment basis for such view. Key employment sites within Central Bedfordshire should be sites supplying employment to residents in the locality and the wider community particular in respect of the new housing development proposed to meet East of England Regional Spatial Strategy targets. It is difficult for the Society to identify one employment aspect, that would make Prologis Park a key employment site particularly when considered against policy C10 requirements. In respect of Site Allocation of E15 in addition to the policy arguments made above, there is also and argument in respect of the soundness of this proposed site and Strategic Flood and European Habitats and Water Quality Directive Risk not only in the immediate locality but downstream in terms of flooding but more importantly water quality. This reenfield site is subject to annual flooding, and it is insufficient, particularly in terms of the European Water Quality Directive, to propose that the E15 development should only release surface water run-off into surrounding water courses, at least at a rate no greater than if the site was undeveloped as noted in submission allocation notation. An upsizing of the on-site culvert will be required to resolve the current flooding. Surface water arising from the development will be controlled by a means of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System which will only release surface water run-off into surrounding water courses at least at a rate no greater than if the site was undeveloped. Measures will be agreed with the Internal Drainage Board (IDB); Not only does any development have to ensure that it does not increase the flooding risks to the locality and to communities downstream of the development, it should where possible reduce the risk, as set out in PS25. We would refer in this case to the CFMP of the Ouse and its tributaries. It also needs to ensure that the European Habitats Directive and Water Quality Directive are not breached either in the locality or downstream. From research to date, it is likely that this allocation, would contribute to a breach of the European Directive, unless the release of surface run-off water was required to be less than if the site was undeveloped. We would refer to the EERA interim report Impacts of Growth on Water Quality in the England In summary, the allocation of this site is not sustainable and does not comply with local and national planning policy and may contribute to breaching European Water Quality Directive. Therefore we consider that this site allocation is unsound, and we consider the designation of Prologis Park as a key employment site unsound. 9

10 Annex 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17