Neighbourhood Plan Can Progress to the Referendum Stage of the Neighbourhood Plan Making Process

BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL DECISION NO. 1543

RECORD OF EXECUTIVE DECISION TAKEN BY AN EXECUTIVE MEMBER

This form MUST be used to record any decision taken by the Elected Mayor or an individual Executive Member (Portfolio Holder).

The form must be completed and passed to the Chief Officer Democratic and Registration Services no later than NOON on the second working day after the day on which the decision is taken. No action may be taken to implement the decision(s) recorded on this form until 7 days have passed and the Chief Officer Democratic and Registration Services has confirmed the decision has not been called in.

1. Description of decision

To secure the necessary agreements so that the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan can progress to the referendum stage of the neighbourhood plan making process. It is agreed:

• To make modifications to the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan in line with the recommendations set out in the examiner’s report (Appendix A) and that as modified (Appendix B), the Plan meets the basic conditions

• That the formal Decision Statement (Appendix C) be published by 1 September 2021 in order to comply with the statutory deadline, and to inform those interested about the Council’s decision

• That arrangements to progress the Plan to the referendum stage of plan preparation are made

• That the designated Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Area represents the appropriate geographical area to be covered by the referendum

2. Date of decision

20th August 2021

3. Reasons for decision The purpose of this report is to provide information about the examination of the Milton Ernest neighbourhood plan; to explain the examiner’s recommended modifications to the plan and to set out the Council’s response to those modifications. The Council must decide whether to progress the plan to referendum and in doing so, decide the area over which the referendum should take place.

4. Alternatives considered and rejected

Consideration has been given to the need for modifications not proposed by the examiner. It has been determined that no such modifications are required in order for the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan to meet the basic conditions. Consideration has also been given to the need to extend the referendum area beyond the neighbourhood area but it has been determined that this is not necessary.

5. How decision is to be funded - 1 - Once the date for the referendum is published, a claim for £20,000 from MHCLG can be made in the next available claim window (December 2021). This represents a contribution towards the Council’s costs associated with fulfilling its duty to assist the Parish in the preparation of its plan, and the costs associated with the examination process (including the examiner) and the referendum. Any costs in excess of £20,000 will need to be borne by the Council, though it is not anticipated that the examination process and the referendum combined will be more than this amount. Costs associated with assisting the neighbourhood plan group to prepare their Plan are funded from the Plans and Strategies Reserve.

6. Conflicts of interest Name of all Executive members who were Nature of interest Did Standards Committee give a Did the Chief Executive give a dispensation for that conflict consulted AND declared a conflict of dispensation for that conflict of interest? (If of interest? (If yes, give details and the date of the interest. yes, give details and date of dispensation) dispensation).

The Mayor has been consulted on this decision

Signed: Date: 20th August 2021 Name of Decision Taker: Mayor Dave Hodgson

This is a public document. A copy of it must be given to the Chief Officer Democratic and Registration Services as soon as it is completed.

Date decision published: 23 August 2021

Date decision can be implemented if not called in: 3 September 2021

(Decision to be made exempt from call in: NO

- 2 -

For publication

BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL – REPORT TO THE MAYOR

DATE – AUGUST 2021

REPORT BY THE CHIEF OFFICER PLANNING, INFRASTRUCTURE & ECONOMIC GROWTH

SUBJECT: MILTON ERNEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Neighbourhood plans are statutory development plans produced by parish/town councils or neighbourhood forums. Milton Ernest Parish Council has produced a neighbourhood plan for the Milton Ernest parish area.

The Plan was submitted to Bedford Borough Council on and, in line with regulatory requirements, was subject to a six-week consultation (26 February - 11 April 2021). It has since been formally examined by an independent examiner.

The examiner has produced a report (Appendix A) which recommends that the Plan is modified in order to meet legal requirements and is then progressed to a referendum of people who live within the designated neighbourhood area.

Bedford Borough Council must decide:

• whether to progress the Plan to a referendum and • whether to modify it (in the ways recommended by the examiner or otherwise) or • whether to refuse the Plan.

The Council must consider each of the examiner’s recommendations on the content of the Plan and decide what action to take. If the Plan is to progress to referendum, the council must also decide whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area, which in this case is Milton Ernest Parish.

(1) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Mayor is asked to consider this report and if satisfied agree:

• That the formal Decision Statement (Appendix C) be published by 1 September 2021 in order to comply with the statutory deadline, and to inform those interested about the Council’s decision

• That arrangements to progress the Plan to the referendum stage of plan preparation are made

• That the designated Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Area represents the appropriate geographical area to be covered by the referendum

3. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

To give information about the outcome of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan examination and to secure agreement to progress the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan to referendum, which is the next stage of the plan-making process.

4. IMPLICATIONS

(a) Legal

The scope of a neighbourhood plan examination is set out in Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The examiner must consider:

• Whether the plan meets the Basic Conditions;

• Whether the plan complies with provisions under s.38A and s.38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). These are:

(2) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

- it has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body, for an area that has been properly designated by the local planning authority; - it sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land; - it specifies the period during which it has effect; - it does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’; - it is the only neighbourhood plan for the area and does not relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area; - whether the referendum boundary should be extended beyond the designated area, should the plan proceed to referendum; and

• Such matters as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

The examiner must also consider if the neighbourhood plan is compatible with the Convention on Human Rights.

On receipt of the examiner’s report, the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 require that a Local Planning Authority must publish a decision statement setting out what actions will be taken in response to each of the examiner’s recommendations. If the authority proposes to accept the examiner’s recommendations, a decision statement must be published within 5 weeks of receiving the examiner’s report. Arrangements for the referendum must then commence.

If the authority proposes to make a decision which differs from that recommended by the examiner, it must notify relevant people and invite representations for a period of 6 weeks. The local planning authority may, if it considers it appropriate to do so (for example if the Council’s proposed changes are significant or controversial), refer the issue to further independent examination and receive a further report. Once any period for further representations is over, the local planning authority must issue its final decision within 5 weeks and proceed to referendum.

In this case it is recommended that the examiner’s proposed amendments are accepted. If this is agreed, the decision statement relating to the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan must be published by 1 September 2021.

The neighbourhood plan passes the referendum of local voters if it achieves a simple majority (i.e. 50% +1 or over). No minimum turnout is required. If a plan passes referendum, the council must ‘make’ (adopt) it as soon as reasonably practicable unless the Council considers that the plan breaches EU obligations or human rights legislation. If there is a majority ‘No’ vote or a tied vote then the neighbourhood plan will not come into legal force.

The Council must hold a referendum within 56 working days from the date that the decision to take the plan forward to a referendum is published. The Council must also publish notice that the referendum will take place no fewer than 28 days before the referendum date. (3) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 (as amended) cover all aspects of organising and conducting polls.

The Referendum question is ‘Do you want Bedford Borough Council to use the neighbourhood plan for Milton Ernest Parish to help it decide planning applications in the Neighbourhood Area’.

Decisions to proceed to referendum and to ‘make’ the neighbourhood plan are taken by Bedford Borough Council’s Executive rather than Full Council.

Bedford Borough Council can be challenged on the making of the plan by way of judicial review. Challenges must normally be made within six weeks of the making of the plan.

(b) Policy

Neighbourhood plans are examined to ensure that they meet the ‘Basic Conditions’ which are set out in Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The ‘Basic Conditions’ ensure, amongst other things, that appropriate regard has been had for local and national policies. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the neighbourhood plan must:

- Have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

- Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

- Be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area (in this case saved policies in the Local Plan 2002, continuing policies in the Allocations and Designations Local Plan 2013 and the Local Plan 2030);

- Be compatible with and not breach European Union (EU) obligations; and

- Meet prescribed conditions and comply with prescribed matters.

Regulation 32 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) prescribes a further Basic Condition for a neighbourhood plan. This requires that the making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

(4) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

The Government provides funding to assist councils to fulfil their neighbourhood planning duties. Once the date for the referendum is published, a claim for £20,000 can be made in the next available claim window (December 2021). This represents a contribution towards the Council’s costs associated with fulfilling its duty to assist the Parish Council in the preparation of its plan, and the costs associated with the examination process (including the examiner) and the referendum. Any costs in excess of £20,000 will need to be borne by the Council, though it is not anticipated that the examination process and the referendum combined will be more than this amount. Costs associated with assisting the neighbourhood plan group to prepare their Plan are funded from the Plans and Strategies Reserve.

When the neighbourhood plan is formally ‘made’, the percentage of community infrastructure levy (CIL) receipts payable to the Parish Council arising from development within the parish will increase from 15% to 25% resulting in Bedford Borough Council’s percentage decreasing to 75%. National Planning Practice Guidance explains that parish councils must use the CIL receipts passed to them to support the development of the parish council’s area by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on the area.

(d) Risk

The recommendations in the examination report are not binding, but if the Council chooses not to agree with the examiner’s recommendations without a sound reason, there is a risk of legal challenge which could lead to reputational damage and financial costs. Whilst there is also a risk of legal challenge if the Council does follow the examiner’s recommendations, it must be considered that the risk is lower.

Any modifications made to the content of the plan should be done so only in order to make the plan meet the basic conditions and other legislative requirements. Making modifications for any other reasons (other than formatting or spelling corrections) could lead to a legal challenge.

(e) Environmental implications and contribution to achieving a net zero carbon Council by 2030

The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan was screened for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) by Milton Ernest Parish Council with assistance from Bedford Borough Council. The SEA screening concluded that it was unnecessary to undertake SEA. The examiner supported this conclusion.

The Plan was further screened to determine if Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) was necessary. The HRA was carried out by specialist consultancy Bodsey Ecology. It concluded that the Plan would not have a significant effect on European sites either alone or (5) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

in combination. Natural England, which was consulted on the Plan, did not dispute this conclusion. The examiner found no reason to disagree.

Both the SEA screening and the HRA have been reviewed in light of the proposed modifications to the Plan. The conclusions of both remain unchanged.

(f) Equalities Impact

In preparing this report, due consideration has been given to the Borough Council’s statutory Equality Duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations, as set out in Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010.

A relevance test for equality has been completed. The equality test determined that consideration as to whether the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Development Plan should progress to referendum has no relevance to Bedford Borough Council’s duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. An equality analysis for this decision is not needed.

However, the development of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Development Plan is relevant to Milton Ernest Parish Council’s General Equality Duty. The Parish Council is responsible for discharging their duty. An equalities impact assessment was submitted with the Neighbourhood Development Plan as a supporting document.

5. DETAILS

Neighbourhood planning was introduced through the Localism Act 2011. New powers allow qualifying bodies (parish or town councils, or neighbourhood forums in areas without parish or town councils) to produce neighbourhood plans which enable communities to set planning policies for their area. Once adopted, neighbourhood plans become part of the Council’s statutory development plan and must be taken into account alongside Bedford Borough Council’s local plans and national policy when planning applications are determined.

Producing a neighbourhood plan allows parish and town councils to increase the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds they receive from developments within their area from 15% to 25%, incentivising the production of plans, especially those that propose growth.

The stages of preparation of a neighbourhood plan are similar to those for the preparation of a local plan. They are summarised in the following table.

(6) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

Preparing a neighbourhood plan Stage Responsibility Progress Neighbourhood Area Designation Application by parish council, publicity & decision by BBC Complete Prepare draft neighbourhood plan NP group/parish council with assistance from others Complete Pre submission consultation (Regulation 14) NP group/parish council (6 weeks minimum) Complete Finalise plan in light of comments made NP group/parish council Complete Submit plan to the local planning authority NP group/parish council Complete Pre-examination consultation(Regulation 16) BBC (6 weeks minimum) Complete Examination Examiner appointed by BBC (agreed by NP group/ parish council) Complete Consider examiner’s recommendations BBC and NP group/parish council We are here Referendum Organised by BBC Plan ‘made’ (part of the development plan) BBC

The examination Neighbourhood plans must be examined by a suitably qualified independent person, appointed by the Council and agreed by the qualifying body.

The neighbourhood plan examiner’s role is limited to considering whether the neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions and other relevant legal requirements. The examiner does not consider whether the plan is sound. The examiner also considers whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area.

Most neighbourhood plan examinations will not require a hearing session to be held though this is an option if the examiner considers it necessary.

Legislation requires that the Council considers each of the recommendations made by the examiner in his/her report and decide what action to take in response. This decision must be published within five weeks of the receipt of the examiner’s report.

However, if the authority proposes to make a decision which differs from that recommended by the examiner, it must notify relevant people and invite representations. This is further explained in the ‘Legal Issues’ section above.

If the plan proceeds to referendum and passes by a simple majority, Legislation does not allow any further amendments to be made to the plan. Therefore, the stage between examination and referendum (this stage) is the only point at which further amendments can be made.

(7) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

The referendum

Anyone who can usually vote in a local election and who is resident in the referendum area can vote in a neighbourhood plan referendum. The referendum area is usually the neighbourhood area, but the examiner may recommend that it be extended if there are matters that are of interest to nearby communities. The plan must pass by a simple majority and there is no minimum turnout. If a simple majority is achieved the Council will be required to ‘make’ (adopt) the plan unless it breaches EU or human rights legislation.

The decision on when to hold the referendum falls to the Council’s returning officer. The Council must hold a referendum within 56 working days from the date that the decision to take the plan forward to a referendum is published. The Council must also publish notice that the referendum will take place not fewer than 28 days before the referendum date.

The qualifying body (the parish council or neighbourhood forum) can withdraw a plan at any time up until the point that the decision on the modifications is publicised.

The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Progress of Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan Neighbourhood area designated 1 July 2013 Draft plan consultation (Regulation 14) 1 November-13 December 2020 Post submission consultation (Regulation 16) 26 February -11 April 2021 Submitted for examination by BBC 30 April 2021 Examiner’s report received 28 July 2021

The following extract from the examiner’s report summarises his findings. The full report can be found at Appendix A.

Main Findings - Executive Summary

From my examination of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan/MENP) and its supporting documentation including the representations made, I have concluded that subject to the policy modifications set out in this report, the Plan meets the Basic Conditions.

I have also concluded that:

- The Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body – Milton Ernest Parish Council;

(8) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

- The Plan has been prepared for an area properly designated – the Neighbourhood Area as identified on Figure 1 of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan; - The Plan specifies the period to which it is to take effect – 2020 to 2030; and - The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated neighbourhood area.

I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum on the basis that it has met all the relevant legal requirements.

I have considered whether the referendum area should extend beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates and have concluded that it should not.

The examiner proposes recommendations as follows:

Proposed Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification Reason for recommendation modification Neighbourhood number Plan Para no/ (PM) other reference PM1 Page 10 Insert new paragraph to read: In the interests of clarity, I therefore recommend that the MENP includes a reference to the LDS, After paragraph It should be noted that Bedford Borough Council the Local Plan Review and the potential for 2.25 is in the process of reviewing the Bedford Local change to the Development Plan policies as they Plan. The adopted Local Development Scheme relate to Milton Ernest. (February 2021) advises, in Appendix 5, that the Local Plan Review will be adopted in December 2023. This may have consequences for the MENP and the Parish Council will monitor the situation, as set out on page 48, to ensure that this document remains up-to-date. (Subsequent paragraph numbers will have to be changed).

(9) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

PM2 Page 18 Delete the second sentence of the Policy: In the interests of clarity all issues relating to the allocation should be made in the Housing Policy ME C1 This includes development on land allocated at Chapter, thus avoiding unnecessary repetition or Rushden Road for 25 homes and open space. confusion. To that end I recommend the deletion of the second sentence in Policy ME C1. PM3 Page 19 Add a new paragraph after 4.5 to read: I therefore recommend that a new paragraph is inserted after paragraph 4.5 to clarify the situation Paragraph 4.5 Paragraph 101 of the NPPF confirms that policies and that Policy ME C3 is amended accordingly and Policy ME for managing development within a Local Green C3 Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts. Modify the last sentence of the Policy to read: Planning applications for dDevelopment on the Locally Designated Green Spaces will not be permitted unless they perform a supplementary and supporting function to the Green Space it is consistent with national policy on Green Belts. PM4 Page 21 Delete from Figure 6 the area of front garden in The Parish Council has acknowledged the error Huntsmans Way which is currently identified as a and has agreed to remove the front garden land Figure 6: Green natural area. from the designation, as (map) referenced ‘73G’ space in Milton in the undated ‘Local Green Spaces, Milton Ernest Ernest Natural Areas and Other Important Environmental Regions’ background paper. PM5 Page 20 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: It should be made clear in Policy ME C4 that any mitigation measures that are proposed must be Policy ME C4 Development that would have an adverse impact on capable of satisfactory implementation, otherwise the Milton Ernest Natural Areas (MENA), as shown development will not be approved. on figure 6, that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be approved.

(10) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

PM6 Page 24 Modify the second sentence of the Policy to read: It should be made clear that the policy relates only to public views. Policy ME NE2 Open public views to key historical and natural features that define the village, as described in the Character Assessment, must be maintained and include: PM7 Page 24 Add the following sentence to the Policy: This amendment is necessary in the interests of clarity. Policy ME NE3 Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation. PM8 Page 29 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: It would be unreasonable to expect the retention of a community facility, if it can be successfully Policy ME CF1 Subject to the satisfactory consideration of demonstrated that such an approach would be viability issues Tthe following existing social and unviable. Therefore, I recommend, in PM8, that a community facilities should be protected from loss: reference is made to viability in the introductory sentence of the policy.

PM9 Page 29 Modify bullet point 6 to read: Riverside Meadow is designated as Local Green Space (Policy ME C3 on Page 19) and that it can Policy ME CF1 The riverside frontage and other oOpen spaces, as therefore be deleted from Policy ME CF1. shown on Figure 6; and… PM10 Page 30 Modify the first sentence to read: It may be necessary for improvements to be made to existing routes and that should be made Policy ME CF2 Where existing routes forming part of the Public clear in the policy. Right of Way network run through proposed development sites the route shall be retained, where justified improved and incorporated into the development proposals. PM11 Page 28 Remove site 5 (Milton Ernest Hall) from Figure 8. The Parish Council has confirmed that this is an error and therefore I recommend the removal of Milton Ernest Hall (site 5) from Figure 8.

(11) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

Figure 8 Community Facilities PM12 Page 36 Modify the first sentence of bullet point 1 to read: There is no substantive justification for referring to the 25 dwellings as being a maximum and Paragraph 8.5 Development of a minimum a maximum of 25 new consideration may be given as to whether or not dwellings …. that figure could justifiably be exceeded, without harm to matters of acknowledged importance. Therefore, I recommend the replacement of references to a maximum by a minimum. PM13 Page 38 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: There is no substantive justification for referring to the 25 dwellings as being a maximum and Policy ME H1 Land at Rushden Road, identified on Figure 9 is consideration may be given as to whether or not allocated for a maximum of to meet the Local Plan that figure could justifiably be exceeded, without 2030 minimum requirement of 25 new homes in harm to matters of acknowledged importance. Milton Ernest. Therefore, I recommend the replacement of references to a maximum by a minimum. PM14 Page 38 Add the following sentence at the end of clause a): That additional wording be included in Policy ME H1 regarding the protection of the hedgerow. Policy ME H1 Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation and facilitate sensitively designed crossing and traffic calming schemes along Rushden Road. PM15 Page 38 and 39 Add a new clause d) to Policy ME H1 to read: Neither zone is clearly identified on Figure 9. It is important that there is consistency between the Policy ME H1 d) A permanent buffer zone, at least 5 metres text, the policies and any accompanying plans. and Figure 9 wide, to screen the new buildings from overlooking residential properties to the west, south and east.

(12) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

On Figure 9 identify the location of both the 5 metre and 10 metre buffer zones. PM16 Page 38 Modify the second sentence of clause a) to read: There is a requirement for emergency vehicles to be able to access the site via Marsh Lane. For the avoidance of doubt, no vehicular access (with the exception of access for bicycles and emergency vehicles) from Marsh Lane will be permitted. PM17 Page 49 Modify the list of Statutory Heritage assets by The Parish Council acknowledges that there are deleting: errors in Appendix A and has agreed that they Appendix A should be removed. • Chicheley War Memorial • Queen Annes almshouses • Silvergates and attached terrace; and The Dell, the Diamond and the Causeway PM18 Page 46/47 Add a new plan under the heading of Policies Map All the information is included on a number of which brings together in one place all the land use other plans in the document (for example Figure changes/protections which are proposed in the 6 on LGS and Figure 9: Rushden Road site policies of the MENP. allocation) but it needs to be brought together as a single up-to-date policies map.

These recommendations serve to ensure that the plan meets the basic conditions. Officers therefore recommend that they are agreed and the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan be amended accordingly.

The examiner explains that it is open to the Parish Council to make minor modifications to the Plan such as attending to typographical errors (para 4.4 of the examiner’s report). A small number of these have been identified. Officers recommend however that no further changes are required in order for the Plan to meet the basic conditions and therefore if agreed, no further consultation is necessary before proceeding to referendum.

(13) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan incorporating the examiner’s proposed modifications and other minor modifications can be found at Appendix B.

Examination area

The examiner considered whether or not the referendum area should be extended beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates. He concluded that the Plan as modified would have no policies or proposals which he considered significant enough to have an impact beyond the designated Neighbourhood Plan boundary. As a result he recommends that the boundary for the purposes of any future referendum on the Plan should be the boundary of the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area. Officers agree with this conclusion and recommend that the neighbourhood area as designated should be agreed as the referendum area.

Next steps Bedford Borough Council must publish a statement (Appendix C) setting out with reasons its decision on each of the examiner’s recommendations. Preparations must then be made to hold the referendum.

6. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS AND OUTCOME

The Plan has been the subject of two statutory consultations. The neighbourhood plan group carried out pre-submission consultation on a draft plan, known as Regulation 14 stage, and the Council undertook post-submission consultation; the Regulation 16 stage. Details of the Regulation 14 responses are posted on the neighbourhood plan web site. The Regulation 16 responses were provided to the examiner of the Plan who considered them during the examination. They can be found on Bedford Borough Council’s web-site on the neighbourhood planning pages.

The following people have been consulted in preparing this report:

• Management Team • Chief Officer for Legal, Personnel & Monitoring • Chief Officer for Corporate Finance & Financial Control

No adverse comments have been received.

7. WARD COUNCILLOR VIEWS Not applicable for this report. (14) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

Report Contact Officer: Kim Wilson (01234)228484 [email protected]

File Reference: Neighbourhood Plans

Previous Relevant Minutes: None

Background Papers: None

Appendices: Appendix A - Examiner’s Report Appendix B - Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan showing modifications Appendix C – Decision Statement

(15) Neighbourhood planning/executive decision/referendum August2021

Report on Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030

An Examination undertaken for Bedford Borough Council with the support of the Milton Ernest Parish Council on the January 2021 submission version of the Plan.

Independent Examiner: David Hogger BA MSc MRTPI MCIHT

Date of Report: 28 July 2021

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 1

Contents

Page Main Findings - Executive Summary 4

1. Introduction and Background 4 • Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan 2020–2030 4 • The Independent Examiner 5 • The Scope of the Examination 5 • The Basic Conditions 6

2. Approach to the Examination 6 • Planning Policy Context 6 • Submitted Documents 7 • Site Visit 8 • Written Representations or Public Hearing 8 • Modifications 8

3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights 8 • Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area 8 • Plan Period 9 • Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation 9 • Development and Use of Land 9 • Excluded Development 9 • Human Rights 9

4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions 10 • EU Obligations 10 • Main Issues 10 • General Issues of Compliance of the Plan 10 - National Policy, Sustainable Development and 10 the Development Plan • Specific Issues of Compliance of the Plan’s 11 Policies - Introductory Chapters 11 - Character 12 - Natural Environment 13 - Community Facilities 14 - Sustainable Development 15 - Housing 15 - Transport 18 - Evidence and Next Steps 18 - Appendix A Statutory Heritage Assets 18 - Policies Map 18

5. Conclusions 19 • Summary 19 • The Referendum and its Area 19 Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 2

• Overview 19

Appendix: Modifications 21

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 3

Main Findings - Executive Summary

I have also concluded that:

- The Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body – Milton Ernest Parish Council; - The Plan has been prepared for an area properly designated – the Neighbourhood Area as identified on Figure 1 of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan; - The Plan specifies the period to which it is to take effect – 2020 to 2030; and - The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated neighbourhood area.

I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum on the basis that it has met all the relevant legal requirements.

I have considered whether the referendum area should extend beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates and have concluded that it should not.

1. Introduction and Background

Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030

1.1 Milton Ernest is a small village about 5 miles to the north of Bedford and despite the relative proximity of such a major town, the village has retained an attractive rural setting. Indeed, the village itself has many attractive qualities which I saw, for example, when walking along the Heritage Trail. There are a number of community facilities, such as a Village Hall, Church and School and on visiting the Garden Centre, I noted that it included a Post Office within the buildings.

1.2 Paragraph 2.12 of the Neighbourhood Plan refers to the main road (the A6) which splits the community in half. However, I note that there is currently no proposal for a by-pass for the village.

1.3 The task of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Ernest commenced in 2014, when a consultation evening was arranged at the Village Hall and a stall was set up at the Village Fete. Questionnaires were sent to all households in the village (2015) and Regulation 14 Consultation was undertaken in Winter 2020.

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 4

The Independent Examiner

1.4 As the Plan has now reached the examination stage, I have been appointed as the examiner of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan by Bedford Borough Council (BBC), with the agreement of the Milton Ernest Parish Council (MEPC).

1.5 I am a chartered town planner and former government Planning Inspector, with extensive experience in the preparation and examination of development plans and other planning documents. I am an independent examiner, and do not have an interest in any of the land that may be affected by the draft Plan.

The Scope of the Examination

1.6 As the independent examiner I am required to produce this report and recommend either: (a) that the neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum without changes; or (b) that modifications are made and that the modified neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum; or (c) that the neighbourhood plan does not proceed to a referendum on the basis that it does not meet the necessary legal requirements.

1.7 The scope of the examination is set out in Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)(‘the 1990 Act’). The examiner must consider:

• Whether the plan meets the Basic Conditions.

• Whether the plan complies with provisions under s.38A and s.38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (‘the 2004 Act’). These are: - it has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body, for an area that has been properly designated by the local planning authority; - it sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land; - it specifies the period during which it has effect;

- it does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’; and

- it is the only neighbourhood plan for the area and does not relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area.

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 5

• Whether the referendum boundary should be extended beyond the designated area, should the plan proceed to referendum.

• Such matters as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (“the 2012 Regulations”).

1.8 I have considered only matters that fall within Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act, with one exception. That is the requirement that the Plan is compatible with the Human Rights Convention.

The Basic Conditions

1.9 The ‘Basic Conditions’ are set out in Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the neighbourhood plan must: - Have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

- Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

- Be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area;

- Be compatible with and not breach European Union (EU) obligations (under retained EU law)1; and

- Meet prescribed conditions and comply with prescribed matters.

1.10 Regulation 32 of the 2012 Regulations prescribes a further Basic Condition for a neighbourhood plan. This requires that the making of the neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”).2

2. Approach to the Examination

Planning Policy Context

2.1 The Development Plan for this part of Bedford Borough, not including documents relating to minerals and waste development, is the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030; those policies in the Allocations and Designations Local Plan 2013 not superseded by the adoption of the Local Plan 2030; and the saved policies of the Bedford Local Plan 2002.

1 The existing body of environmental regulation is retained in UK law. 2 This revised Basic Condition came into force on 28 December 2018 through the Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 6

2.2 Work is underway on the Bedford Local Plan Review. Consultation on the Draft Plan is presently taking place between 29 June to 3 September 2021, with a Pre-Submission consultation planned in 2022 and the Examination programmed for February 2023. 3 I am satisfied that the relationship between the policies in the submitted MENP, the emerging Local Plan Review and the adopted Development Plan have been given proper consideration by both the Parish and Borough Councils.4

2.3 The planning policy for England is set out principally in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) offers guidance on how this policy should be implemented. A revised NPPF was published on 19 February 2019, and all references in this report are to the February 2019 NPPF and its accompanying PPG. I am aware that a new NPPF was published on 20 July 2021 but this report had been substantively completed and sent for fact checking at that time and therefore I have not referred to the new version in this report.

Submitted Documents

2.4 I have considered all policy, guidance and other reference documents I consider relevant to the examination, including those submitted which comprise: • the submission Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030 (January 2021); • Figure 1 of the Plan which identifies the area to which the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan relates; • the Consultation Statement (January 2021); • the Basic Conditions Statement (January 2021); • the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Screening Opinion (October 2020) and the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA)(August 2020); • Milton Ernest Character Assessment (January 2017); • Site Assessment Report (April 2017, updated January 2019); • Neighbourhood Masterplanning Final Report (April 2018); • Local Green Spaces, Milton Ernest Natural Areas and Other Important Environmental Regions (undated); • Equalities Impact Assessment (February 2021); • all the representations that have been made in accordance with the Regulation 16 consultation; and • Responses of 26 May (BBC), and 22 June (MEPC) to the Examiner’s questions of 10 May 2021.5

3 See Appendix 5 of the Bedford Local Development Scheme February 2021. 4 PPG Reference ID: 41-009-20190509. 5 View at: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-its- purpose/neighbourhood-planning/milton-ernest-neighbourhood-plan/ Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 7

Site Visit

2.5 I made an unaccompanied site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area on 18 May 2021 to familiarise myself with the locality, and visit relevant sites and areas referenced in the Plan and evidential documents.

Written Representations with or without Public Hearing

2.6 This examination has been dealt with by written representations. Whilst there were a number of requests to be heard made in the Regulation 16 representations, I considered hearing sessions to be unnecessary as the consultation responses clearly articulated the objections to the Plan and presented arguments for and against the Plan’s suitability to proceed to a referendum.6

2.7 During the examination, I received a copy of a letter dated 14 June 2021 to BBC from ‘Milton Ernest villagers in opposition to the current MENDP’. It included a request for a meeting between the aforesaid villagers, BBC and myself.7 However, the views of those villagers who signed the letter are very clear having been set out through the Regulation 16 representations process, addressing issues including traffic, the use of greenfield land, ecology, flood risk and the obstruction of rural views. In addition, I am content that I have all the necessary evidence which MEPC has used to justify its’ approach in the preparation of the MENP. Overall, I am satisfied that I fully understand the villagers’ concerns.

Modifications

2.8 Where necessary, I have recommended modifications to the Plan (PMs) in this report in order that it meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. For ease of reference, I have listed these modifications separately in the Appendix.

3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights

Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area

3.1 The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by Milton Ernest Parish Council, which is a qualifying body for an area that was designated by Bedford Borough Council on 1 July 2013.

3.2 It is the only Neighbourhood Plan for the Parish and does not relate to land outside the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.

6 See Paragraph 9(1) and 9(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. 7 View at: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-its- purpose/neighbourhood-planning/milton-ernest-neighbourhood-plan/ Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 8

Plan Period

3.3 The Plan specifies clearly the period to which it is to take effect, which is from 2020 to 2030.

Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation

3.4 Concerns were raised regarding the nature of the consultation, for example at the Regulation 14 stage. However, the Consultation Statement confirms that at that stage an advertisement was placed in the ‘Villager’ Magazine (which is delivered to all houses in the village) and also that a printed copy of the draft Plan was delivered to all dwellings, together with details of how to take part in the consultation. I am satisfied that the consultation process has been sufficiently thorough8, and I am able to conclude that the opportunity to contribute to the Plan preparation process has been available to all the interested parties at the relevant stages, including at both the Regulation 14 stage (1 November – 13 December 2020) and the Regulation 16 stage (26 February 2021 – 11 April 2021). I note that Bedford Borough Council is satisfied with the consultation undertaken and that the process followed was identical to that carried out for other neighbourhood plans during the Covid pandemic9.

3.5 I am satisfied that all the relevant requirements in the 2012 Regulations have been met. I also consider that, overall, the approach taken towards the preparation of the MENP has been conducted in a fair, proportionate and inclusive manner. The relevant PPG advice on plan making and community engagement10 has been heeded and the legal requirements have been met.

Development and Use of Land

3.6 The Plan sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in accordance with s.38A of the 2004 Act.

Excluded Development

3.7 The Plan does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’.

Human Rights

3.8 The Plan is accompanied by an Equalities Impact Assessment that concludes none of the objectives and policies in the Plan will have a negative impact on groups with protected characteristics. I agree with that assessment.

8 See Consultation Statement January 2021. 9 See Bedford Council response to Examiner’s Question 8. 10 For example, PPG Reference ID: 61-030-20180913. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 9

3.9 I have seen no evidence that the Plan breaches human rights and no respondent, including BBC, has voiced concerns regarding this matter. From my independent assessment I am satisfied that the Plan does not breach Human Rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998).

4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions

EU Obligations

4.1 The Neighbourhood Plan was screened for SEA by AECOM11, and the screening opinion concluded that it was unnecessary to undertake SEA. I note that this conclusion is supported by both Historic England and Natural England, and I too agree with the findings.

4.2 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) was prepared by Bodsey Ecology Limited12, which concluded that any ‘significant effects can be avoided or mitigated against’ (assuming other neighbourhood plans in the catchment of The River Great Ouse similarly avoid or mitigate against any significant effects). From my independent assessment of this matter, I have no reason to disagree, and I have seen no evidence that other relevant neighbourhood plans will not meet the 2017 Regulations.

Main Issues

4.3 I have approached the assessment of compliance with the Basic Conditions of the MENP as two main matters: - General issues of compliance of the Plan, as a whole; and - Specific issues of compliance of the Plan policies.

General Issues of Compliance of the Plan

National Policy, Sustainable Development and the Development Plan

4.4 The policies in the MENP are set out under six main headings: Character; Natural Environment; Community Facilities; Sustainable Development; Housing; and Transport. The policies are followed by sections on the ‘Next Steps’ and ‘Monitoring’. The Basic Conditions Statement (January 2021) clearly summarises how the MENP has had regard to national and strategic policies; contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and meets the other Basic Conditions.

4.5 Subject to the detailed comments that I set out below, I conclude that the MENP has had proper regard to national policy and guidance. I also conclude that, subject to the modifications that I recommend: • The MENP is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Bedford Local Plan and that overall, the document provides an

11 October 2020. 12 August 2020. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 10

appropriate framework that will ensure the satisfactory achievement of the vision and objectives of the MENP (as set out in Chapter 3 of the document); and • That the policies (as modified) are supported by appropriate evidence, are sufficiently clear and unambiguous and that they can be applied with confidence.13

4.6 Concerns were expressed regarding the conformity between the MENP and the Bedford Local Plan 2030 (BLP30) and I have addressed such issues in the relevant sections of this Report.

Specific Issues of Compliance of the Plan’s Policies

Introductory Chapters (1 to 3 - Including Vision and Objectives, Pages 1 – 16)

4.7 Chapter 1 succinctly explains the purpose of the MENP and summarises the process that has been followed. It is clarified that the polices are those in a green box but that there are also community aspirations (which do not have the status of a policy) which are in a blue box. The difference between a land use policy and a community aspiration is clear to me.

4.8 Chapter 2 (page 4) provides some background to the evolution and history of the village, including the identification of six Character Areas. There follows a section entitled ‘Traffic and Transport’, which sets out some issues regarding the route of the A6 through the village and it also confirms a lack of facilities for cyclists.

4.9 The ‘Wider Planning Context’ is then summarised, and it is explained that the period covered by the MENP is in tandem with that of the BLP30. It is confirmed that Milton Ernest is defined as a ‘rural service centre’ in the BLP30 and as such is expected to accommodate between 25 and 50 new homes by 2030.14

4.10 The BLP30 is currently under review and the Local Development Scheme dated February 2021 (LDS) advises that the Local Plan Review will be adopted in December 2023 (covering the period up to 2040). However, there is no reference in the MENP to this potential change in circumstances, which may have consequences for the Development Plan as it relates to the Parish. In the interests of clarity, I therefore recommend that the MENP includes a reference to the LDS, the Local Plan Review and the potential for change to the Development Plan policies as they relate to Milton Ernest (PM1).

4.11 There follows a short section relating to Twinwoods Business Park (shown on Figure 5 of the MENP). At one time this site was proposed by the landowner for up to 6,000 houses and associated facilities. However, the adopted BLP30 does not support such development at this location.

13 PPG Reference ID: 41-041-20140306. 14 See BLP30 Policy 4S, xii. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 11

Although the MENP does not include a policy for this site, I consider that there is value in making the reference to Twinwoods, in order that the local community is aware that further consideration may need to be given to the status of that land at some time in the future.

4.12 Chapter 3 sets out the aspirations of the community for the village and summarises the 2015 questionnaire responses. A clear Vision for the settlement is articulated in paragraph 3.6 (page 15) and there follows a list of seven Objectives. These range from protecting the rural identity of the village, to improving community facilities and reducing the negative impacts of transport. These Objectives satisfactorily form the foundation for the policies that follow.

Character (Chapter 4, Page 17)

4.13 The retention of the rural character of Milton Ernest is a key objective of the community and I agree that it is important that the character of both the village itself and its setting are respected and, where appropriate, improved. To that end, Policy ME C1 provides support for appropriate development within the Settlement Policy Area (SPA). The presumption against development outside the SPA, other than in exceptional circumstances, is confirmed.

4.14 Concerns were expressed regarding the fact that the SPA for Milton Ernest has not been reviewed. However, I consider that a review relating to a single settlement would not be appropriate because it is important that a consistent approach to the issue is taken across the Borough. In response to my Question 4 to BBC, the Council confirms that ‘after the adoption of BLP40 changes will be made to the Policies Map’. Such changes, for example, would be in response to the allocation of new sites on the edge of settlements.

4.15 Policy ME C1 makes reference to the allocated housing site at Rushden Road. However, this is the first reference to the allocation site, which is covered in Chapter 8 (Housing). The proposed allocation is not addressed in the supporting text of Policy ME C1. In the interests of clarity all issues relating to the allocation should be made in the Housing Chapter, thus avoiding unnecessary repetition or confusion. To that end I recommend the deletion of the second sentence in Policy ME C1 (PM2).

4.16 Policy ME C2 relates to design and seeks to ensure that the best qualities of the local environment are retained and enhanced. Reference is made to the Character Assessment (January 2017)15, which identifies a number of character areas and provides examples relating to a number of topics, including local architecture, textures and materials, roof types and boundary treatments. I am satisfied that the application of this policy will ensure that the Vision of the Parish Council, in this regard, will be achieved.

15 View at: https://miltonernest-pc.gov.uk/supporting-documents/ Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 12

4.17 Two Local Green Spaces (LGS)are identified in Policy ME C3. I visited both sites and I am satisfied that their designation is justified and meets the criteria set out in NPPF Paragraph 100.16 However, the policy requires that any development performs a supplementary and supporting function to the Green Space. In the absence of local justification for this approach, it does not have regard to national policy. NPPF paragraph 101 states that policies for managing development within an LGS should be consistent with those for Green Belts. This should be explained in the ‘Green spaces’ section of the MENP. I therefore recommend that a new paragraph is inserted after paragraph 4.5 to clarify the situation and that Policy ME C3 is amended accordingly (PM3).

4.18 Natural Areas are covered by Policy ME C4, but Figure 6 (Green Space) includes land at Huntsmans Way, identified as a natural area, which is currently front garden . The Parish Council has acknowledged this error17 and has agreed to remove the front garden land from the designation, as (map) referenced ‘73G’ in the undated ‘Local Green Spaces, Milton Ernest Natural Areas and Other Important Environmental Regions’ background paper.18 I therefore recommend accordingly in PM4.19

4.19 The protection of valued natural areas is an important national objective and in order to remove any doubt I consider that it should be made clear in Policy ME C4 that any mitigation measures that are proposed must be capable of satisfactory implementation, otherwise development will not be approved. To that end I recommend PM5.

4.20 I am satisfied that all the policies in the Chapter on ‘Character’ (as modified) have proper regard to national policies and advice and meet the other Basic Conditions.

Natural Environment (Chapter 5, Page 22)

4.21 Paragraph 5.1 includes a list of aims which, if achieved, will protect ecological assets and increase the biodiversity of the area. To that end Policy ME NE1 requires most new development to provide a biodiversity net gain. Such an approach is in accordance with national advice, primarily as set out in chapter 15 of the NPPF.

4.22 The protection of the natural environment, as well as valued views, is addressed in Policy ME NE2. However, it should be made clear that the policy relates only to public views, and I make such a recommendation in PM6.

16 See also the evidence in the supporting document on the examination webpage ‘Natural spaces in Milton Ernest’. 17 See response to Examiner’s Question 18. 18 See Figure 3 and the table on Pages 3-4. 19 Modifications for the purpose of correcting errors is provided for in Paragraph 10(3)(e) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 13

4.23 Policy ME NE3 seeks to protect features in the natural environment but it includes a reference to protecting the trees and verges along the A6. This would include the boundary to the proposed Rushden Road (A6) housing site, where it is proposed to include a new access. To overcome this potential anomaly the Parish Council has suggested that additional wording is included which acknowledges that any access to the housing site should be designed so as to minimise the loss of existing vegetation. This amendment is necessary in the interests of clarity, and I recommend it accordingly in PM7.

4.24 The protection of the night sky from pollution is required by Policy ME NE4. Paragraph 180 c) of the NPPF confirms that new development should limit the impact of light pollution. Bearing in mind paragraph 5.8 of the MENP confirms that light levels in the Parish are higher than in neighbouring villages, then it is justified for proposals to demonstrate that the night sky is satisfactorily protected from further detrimental light pollution.

4.25 As proposed to be modified, the policies in Chapter 5 meet the Basic Conditions.

Community Facilities (Chapter 6, Page 27)

4.26 The protection of existing community facilities is covered by Policy ME CF1, which includes a list of the valued social and community facilities to be protected. In my questions to the Parish Council, I raised the issue of viability with regard to the retention of these facilities and my attention was drawn to Policy 99 of the adopted BLP30. However, that policy does not raise the issue of viability – rather it addresses need (in the first clause) and replacement (second clause). It would be unreasonable to expect the retention of a community facility, if it can be successfully demonstrated that such an approach would be unviable. Therefore, I recommend, in PM8, that a reference is made to viability in the introductory sentence of the policy.

4.27 The policy includes reference to the ‘riverside frontage’ in the sixth bullet point. MEPC has confirmed20, however, that Riverside Meadow is designated as Local Green Space (Policy ME C3 on Page 19) and that it can therefore be deleted from Policy ME CF1. I agree and recommend such a modification in PM9.

4.28 Policy ME CF2 seeks the retention of public rights of way but there is no reference to their improvement. Chapter 9 of the NPPF (paragraph 108) seeks the promotion of sustainable transport modes and the provision of safe and suitable access to sites. To achieve that objective, it may be necessary for improvements to be made to existing routes and that should be made clear in the policy. I therefore recommend PM10.

20 See answer to Examiner’s Question 8. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 14

4.29 Figure 8 identifies the community facilities in the village, but it includes privately owned Milton Ernest Hall. The Parish Council has confirmed that this is an error and therefore I recommend the removal of Milton Ernest Hall (site 5) from Figure 8 (PM11).

4.30 I am satisfied that the policies (as modified) relating to Community Facilities have regard to national policy and advice and meet the other Basic Conditions.

Sustainable Development (Chapter 7, Page 31)

4.31 NPPF chapter 12 confirms that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and I am satisfied that the implementation of Policy ME SD1: Sustainable building design, which includes references to BREEAM21 standards, Passivhaus standards and the Home Quality Mark, will contribute significantly to the achievement of sustainable development.

4.32 The consequences of development on residents and visitors (for example in terms of noise, traffic and pollution) is addressed in Policy ME SD2 and such an approach accords with national advice, for example in chapter 12 of the NPPF on achieving well-designed places.

4.33 The proximity of the River Great Ouse means that some properties in the village are vulnerable to fluvial flooding. There are also issues of surface water flooding. Consequently, Policy ME SD3 provides satisfactory detailed advice on managing and minimising flood risk and includes a number of measures for consideration.

4.34 The policies in Chapter 7 of the Plan (as modified) contribute to achieving sustainable development and meet the other Basic Conditions.

Housing (Chapter 8, Page 35)

4.35 There is only one housing allocation in the village, at Rushden Road, and this is covered by Policy ME H1.

4.36 The Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment Report (updated January 2019) considered 7 potential housing sites within the Parish. This includes the site known as ‘Land south of Parkside’ which was an ‘additional site’ which came forward through the second Regulation 19 consultation on the BLP30. It is suggested by one respondent that the ‘additional site’ did not receive the same level of assessment as other potential sites. However, it is clearly part of the updated Assessment Report (see page 37) and, having visited the site, the classifications recorded (red, amber or green) appear to me to be justified. In particular I share the concerns of the Parish Council regarding access to the site (which could accommodate up to about 88 dwellings).

21 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 15

4.37 Concerns were also raised by respondents to the Regulation 16 consultation suggesting that the site selection process lacked clarity and that the conclusions drawn were not justified. However, I am satisfied that the approach taken by MEPC towards site selection process is appropriate and has had sufficient regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance: Housing and economic land availability assessment. In particular I note the reasons for rejecting other sites, as summarised in the response of MEPC to my Question 14.

4.38 Reference has been made to making better use of brownfield sites but with the exception of Site 678 (Rushden Road) that is described in the Site Assessment Report as ‘part greenfield and part brownfield’, I am not aware of any such sites in the village that are available or suitable for residential development.

4.39 It is almost inevitable that, when assessing a number of sites in the same broad location, some sites will display very similar characteristics. In circumstances such as this, it can be difficult to achieve ‘clear water’ between sites, but I am satisfied that in this instance the MENP has drawn conclusions that are justified.

4.40 Turning now to the allocated site at Rushden Road (Policy ME H1). The first sentence refers to a maximum of 25 dwellings on the site. This implies to me that a figure below 25 may be acceptable. However, Policy 4S of the BLP30 states that the minimum figure should be 25 dwellings.22 Advice in the PPG23 states that ‘neighbourhood planning bodies are encouraged to meet their housing requirement and where possible exceed it’. This situation should be more accurately reflected in Policy ME H1 and in paragraph 8.5. There is no substantive justification for referring to the 25 dwellings as being a maximum and consideration may be given as to whether or not that figure could justifiably be exceeded, without harm to matters of acknowledged importance. Therefore, I recommend the replacement of references to a maximum by a minimum in PM12 and PM13.

4.41 Having visited the site I note that it is relatively close to village services and facilities and that there is no reason why a satisfactory access off Rushden Road cannot be achieved, without significant damage to the existing hedgerow. There is also the potential for improved crossing facilities on the main road, for example for pedestrians and cyclists. With regard to the advice in the policy regarding the retention of the hedgerow this should accord with the modification being recommended under PM7. Therefore, I recommend in PM14 that additional wording be included in Policy ME H1 regarding the protection of the hedgerow.

4.42 Paragraph 8.5 refers to a 5m thick buffer zone to screen new buildings from overlooking dwellings to the west, south and east. There is also

22 Policy 4S: ‘xii. Milton Ernest – 25-50 homes’. 23 PPG Reference ID:41-103-20190509. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 16

reference to a 10m buffer to protect the setting of the two listed properties to the south of the site. Policy ME HE1 refers to the 10m buffer zone but not the 5m zone. Neither zone is clearly identified on Figure 9. It is important that there is consistency between the text, the policies and any accompanying plans. Therefore, I recommend in PM15 that Policy ME H1 includes reference to the 5m buffer, and that Figure 9 clearly identifies both the 10m and 5m buffers.

4.43 All the assessed sites fall within the category of best and most versatile land.24 It is therefore inevitable that some land in this category will be lost.

4.44 In the submission on behalf of the owner of the allocated site, it was suggested that site 162, which lies adjacent to the allocated land could be allocated as ‘informal green space’. The justification for such an allocation is not clear to me and, as far as I am aware, it has not been formally considered by the Parish Council or put before the villagers as an option. On that basis I consider it would be premature to elevate the suggestion into a proposal but there is no reason why it could not be considered as part of any future planning application for the Rushden Road site.

4.45 Concerns were expressed by consultation respondents regarding a number of other matters, including the proximity of the listed buildings; boundary treatments; open space provision; loss of views; drainage; flood risk; sewage pumping facilities; ecology; and access. I am satisfied that all these matters have been given appropriate consideration by the Parish Council and that the wording in the MENP (as modified) or in the adopted Local Plan, adequately addresses these matters. The only exception is a requirement for emergency vehicles to be able to access the site via Marsh Lane and I recommend the policy is modified accordingly in PM16.

4.46 Significant emphasis is placed by the local community on the need for a high standard of design in all new development. Consequently, Policy ME H2 appropriately establishes the broad design requirements and this accords with the advice in chapter 12 of the NPPF on achieving well- designed places.

4.47 I saw on my visit that there is pressure for car parking in some of the local streets. Policy ME H3 therefore addresses the issue by requiring adherence to the Bedford Borough Council standards. The policy also addresses the location of parking spaces, surface materials to be used and the avoidance of parking courts. Through the application of this policy, new car parking provision should not be a visually intrusive or dominant element in the street scene.

4.48 Policy ME H4 deals with housing standards and addresses for example, adaptability, levels of space, privacy and the provision of a safe

24 See response to Examiner’s question 3 to the Borough Council. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 17

environment. Such an approach is justified and in accordance with national policy.25

4.49 The housing policies (as modified) are in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Development Plan and meet the other Basic Conditions.

Transport (Chapter 9, Page 43)

4.50 Policy ME T1 on traffic mitigation requires developers to demonstrate how any travel issues will be addressed in proposed development. Active travel is the heading given to Policy ME T2 and this relates primarily to accommodating the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. These are reasonable requirements and both policies accord with the advice in chapter 9 of the NPPF on ‘Promoting sustainable transport’.

4.51 Concerns were raised regarding access from the proposed housing site onto the A6, however, I have seen no objection to the principle of such an access from BBC as Highway Authority. In any event, I note that the second bullet point in paragraph 8.5 of the MENP confirms that further discussions will be required with the Highway Authority ‘as to safe access and egress for all modes’.

4.52 The Transport policies contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and the other Basic Conditions are met.

Evidence and Next Steps (Chapter 10, Page 47)

4.53 Chapter 10 lists the supporting documents to the MENP and outlines the next steps towards the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. There is also a section regarding the monitoring of the MENP, which confirms that there will be an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the Plan, with a thorough review taking place 5 years after adoption. Such an approach is to be commended.

Appendix A: Statutory Heritage Assets (Page 49)

4.54 The Parish Council acknowledges that there are errors in Appendix A26 and has agreed that they should be removed. PM17 is therefore recommended.

Policies Map

4.55 The Development Plan (of which the MENP will become part – if made) must include a policies map which illustrates geographically the policies in the document. Figure 4 is the current policies map for Milton Ernest as set out in the adopted Bedford Local Plan, but this needs to be up-dated to

25 See NNPF, chapter 12. 26 See response to Examiner’s Question 16. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 18

include the ‘new’ policies in the MENP. All the information is included on a number of other plans in the document (for example Figure 6 on LGS and Figure 9: Rushden Road site allocation) but it needs to be brought together as a single up-to-date policies map and I recommend accordingly in PM18.

4.56 Although not a matter of significant concern, the MENP would benefit presentationally from greater clarity and consistency in terms of the presentation of the plans that are included in the document.

5. Conclusions

Summary

5.1 The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan has been duly prepared in compliance with the procedural requirements. My examination has investigated whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements for neighbourhood plans. I have had regard for all the responses made following consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan, and the evidence documents submitted with it.

5.2 I have made recommendations to modify a number of policies and text to ensure the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum.

The Referendum and its Area

5.3 I have considered whether or not the referendum area should be extended beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates. The MENP, as modified, has no policy or proposals which I consider significant enough to have an impact beyond the designated Neighbourhood Plan boundary, requiring the referendum to extend to areas beyond the Plan boundary. I recommend that the boundary for the purposes of any future referendum on the Plan should be the boundary of the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.

Overview

5.4 In a relatively small settlement it is almost inevitable that the allocation of land for housing will have consequences for at least some of the existing residents and that some of those consequences may be considered harmful (for example increased traffic or loss of views). However, I am satisfied that MEPC has considered all the implications of development in the village and has drawn conclusions that are justified. On balance, I consider that the 25 dwellings on Rushden Road can be satisfactorily assimilated into the fabric of the village.

5.5 The Parish Council has produced a well-structured document, which rightly places the emphasis on issues of sustainability. If made, the Plan will

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 19

provide an important component in the Development Plan and will ensure that Milton Ernest remains a safe, successful and rural village, with a balanced and diverse community, as set out in the Vision.

David Hogger

Examiner

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 20

Appendix: Modifications (18)

Note: Additions are shown in bold and deletions are show in strikethrough.

Proposed Page no./ Modification modification other number (PM) reference

PM1 Page 10 Insert new paragraph to read:

After paragraph It should be noted that Bedford 2.25 Borough Council is in the process of reviewing the Bedford Local Plan. The adopted Local Development Scheme (February 2021) advises, in Appendix 5, that the Local Plan Review will be adopted in December 2023. This may have consequences for the MENP and the Parish Council will monitor the situation, as set out on page 48, to ensure that this document remains up-to-date.

(Subsequent paragraph numbers will have to be changed).

PM2 Page 18 Delete the second sentence of the Policy: Policy ME C1 This includes development on land allocated at Rushden Road for 25 homes and open space.

PM3 Page 19 Add a new paragraph after 4.5 to read:

Paragraph 4.5 Paragraph 101 of the NPPF and Policy ME confirms that policies for managing C3 development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts.

Modify the last sentence of the Policy to read:

Planning applications for dDevelopment on the Locally Designated Green Spaces will not be permitted unless they perform a supplementary and supporting function to the Green Space Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 21

it is consistent with national policy on Green Belts.

PM4 Page 21 Delete from Figure 6 the area of front garden in Huntsmans Way which is Figure 6: Green currently identified as a natural area. space in Milton Ernest

PM5 Page 20 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: Policy ME C4 Development that would have an adverse impact on the Milton Ernest Natural Areas (MENA), as shown on figure 6, that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be approved.

PM6 Page 24 Modify the second sentence of the Policy to read: Policy ME NE2 Open public views to key historical and natural features that define the village, as described in the Character Assessment, must be maintained and include:

PM7 Page 24 Add the following sentence to the Policy: Policy ME NE3 Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation.

PM8 Page 29 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: Policy ME CF1 Subject to the satisfactory consideration of viability issues Tthe following existing social and community facilities should be protected from loss:

PM9 Page 29 Modify bullet point 6 to read:

Policy ME CF1 The riverside frontage and other oOpen spaces, as shown on Figure 6; and…

PM10 Page 30 Modify the first sentence to read:

Policy ME CF2

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 22

Where existing routes forming part of the Public Right of Way network run through proposed development sites the route shall be retained, where justified improved and incorporated into the development proposals.

PM11 Page 28 Remove site 5 (Milton Ernest Hall) from Figure 8. Figure 8 Community Facilities

PM12 Page 36 Modify the first sentence of bullet point 1 to read: Paragraph 8.5 Development of a minimum a maximum of 25 new dwellings ….

PM13 Page 38 Modify the first sentence of the Policy to read: Policy ME H1 Land at Rushden Road, identified on Figure 9 is allocated for a maximum of to meet the Local Plan 2030 minimum requirement of 25 new homes in Milton Ernest.

PM14 Page 38 Add the following sentence at the end of clause a): Policy ME H1 Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation and facilitate sensitively designed crossing and traffic calming schemes along Rushden Road.

PM15 Page 38 and 39 Add a new clause d) to Policy ME H1 to read:

d) A permanent buffer zone, at Policy ME H1 least 5 metres wide, to screen the and Figure 9 new buildings from overlooking residential properties to the west, south and east.

On Figure 9 identify the location of both the 5 metre and 10 metre buffer zones.

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 23

PM16 Page 38 Modify the second sentence of clause a) to read:

For the avoidance of doubt, no vehicular access (with the exception of access for bicycles and emergency vehicles) from Marsh Lane will be permitted.

PM17 Page 49 Modify the list of Statutory Heritage assets by deleting: Appendix A • Chicheley War Memorial • Queen Annes almshouses • Silvergates and attached terrace; and • The Dell, the Diamond and the Causeway

PM18 Page 46/47 Add a new plan under the heading of Policies Map which brings together in one place all the land use changes/protections which are proposed in the policies of the MENP.

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, 3 Princes Street, Bath BA1 1HL Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 24

©GoogleEarth

MILTON ERNEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2020 – 2030

SUBMISSION VERSION Examiner’s modifications – deletions strikethrough and additions bold and highlighted yellow

MILTON ERNEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2020 – 2030 SUBMISSION VERSION

For more information please visit the Parish Council website: https://miltonernest-pc.gov.uk/

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Milton Ernest ‘today’ ...... 4 3. Milton Ernest ‘tomorrow’ ...... 13 4. Character ...... 17 5. Natural Environment ...... 23 6. Community Facilities ...... 28 7. Sustainable Development ...... 33 8. Housing ...... 37 9. Transport ...... 46 10. Policies Map 101. Evidence and next steps...... 51 Appendix A: Statutory Heritage Assets ...... 53 Appendix B: Character Assessment ...... 54

Foreword The 2011 Localism Act introduced Neighbourhood Planning into the hierarchy of spatial planning in England, giving communities the right to shape their future development at a local level. “Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and deliver the sustainable development they need”.

In July 2013, Milton Ernest Parish Council was successful with its application to become designated by Bedford Borough Council (BBC) as an ‘approved’ Neighbourhood Area.

The local planning process was somewhat complicated by the inclusion of a potential ‘new village’ within the parish. A consortium representing Twinwoods Business Park presented the option of 4,000 - 6,000 new homes, business premises, schools and associated infrastructure on the site. Whilst work continued on our local plan the potential impact of such a development prevented significant progress until the outcome of its future was unknown. Any decision for such a development has effectively been placed on hold. Consequently, the Parish Council and Steering Group have pressed on to produce the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan, setting out a positive vision for the future that supports growth in a way that protects the landscape in and around our village and ensures key services and infrastructure are not ignored.

The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan reflects community-wide comments, observations and concerns about its future, bringing them together with census information, strategic and statistical evidence into a “living promise” that mirrors the community’s overwhelming desire to make Milton Ernest an even better place to live and work, both now and for future generations.

The plan has been produced by a Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group including Parish Council members and community volunteers, on behalf of the Parish Council. The value and commitment of these few people has been immense. Additional help has been provided by professional planning experts, particularly Troy Planning + Design and AECOM. Further support and guidance has been afforded by planning officers from Bedford Borough Council.

Once the Plan has been finalised, and following a favourable local referendum, the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the development plan and become, with the Borough Council’s Local Plan, the starting point for deciding where development should take place and the type and quality of that development.

Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

1. Introduction

A new plan for Milton Ernest Parish 1.1 This is the submission Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Ernest. It covers the entire Parish, as illustrated in Figure 1. It sets out the local community’s aspirations for Milton Ernest over the period to 20301 and establishes policies relating to land use and development. These are policies that will influence future planning applications and decisions in the area. But the Neighbourhood Plan is much more than this. It represents the community’s manifesto for the Parish, bringing together more than just traditional planning matters.

1.2 The purpose of neighbourhood planning is to give local people and businesses a much greater say in how the places they live and work should change and develop over time. Neighbourhood planning is designed to give local people a very real voice in shaping the look and feel of an area. 1.3 Milton Ernest Parish was formally designated as an area for neighbourhood planning purposes in July 20132. The Milton Ernest Parish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee has surveyed, spoken to and listened to members of the community, and has used the issues, and opportunities, raised during that process to help inform production of the policies and projects now presented in this draft Neighbourhood Plan. 1.4 There are a number of stages involved in preparing a Neighbourhood Plan. Following earlier consultation, this version of the Plan has been submitted to Bedford Borough Council for the purposes of independent examination. Subsequent to the examination a referendum will be held, where all people of voting age residing in the Parish will be able to cast a vote on whether they think the Neighbourhood Plan should be brought into force (‘made’). If more than 50% of those people who turnout vote ‘yes’, the Neighbourhood Plan will be used to help shape planning decisions and applications in Milton Ernest.

1 This aligns with the period covered by the Bedford Borough Local Plan adopted in January 2020. This Neighbourhood Plan will be monitored and updated to keep it up-to-date and aligned with District level planning policy. 2 The Localism Act 2011 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted) gave communities the power to develop neighbourhood plans, to be progressed by Town and Parish councils, or neighbourhood forums, as opposed to the local authority.

1 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 1: The designated Neighbourhood Plan area for Milton Ernest

2 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Structure of the plan 1.5 Following this introduction, the draft Neighbourhood Plan comprises nine further sections. These are:

• Section 2: ‘Milton Ernest today’, presents an overview of the area covered by the draft Neighbourhood Plan, what existing planning policy says for the area, key issues and comments raised during consultation. • Section 3: ‘Milton Ernest tomorrow’, presents the vision and objectives for the Plan area. • Sections 4 – 9 These sections present the policies and associated projects for Milton Ernest Parish. These are grouped based upon the objectives outlined in Section 3. • Section 10: ‘Next steps’ outlines the current stage in the plan making process, how to respond to the draft Plan, and what the future steps in the process are.

1.6 For the avoidance of doubt, within sections 4 – 9, each topic area includes some introductory and explanatory text, followed by one or both of the following:

Policy Box The draft Neighbourhood Plan establishes land use and development management policies for Milton Ernest. These are contained in green shaded policy boxes, like this one. They are used for proposals that require planning permission.

Project / Aspiration Box The draft Neighbourhood Plan covers more than just traditional planning matters as it presents the community’s vision for the area. Items that the community are seeking, but that cannot be delivered through planning policy, are identified and contained in blue shaded project boxes, like this one. These are included within the body of the report, rather than being presented in a separate chapter or appendix, because they relate to the objectives and form a clear and important part of the story.

3 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

2. Milton Ernest ‘today’

Location and context 2.1 Milton Ernest is a village and civil parish in Bedfordshire, England, about five miles (8.0 km) north of Bedford itself. Censuses show that it had a population of 754 in 2001 that had risen to 761. The village is situated on the east bank of the River Great Ouse, and includes the site of Milton Ernest Hall, which was used as the United States Eighth Air Force's support command headquarters in the Second World War.

2.2 Main vehicular access to and from Milton Ernest is via the A6/Bedford Road, which runs north to south through the Village. This route connects Milton Ernest with Bedford to the south and Rushden to the north. The nearest train station to Milton Ernest is in Bedford.

2.3 The village benefits from a cluster of local services, including the Church, Village Hall, School and the Queens Head pub, focussed around the junction of Thurleigh Road and Bedford Road / Rushden Road. This comprises the ‘social heart’ and centre of the village.

History and character of the area 2.4 A character assessment of the village has been prepared to support the evolution of the Neighbourhood Plan. It presents a brief history of the village in development terms and how the historical context has shaped it character. 2.5 The character assessment draws upon the book “The Importance of Milton Ernest” (Newman, 2006), being a comprehensive and invaluable resource, charting the development of the village and identifying heritage assets. 2.6 Although today Milton Ernest appears relatively ‘nucleated’ when viewed in ‘plan’ form (that is, from aerial photography), the assessment of historic records and mapping indicates this is not reflective of the past. The position of farmsteads (both historic and remaining) plus analysis of place names (for example, ‘London End’, ‘Flewton End’) indicate that, historically, the village was more loosely knit around a series of ‘Ends’ each with differences in location, function and character. This is not uncommon in Bedfordshire villages. A key element of the setting of Milton Ernest is the Shrunken Medieval Village either side of Thurleigh Road, which is designated as a Scheduled Monument. The two sites comprising the Scheduled Monument formed part of the original village of Milton Ernest and stood at the centre of an extensive agricultural area.

2.7 Although the original medieval village declined as a result of changes in agricultural activity and population declined, later growth, including more gradual phases of development and redevelopment appear to have eroded the gaps between many of the different ‘Ends’ occurring across Milton Ernest. However, different locations within the village retain some key buildings and features keeping intact local character even where

4 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

separation has been reduced. These different phases of recent development have their own intrinsic character as well as a relationship with older parts of the village.

2.8 The frontages of buildings along Radwell Road show a historic trend of linear development. Many of these older buildings remain, albeit interspersed with modern additions or redevelopment. This creates a different character and more active road frontage. At different times, various facilities (for example, shops, public houses) appear to have been located at different points along this route, providing some connection between different ‘Ends’ of the village. Features such as traffic volumes and the closer proximity of the river may have influenced this pattern of development.

2.9 The Rushden Road (A6) is undoubtedly a historically important North-South route through the village. Patterns of development show limited linear development along this route (perhaps due to the location further away from the river) but different land uses and buildings (for example, the Oakley Hunt Kennels) had openings onto the route. In recent times, following redevelopment and increases in road movement, buildings have ‘turned their back’ on the A6, giving a limited role and purpose to this route for non-motorised road-users and limiting the connection with activity in the village. 2.10 The character assessment identifies six ‘character areas’ in Milton Ernest, being:

• Historic median: displaying strong local character with many links to the Milton Ernest heritage trail • Historic eastern: low density, irregular plots; • Pre 1960s: regular layout with weak reference to traditional character • 70s-80s: some reference to traditional character and materials • 80s-90s: compatibility to traditional character • Village edge: no reference to traditional character or materials

2.11 These character areas are shown on Figure 2 and inform policies in respect of heritage, character and design presented in the Neighbourhood Plan. The significance of the historic growth and evolution of Milton Ernest is clearly indicated in the Heritage Trail, illustrated in Figure 3, showing the distribution of heritage assets around the village and thus the importance of responding positively to these when bringing forward opportunities for new development. The trail also indicates the location of historic buildings in Milton Ernest, including All Saints Church and Milton Ernest hall, both of which are Grade I listed and thus of exceptional interest nationally. Other listed and unlisted buildings contribute to the unique character of the village, reflected in the scale, appearance and materials as reported in the Milton Ernest Character Assessment. Listed buildings and other statutory heritage assets In Milton Ernest are presented in Appendix A of the Plan.

5 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 2: Character areas in Milton Ernest, as presented in the supporting Character Assessment

6 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 3: Plan of heritage assets across Milton Ernest (source: The Importance of Milton Ernest)

7 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Traffic and Transport 2.12 In many ways, roads and traffic are one of the defining characteristics of the village. The A6 is a primary strategic north/south route that splits the community in half. A traffic survey by Bedfordshire Police in December 2017 showed that 120,000 vehicles used the A6 through the village over a seven-day period.

2.13 This has significant impacts in terms of separation, noise, the environment together with actual and perceived safety risks. Milton Ernest is the only settlement on the A6 between Luton and Rushden that has not been bypassed. It is a continual disappointment that proposals for the A6 appear to focus primarily on through traffic and not on community impacts. This was particularly apparent in the transport analysis associated with the potential new development around Sharnbrook (which was considered but eventually not included in the Local Plan 2030). In addition, BBC has no plan nor programme for a bypass.

2.14 Other transport related issues identified by residents include during the production of the Neighbourhood Plan include:

• The volume and speed of traffic along Radwell Road (which enables a direct route to Radwell, Felmersham and other Ouse Valley villages); and • the volume of traffic along Thurleigh Road, with particular concern around the number of lorries and goods vehicles.

2.15 In addition, facilities for cycling are limited. There is a shared cycleway/footway that runs eastwards, on the south side of the A6, between the centre of Milton Ernest and the outskirts of the village. However, to continue safely it is necessary to cross the A6 - but no facility is provided for this. In peak times it can take up to 15 minutes to be able to cross safely. This does nothing to encourage cycling into Bedford. Through the Neighbourhood Plan we would like to see solutions put in place that break this barrier to movement and which make walking and cycling a safer and more attractive proposition for all. Proposals for new developments should incorporate active travel measures wherever possible. Monies received through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be directed towards such schemes. This is included as a project / aspiration in this Neighbourhood Plan.

8 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Wider Planning Context 2.16 The Settlement Policy Area (SPA) is an important definition in planning terms as, it provides a spatial limit to the areas of potential development. The current SPA for Milton Ernest is illustrated in Figure 4.

2.17 The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan (MENP) is designed to achieve the vision (see next section) for Milton Ernest through to 2030. This duration is aligned with the Bedford Borough Council’s Local Plan 2030. It is part of the approach to planning, set out in the Localism Act 2011and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, which aims to give local people more say about what goes on in their area.

2.18 The MENP is consistent with the following key statutory requirements as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance:

• it has regard to national policies and does not constrain the delivery of important national policy objectives; • it contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; and • it is in general conformity with the development plan of the local planning authority (Bedford Borough Council).

2.19 It must also be compatible with European regulations, particularly European Directive 2001/42/EC and associated Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to be undertaken in certain circumstances. The draft Neighbourhood Plan has been screened for SEA purposes and concluded that such an assessment was not required. It has also been subject to Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). 2.20 The HRA concluded that, while there are likely significant effects to the Natura 2000 sites of Portholme Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and The Ouse Washes SAC/Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar site (Wetland of International Importance) from the MENP, this is only in combination with other plans. On the recommendation of the HRA, the Neighbourhood Plan has included wording to ensure that those effects are mitigated. 2.21 Bedford Borough Council adopted the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 in January 2020 (subsequently referred as the Local Plan 2030). Its purpose is to plan for the borough’s growth needs until the end of 2030. 2.22 Whilst much of the BBC’s plans for new housing are focused within the urban areas of Bedford and Kempston, there is significant allocation within the rural hinterland. In this respect, the strategy defines three types of rural settlements: • Key service centres: these contain a good range of services and are well connected to larger town centres by regular public transport. They provide a strong service role for the local community and surrounding area.

9 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

• Rural service centres: these have fewer facilities and provide a more localised convenience and service role to meet day to day needs of residents and businesses in the rural areas.

• Small and dispersed settlements: these have very limited, if any, facilities.

2.23 Policy 4S outlines that the total allocation of new dwellings within the plan period is (a minimum of) 3,169. Of this, 2,000 have been allocated to key service centres and 260 to rural service centres.

2.24 Milton Ernest has been defined as a ‘rural service centre’ and a site (or sites) must be identified to provide for 25-50 additional homes by 2030.

2.25 The MENP must be in general conformity with the Local Plan 2030 and so must demonstrate locations where 25-50 homes could be provided. If sites are not identified in the MENP within 12 months of the adoption of the Local Plan 2030 (which will be January 2021), then they may be allocated by BBC. Through this Neighbourhood Plan the Parish has taken the opportunity to consider the most appropriate locations and scale of growth, and how this might influence wider improvements and delivery of new infrastructure in Milton Ernest. It thus represents a community-led and positive approach to planning for change. 2.26 It should be noted that Bedford Borough Council is in the process of reviewing the Bedford Local Plan. The adopted Local Development Scheme (February 2021) advises, in Appendix 5, that the Local Plan Review will be adopted in December 2023. This may have consequences for the MENP and the Parish Council will monitor the situation, as set out on page 48, to ensure that this document remains up-to-date.

Twinwoods 2.26 2.27 The area referred to as Twinwoods comprises the Twinwoods Business Park and the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre together with associated roads and buildings, as shown on Figure 5. In March 2019, the vertical spinning tunnel within the site was listed at Grade II. The Yaris Wood Hermitage and Moated Site Scheduled Monument is located to the south east of Twinwoods. 2.27 2.28 Twinwoods is within the parish of Milton Ernest but outside the boundaries of the SPA. As part of its development of the preparation of the Local Plan 2030, BBC asked developers to identify sites where new garden villages could be provided. One of those sites was at Twinwoods – the proposal was for up to 6,000 houses together with employment, education, leisure and other facilities. It included a by-pass for Milton Ernest. In the event, large settlements do not feature in the Local Plan 2030, although this is still a possibility for future housing provision within Bedford borough. Should this position be reviewed in the next iteration of the Local Plan so this Neighbourhood Plan will also be updated and amended as appropriate. Until such a time, the policies in the Bedford Local Plan and the MENP apply as appropriate to future development at Twinwoods.

10 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 4: Bedford Local Plan policies map for Milton Ernest, indicating open spaces and the extent of the Settlement Policy Area (SPA). The location of the Milton Ernest Shrunken Medieval Village Schedule Monument is shown on Figure 6.

11 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 5: area covered by Twinwoods

12 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

3. Milton Ernest ‘tomorrow’ 3.1 This section of the Neighbourhood Plan sets out the vision and objectives for Milton Ernest Parish. It has been informed through consultation and establishes the community’s aspirations for the future of the area.

What you told us 3.2 In 2014, a consultation even was carried out at the village hall and there was a stall at the village fete. At that time, the key areas of interest or concern were:

• Traffic and transport; • Twinwoods (primarily because of a proposal for an incinerator); • Cycle and footpaths; • Community facilities; • Green spaces; and • Green energy.

3.3 In the summer of 2015, a questionnaire was sent to all houses within the village. A total of 225 responses were returned. 3.4 The questionnaire sought views on what people liked about living in Milton Ernest, their appetite for development (and its type and design) and other important issues that should be covered by the neighbourhood plan. The key results from that exercise are set out below.

Living in the village

• The MENP should seek to retain the rural atmosphere, size and feeling of the community

Housing development

• The MENP should support new development of up to around 25 houses. • New housing should be focused on new and medium sized developments within the existing village SPA (Settlement Policy Area). Larger developments outside the current SPA are not desirable. • New building should, wherever possible, be undertaken on brown field sites.

13 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

• Development should be sympathetic to its surroundings in terms of size, height and style with the impact on the privacy on adjacent properties limited. • It is important that sufficient off-road parking is provided so as not to add to the existing pressure on on-street parking. • Buildings should be well-designed and future-proofed for a range of potential occupants, with good levels of natural lighting, thermal comfort and security. • Plot sizes and design should provide sufficient space for general usage, mitigate noise and nuisance and minimise any reduction of natural light. • It is important that the local community is consulted and listened to at the early stages of project development. • Developments should, as far as possible, be carbon-neutral with a particular focus on reducing energy and water consumption and running costs, protecting the existing environment and mitigating flood risk. • In addition, construction plans should seek to reduce the environmental impact of the construction works. • The focus should be on lower-cost homes that provide for older people (including downsizing) and for family homes.

Business and commercial development

• The MENP should support the maintenance of business and commercial development in the village and, where appropriate, facilitate additional development. • Business, commercial and industrial development should predominantly be focused at Twinwoods with any other development being on brownfield sites. This requirement would not, however, apply to the provision of appropriate community facilities. • Any new business, commercial and industrial development must limit noise to acceptable levels, have effective plans for monitoring and controlling pollution and must demonstrate clearly that traffic generation will not have an unacceptable impact on the village in terms of congestion and safety.

Transport

• The opportunity of development should be used to support cycle routes, bus services and to improve sustainable connectivity between villages

14 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Environment and open areas

• The retention of green spaces and wildlife areas is important. Access to the countryside must be maintained and improved.

3.5 The findings of the village questionnaire have had a strong influence on the development of the policies set out in this plan. The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan – Summary of Questionnaire Results is included as an appendix to the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan - Consultation Statement

Vision 3.6 Following from consultation events and analysis of the area, a vision has been established for Milton Ernest. This frames the policies and projects in the plan, and is presented below:

The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that Milton Ernest remains a safe, successful and rural village with a balanced and diverse community. It will reflect the aspirations of the community and ensure that facilities and services are provided should any additional housing or business development be required and that such development retains and improves its character and value.

Objectives 3.7 Linked to the vision, seven objectives have also been created, which are fundamental to the development of the Plan. They are presented below. 3.8 The policies, and projects, within this Neighbourhood Plan intend to deliver on these objectives. The following sections of the Neighbourhood Plan present these, ordered in response to the objectives.

3.9 It is important that the Neighbourhood Plan is read as a whole and in conjunction with the Bedford Borough Council’s development plan documents3. All policies should be viewed together in the preparation and consideration of planning applications.

3 The Bedford Borough Council development plan documents can be found via the following webpage: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-its-purpose/development-plan-documents

15 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Objective 01: Character: To preserve, protect and enhance the green and rural identity of our surroundings and the distinct character of our village and its historic environment.

Objective 02: Natural environment: To protect the ecological value and increase biodiversity of our area, our local wildlife and its habitat and also maintain the integrity of designated sites downstream on the River Great Ouse.

Objective 03: Community Facilities: To seek to maintain, enhance and increase appropriate community facilities within and around the village.

Objective 04: Sustainable Development: To ensure that any future development, including employment sites, within the parish contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

Objective 05: Housing need: To meet any new and identified housing demand in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the local community.

Objective 06: Transport: To improve the safety, sustainability and convenience of all forms of transport within the village and to reduce any negative impacts to the local community.

Objective 07: Community well-being: To ensure that the local environment enables residents to have an enjoyable, safe, and peaceful place to live, including mitigating severance of the community by the A6.

16 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

4. Character

Objective 01: To preserve, protect and enhance the green and rural identity of our surroundings and the distinct character of our village and its historic environment.

4.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To maintain the green separation between our neighbouring villages and between existing development and Twinwoods. • To ensure the design and layout of new development respects and enhances the existing built and historic environment as identified within the Milton Ernest Character Assessment of January 2017 (subsequently referred to as the Character Assessment). • To retain existing green areas as nationally defined Local Green Space, Village Open Space, Village Green or Milton Ernest Natural Areas. • To retain the defining scale and rural village nature of Milton Ernest.

Setting and character 4.2 One of the key messages from consultation events was that Milton Ernest should retain its rural character and identity. This is reflected through its setting and historic growth over time, as presented in the Character Assessment and discussed in Section 2 of this Neighbourhood Plan (Milton Ernest today). This includes the contribution to character made by the scheduled earthworks and former settlement activity. Equally, the parkland character of the grounds of Milton Ernest hall, which are visible on the approach to Milton Ernest from the south, make an important contribution to local character. 4.3 However, change and growth will take place and, indeed, the Local Plan requires this. At present, this includes a Settlement Policy Area drawn tightly around the built-form and where new development, other than for small scale infill, is difficult to accommodate. As such, and through the review of development sites received through the ‘Call for Sites’ process (see more in Section 8, Housing), land has been allocated in this Neighbourhood Plan for future growth at Rushden Road. To reflect this the Neighbourhood Plan redraws the Settlement Policy Area (see Figure 9), with all policies in the Neighbourhood Plan applying to this revised area. These policies extend to the quality and design of new development, which should reflect best-practice urban design principles and respond to the existing character and best qualities of Milton Ernest as set out in the Character

17 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Assessment and expressed in terms of layout, scale, connectivity, materials and landscaping.

Policy ME C1: Settlement Policy Area Development or redevelopment within the Milton Ernest Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as indicated on Figure 9 will be acceptable in principle provided that it is consistent with other policies in this plan. This includes development on land allocated at Rushden Road for 25 homes and open space. Development outside the SPA will not be permitted, except where otherwise stated within this document or in accordance with Bedford Borough Council’s development plan policies.

Policy ME C2: Design quality, context and amenity Development must be sympathetic to and respond to the best qualities of the surrounding environment and built-form, as described in the Character Assessment (appended to this Plan), and expressed in terms of size, height, style and historic growth, as well as the presence and setting of statutory and non-statutory designated heritage assets, and impact on the privacy on adjacent properties, respecting local residential amenity. Notwithstanding this, the design of new buildings may incorporate contemporary design principles where appropriate.

Proposals will be supported where they: • Take account of the most recent evidence of heritage significance where development could better reveal their significance; • Take account of potential harm to the significance of non-designated heritage assets (including those identified in the Character Assessment and any future Local List); and • Preserve the heritage significance of heritage assets through any proposed new alterations or new development in their setting, except where any loss of significance accords with local and national policy requirements.

Project / Aspiration ME C1: Non-statutory heritage assets As indicated in the Character Assessment, the presence of non-statutory heritage assets contributes to the sense of place and local distinctiveness of Milton Ernest. As an ongoing project, the Parish will consider preparing a local list of such assets which make an important contribution to the character of the village.

18 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Green spaces

4.4 The term Local Green Spaces has a particular relevance in relation to land use planning. Paragraph 99 of the NPPF 2019 (National Planning Policy Framework) says: The designation of land as Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.

4.5 Paragraph 100 states: The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:

• in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; • demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and • local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

4.6 Paragraph 101 of the NPPF confirms that policies for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts.

4.6 4.7 Through the MENP the following Local Green Spaces are designated:

• The playing field; and • Riverside Meadow: a demonstrably special area for the village in terms of recreational value, tranquillity and wildlife.

4.7 4.8 Further details of the justifications are given in the supporting key document ‘Natural Spaces in Milton Ernest’.

Policy ME C3: Local Green Spaces The following areas, as identified on Figure 6, are designated as Local Green Spaces:

1. The playing field 2. Riverside Meadow

Planning applications for dDevelopment on the Locally Designated Green Spaces will not be permitted unless it is consistent with national policy on Green Belts they perform a supplementary and supporting function to the Green Space.

19 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

4.8 4.9 In addition to the Local Green Spaces designated above the 2013 Allocations and Designations Local Plan BBC identified Village Open Spaces within the borough. These spaces had to meet at least one of five criteria and development that adversely affected the reason for designation was prohibited. In Milton Ernest three sites were designated as village open spaces: the playing field, the village green and triangles of land off Marsh Land. The area between the church, the school and Church Green has been registered as Village Green and, as such, is protected from development by legislation. 4.9 4.10 However, there remain a number of natural areas in Milton Ernest that are important to the life of community but have no protection from the BBC designations above – the MENP defines these as Milton Ernest Natural Areas. The criteria for a MENA is:

• it is a small area (not more than 1000m2); • it is grassed or otherwise natural areas; • since establishment, it has not been subjected to development; and • there is community benefit to the site, natural and undeveloped.

4.10 4.11 The following sites (as shown on Figure 6) are designated as MENA:

• seven eight sites within Huntsman’s Way area development; • one site off Radwell Road; • one site at end of River Lane; • three sites at the junction of Radwell Road and the A6; and • land between terraced housing and Marsh Lane.

4.11 4.12 Further information about the rationale behind these designations is given in attached document ‘Natural Spaces in Milton Ernest’.

Policy ME C4: Natural Areas Development that would have an adverse impact on the Milton Ernest Natural Areas (MENA), as shown on Figure 6, that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be approved.

These include:

• Seven Eight sites within Huntsman’s Way area development; • One site off Radwell Road; • one site at end of River Lane; • Three sites at the junction of Radwell Road and the A6; and • Land between terraced housing and Marsh Lane.

20 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 6: Green space in Milton Ernest, including Local Green Space designations and Milton Ernest Natural Areas. Areas of permanent grassland include the scheduled monuments and surrounding earthworks which, although not forming part of the scheduling, form part of the setting of the Shrunken Medieval Village and thus play an important role in preserving the historic environment in Milton Ernest.

21 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 7: Green space in Milton Ernest, including Local Green Space designations and Milton Ernest Natural Areas. Areas of permanent grassland include the scheduled monuments and surrounding earthworks which, although not forming part of the scheduling, form part of the setting of the Shrunken Medieval Village and thus play an important role in preserving the historic environment in Milton Ernest. updated Figure 6 which deleted area in garden off Huntsmans Way

22 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

5. Natural Environment

Objective 02: To protect the ecological value and increase biodiversity of our area, our local wildlife and its habitat and also maintain the integrity of designated sites downstream on the River Great Ouse.

5.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To ensure that features of ecological value including hedgerows, watercourses, woodland and other habitat that supports wildlife are unaffected or enhanced by development. • To encourage the provision of new features and habitat to underpin an increase in the ecological value. • To retain the trees along the A6 corridor. • To retain and enhance the ecological value of the riverbanks and natural areas alongside the River Great Ouse and other watercourses. • To retain and protect the County Wildlife Sites and areas of Permanent Grassland in Milton Ernest. • To support biodiversity enhancements through the Biodiversity Opportunity Network.

Ecology and views

5.2 The parish of Milton Ernest contains important wildlife and grassland areas with a large variety of animal and plant species. In 2014 the Bedford and Luton Biodiversity Recording and Monitoring Centre (BRMC) carried out a survey of biodiversity in the parish. 5.3 It identified the following:

• County Wildlife Sites (CWS): these are sites that have been recognised as important for wildlife when assessed against a set of criteria. The selection guidelines consider aspects of the site such as size, diversity, rarity, fragility, typicality and recorded history. • Permanent Grassland: these are areas that have avoided ploughing and cultivation over, at least, the last 25 years and, as a result, are rich in terms of plants which, along with hedgerows, provide important habitat links.

23 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

• Biodiversity Opportunity Network: these are areas where biodiversity enhancements would be most beneficial. The aim is to buffer and link existing wildlife rich areas, so creating a landscape through which species can move. • Locations of recorded species.

5.4 Figure 7 below shows the results of the survey. It recorded 737 species including 476 species of plants, 82 species of birds and 18 species of mammals. Two CWSs wholly within the parish were identified. These are Milton Ernest pits and Yarl’s Wood. Subsequently, the Local Sites Partnership Group has identified another CWS, at The Glebe (see Figure 5). In addition, 94 hectares of Permanent Grassland, covering 11 sites, were identified.

5.5 It is clear from the community engagement exercises that residents of Milton Ernest very much support the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. This means avoiding negative impacts on the CWSs and the areas of permanent grassland, as well as, where possible, utilising the Biodiversity Opportunity Network. The objectives and policies in the MENP reflect those intentions. Milton Ernest sits in a loop of the River Great Ouse and any development must ensure that the river and watercourses feeding into it are protected. This is especially important because of the Natura 2000 sites (Portholme SAC and The Ouse Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar) downstream of Milton Ernest that are protected by law.

5.6 The setting of Milton Ernest is highly valued and rich in biodiversity. It also benefits from a number of important views that reflect the relationship between the village and surrounding countryside. These are presented in the Character Assessment and are important to the setting and identity of Milton Ernest. They include views of All Saints Church, as seen from Church Green and Church Close, of the Old Vicarage, as seen from Thurleigh Road, views of the open countryside north of Milton Ernest, and of the river corridor. These are features that define the rural nature and historic character of Milton Ernest. These extend to include the public rights of way that run through the village and the sites of the Shrunken Medieval Village either side of Thurleigh Road.

24 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Policy ME NE1: Ecology Other than for minor householder extensions, new developments must provide a biodiversity net gain, enhancing features of significant ecological value and habitats including (but not limited to) existing ecological corridors, natural landscape features, watercourses and woodland.

Policy ME NE2: Natural Environment and Views New development must maintain, and where applicable enhance the amenity of the natural environment. Open public views to key historical and natural features that define the village, as described in the Character Assessment, must be maintained and include:

• Views of the church, church green and the associated area. • Views of Milton Ernest Hall (currently limited to the upper floor and chimneys). • Views to the river. • Views of open countryside from Radwell Road towards Radwell village.

Policy ME NE3: Characteristic Features New developments must protect features of the natural environment so as to maintain the character of the village. These features include (but are not necessarily limited to) the trees and verges along the A6 and Radwell Road, and the tall trees around the vicarage of All Saints Church. Retention of such features shall reinforce the rural setting of the village and built form.

Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation.

25 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 8 Milton Ernest Biodiversity Map (note: since production of this map an additional County Wildlife Site has been added)

26 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Dark skies

5.7 The Parish Council supports measures to protect and enhance the dark night sky throughout the Neighbourhood Plan Area, recognising the benefits it brings in terms of health and well-being for residents and wildlife. Meanwhile, excessive lighting (security lights, floodlights, streetlights) wastes energy whilst disrupting the behaviour patterns of people and wildlife.4

5.8 The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states that planning policies and conditions should “limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”. This is supported by National Planning Policy Guidance on Light Pollution (2019). The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Night Blight Map indicates that much of Milton Ernest has light levels above 2 nanowatts/cm2/sr5, higher than those in neighbouring villages such as Pavenham and Felmersham. This is in large part due to the light pollution emitted by the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre within the Parish. It is therefore important that future development proposals within the neighbourhood area are mindful of the impact lighting has on the surrounding environment. 5.9 High Kelvin rated lighting can create a harsh glare, disrupt sleep and disturb nocturnal wildlife and their habitats. The International Dark-sky Association (IDA) advises that outdoor lighting should not exceed a rating of 3000 Kelvins. Equally, the IDA recommends that any light fixtures with an output above 500 lumens should be fully shielded and pointing downward to minimise glare and skyglow.

Policy ME NE4: Lighting Proposals for development will be supported where it is demonstrated that, if external lighting is required, it protects the night sky from light pollution through:

• The number, design, specification and position of lamps; • Full shielding (at the horizontal and above) of any outdoor lighting fixture exceeding 500 initial lumens and evidence of limited impact of unshielded lighting through use of adaptive controls; and • Limiting the correlated colour temperature of lamps to 3000 Kelvins or less. Any lighting scheme must not impact negatively, particularly near edges of areas of ecological value including woodland and green spaces – specifically near habitats used by bats and other light-sensitive protected species.

4 CPRE Night Blight. See: https://www.nightblight.cpre.org.uk/. Brightness values are measured in nanowatts: the higher the measure of nanowatts the brighter the light 5 ibid

27 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

6. Community Facilities

Objective 03: To seek to maintain, enhance and increase appropriate community facilities within and around the village

6.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To seek to retain the following community facilities; and • to develop improved access to countryside facilities and amenities.

Services and facilities 6.2 The presence and provision of social and community infrastructure is critical to sustaining and meeting the day-to-day needs of local residents, providing access to essential services and facilities, and helping to maintain a high quality of life. Such facilities, which include schools, healthcare, churches, sports and community centres, also have an important role to play in strengthening social networks, sense of community and identity. 6.3 Milton Ernest currently thrives socially because of its range of community facilities and services, which should be preserved. This message was highlighted through consultation exercises with residents expressing a high level of satisfaction with regard to available facilities. However, many thought more could be done to promote and improve the role and quality of facilities, local clubs and societies. 6.4 Policy ME CF1 below lists important facilities, which are illustrated in Figure 8, within Milton Ernest that should be protected from loss. Where appropriate, the neighbourhood portion of the Community Infrastructure Levy payable to the Parish Council may be used to support the ongoing maintenance and improvement of these facilities.

28 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 9 Community Facilities

29 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 10 Community Facilities

Amended map which deleted site 5

30 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Policy ME CF1: Social and Community facilities Subject to the satisfactory consideration of viability issues tThe following existing social and community facilities, should be protected from loss:

• The Queens Head public house; • The Church of All Saints; • Milton Ernest Lower School; • The village hall; • The playing field; • The riverside frontage and other oOpen spaces, as shown on Figure 6; and • The coffee shop, post office and village shop (currently located within the garden centre).

Proposals for new or improved social and community facilities will be supported subject to the following criteria:

• The proposal would not have a significant negative impact on the surrounding amenity nor local environment. • The proposal should be accessible to all and be designed with flexibility in mind such that it can be adapted for multiple use and activity over time. • The proposal would preserve the significance of any affected designated heritage asset.

Access to the countryside

6.5 The village of Milton Ernest is surrounded by attractive countryside, providing opportunities for leisure and recreation for all to enjoy - it also benefits from a network of footpaths and public rights of way. These complement the road network and connect the village to the surrounding countryside and neighbouring settlements. 6.6 Public Rights of Way in Milton Ernest include the A3 Footpath running north east out of the village to Wigney Wood and the A4 footpath running south east out of the village to Oakley Little Wood. Both these routes connect up with a wider Public Right of Way (PRoW) network that runs throughout Bedford and includes bridleways, footpaths, cycleways and byways. 6.7 All existing routes that form part of the PRoW network should be retained and incorporated, wherever possible, within proposals for development. Any diversion or stopping up of an existing route will be subject to an application for permission.

6.8 Any proposed new routes that complement the existing network of public rights of way in Milton Ernest, or improvements proposed to existing routes, should be delivered in

31 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

accordance with best practice principles for design and maintenance. Sustrans, for example, recommends that cycle routes should include a smooth surface with good 6 drainage properties and long-term durability. Handbooks for cycle route design and greenway management7 published by Sustrans are a source of best practice for implementing and maintaining routes for all.

Policy ME CF2: Public Rights of Way Where existing routes forming part of the Public Right of Way network run through proposed development sites the route shall be retained, where justified improved and incorporated into the development proposals. Such routes should we well integrated with the development, such that they are safe and attractive for all to use. The stopping up of green routes will not be permitted. Any proposal that would result in harm to or loss of a green route must be justified, and any harm minimised.

Project / Aspiration ME CF1: Access to the countryside The provision of improved routes as part of the Public Right of Way network and, where possible, new routes, is strongly encouraged. Where new routes, or improvements to existing routes, are provided, they should accord with best practice design principles, including that established by Sustrans in the ‘Handbook for Cycle Friendly Design’ and ‘Greenway Management handbook’. The Parish Council is keen to work with partner organisations, such as the Highways Authority and Sustrans, to explore the feasibility of delivering new or improved routes to and from the countryside, including:

• A footpath/footway/cycle way linking Milton Ernest and Radwell; • Access along the whole of the riverbank area within the village, including new information boards about the importance of its protection. • A linear park/nature area to the north of the proposed new development site on the A6 (see Figure 9); and • Establishment of a circular walking route of around five miles all within the parish envelope.

6 Sustrans, April 2014, Sustrans design manual: Handbook for cycle-friendly design 7 Sustrans, June 2016, Sustrans design manual: Greenway management handbook

32 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

7. Sustainable Development

Objective 04: To ensure that any future development, including employment sites, within the parish contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

7.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To deliver, as far as possible, development that has a low environmental impact (including, but not limited to, climate change). This includes emissions from: the construction products used, the construction process, in-use maintenance of the fabric, operational energy and water demand, and end-of-life emissions from demolition, recycling and disposal. • For developments to be, as far as possible, low or zero carbon (CO2e) with a particular focus on reducing operational energy consumption, operational water consumption and operational running costs. • To mitigate any unreasonable nuisance from developments, both during construction and subsequently. • To minimise the impact of traffic arising from developments including safety, pollution, noise and congestion. • To support and encourage the use of non-car travel modes (active travel). • To preserve the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Sustainable design and construction

7.2 A high proportion of carbon dioxide emissions come from heating, cooling and powering buildings. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants will contribute to objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle the effects of man-made climate change.

7.3 Growth in population and employment is likely to make it challenging to reduce emissions. However, growth also provides a number of opportunities for securing reduced emissions, including the construction of highly energy efficient homes.

7.4 All development in Milton Ernest will be expected to make use of the best available sustainable design and technology. Proposals for development are expected to minimise the use of resources, mitigate against and be resilient to the impact of climate change.

33 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

7.5 The Home Quality Mark8 has been developed by BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) to provide an indication of the quality and environmental performance of a new home. Housebuilders are encouraged to use this assessment method.

7.6 Similarly, Passivhaus standards and methodology are encouraged9. Passivhaus is “a building in which thermal comfort can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling the fresh air flow required for a good indoor air quality, without the need for additional recirculation of air." In doing so, the building uses very little energy, depending on the following elements:

• High levels of insulation • High performance windows with insulated frames • Airtight building fabric • A mechanical ventilation system with highly efficient heat recovery • Carefully positioned windows and doors to moderate sun exposure in summer

7.7 Development should be encouraged to meet high standards of sustainability through consideration of the highest ‘BREEAM’ standards, Home Quality Mark and ‘Passivhaus’ standards.

7.8 The impact of any proposed development on existing residential amenity, including those impacts caused during the construction phase, should be assessed as part of the proposal. To help understand and mitigate impacts, and to inform good quality development and design, applicants are encouraged to engage with the community during the pre- application phase. Current validation requirements set out by Bedford Borough Council recommends that applicants for larger schemes or schemes of a sensitive nature undertake community involvement with the affected local community. The statement should show how the views of the local community have been sought and taken into account in the formulation of development proposals. For the purposes of this Neighbourhood Plan, this is taken to relate to major development (housing proposals for ten or more units) and any scheme in the setting of a heritage asset.

Policy ME SD1: Sustainable building design Applications for development are encouraged to demonstrate accordance with the appropriate BREEAM standards in use at the time of submission. Encouragement is also given to schemes that meet Passivhaus standards.

8 See: https://www.homequalitymark.com/ 9 See: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/

34 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Housebuilders are encouraged to register for assessment under the Home Quality Mark. This should show how resource efficiencies and climate change adaptation measures will be incorporated through aspects such as the layout of the proposed development, orientation, massing, landscaping and building materials.

Project / Aspiration ME SD1: Construction During construction the developer should take positive action to reduce and mitigate nuisance. Planning applications must include details of measures that will be taken to mitigate nuisance. For larger developments, it is likely that such measures will include membership of the Considerate Constructors scheme

Policy ME SD2: Development impacts Any new business, commercial and industrial development must demonstrate that the design mitigates operational noise, dust, smells, traffic, artificial light, pollution and other nuisances as far as possible. Applications must demonstrate that traffic connected to the development will not have an unacceptable impact on the village in terms of congestion and safety. In addition, applications must demonstrate that adequate parking for customers and staff will be provided.

Project / Aspiration ME SD2: Statement of Community Involvement Community involvement will help shape more locally responsive planning proposals. Applications for major development and or those in the setting of a heritage asset must be accompanied by a Statement of Community Involvement. The Statement must include: • How consultation was carried out and why the method of consultation was appropriate; • The responses to the consultation; and • How the proposals have taken into account the responses

35 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Flood risk 7.9 Due to its location adjacent to the River Great Ouse, development within Milton Ernest is vulnerable to fluvial flooding, particularly properties situated on the eastern bank of the river which, according to the Environment Agency, reside in Flood Zone 210. 7.10 Surface water flooding is also an issue in Milton Ernest, particularly along the less permeable main roads, namely Bedford Road, Radwell Road and Thurleigh Road, where Flood Risk is either high or medium11. The existing drains several of which run east to west across the Parish are also susceptible to overflowing.

Policy ME SD3: Flood risk Developments shall avoid being in areas of medium or high flood risk as defined by the Environment Agency. Any proposals for development in these areas will need to be supported by sequential and exceptions testing. Development shall not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere downstream of the development. Proposals for development must incorporate measures that manage and minimise flood risk and surface water run-off. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated in and form an integral part of new open space and the network of green infrastructure wherever possible. These should be designed in line with guidance from Bedford Borough Council and may incorporate, but not be limited to, the following measures:

• Attenuation ponds. • Raingardens within the urban realm. • Green walls and roofs. • Permeable surfaces in areas of parking. • Planting of trees.

Where SuDs are to be provided, they should be designed such that they are in harmony with the surrounding landscape.

10 https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map 11 ibid

36 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

8. Housing

Objective 05: To meet any new and identified housing demand in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the local community

8.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To facilitate the delivery of Bedford Borough Council’s housing allocation of 25-50 houses in Milton Ernest within the Local Plan 2030 period. • The mix and size of new homes to be consistent with the preferences expressed through the village questionnaire undertaken in support of the Neighbourhood Plan, with the focus should be on: (i) lower cost homes (for example, starter homes), (ii) housing for older people and (iii) family homes. • To ensure that new housing does not cause additional on-street parking. • Developments are designed to minimise any negative impacts on nearby properties. • Development designs help create safe, attractive and well-designed environments. • To preserve the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Housing allocations 8.2 The Local Plan 2030 requires a site or sites for 25 to 50 houses to be identified within Milton Ernest. Through the call for sites and masterplanning process outlined below and in supporting documents to the Neighbourhood Plan one site, at Rushden Road, has been considered suitable for 25 homes and is allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan. This is a scale of development that the community has also indicated that they are comfortable with. 8.3 As part of its preparation for the Local Plan, Bedford Borough Council (BBC) undertook a Call for Sites process. This is a process whereby landowners are asked to identify sites where potential housing and/or other development could place. The Parish Council undertook an assessment of the submitted sites to identify which should be allocated. The process followed guidance established by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as that contained in the Locality produced Neighbourhood Planning guidance material. The assessment included consideration of the twelve sustainability appraisal objectives established by BBC and considered the following:

37 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

• Availability: Owner’s support to take forward the site for housing and/or employment use. • Achievability: The capacity and configuration of the site and any major development constraints (for example, highways or flooding) that would prohibit the site from being developed. • Suitability: The site relationship with current and emerging development plan policy, environmental/amenity constraints. 8.4 The assessment of all sites is presented in the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment Report. This is a free-standing document that provides supporting evidence to the Neighbourhood Plan.

8.5 Land at Rushden Road, as illustrated in Figure 9, is allocated for development of 25 homes. Through the technical support provided through the Locality Neighbourhood Planning programme a concept masterplan has been prepared for the site. The Milton Ernest Masterplanning Report (April 2018) is a key supporting document to this Neighbourhood Plan. This illustrates key principles that should be reflected in development proposals for the site. These include:

• Development of a minimum of a maximum of 25 new dwellings, with the design reflecting the local character and best qualities of the built form of Milton Ernest. • Vehicular access to be via the A6 and subject to further discussions with the highway authority as to safe access and egress for all modes. • Provision of a 5-metre-thick buffer to screen the new buildings from overlooking residential properties to the west, south, and east. This should ideally be planted. • Provision of a wider 10-metre-thick buffer to protect the setting of the two listed properties to the south of the site from the new development to preserve their historic character. This could either be a gap or landscaped strip, potentially including allotments. • Undeveloped land to serve as informal green space for the community, for example woodland or allotments with access, the management and maintenance of which will be agreed through the planning application process. 8.6 The landscaping buffers will delineate the new edge of the built-up area from the countryside to the north (as shown in Policy ME C1: Settlement Policy Area), in order to ensure the sympathetic village edge transition.

8.7 Furthermore, the allocation site forms part of the wider rural setting of the Grade I listed parish Church of All Saints and the Scheduled Monument of the Shrunken Medieval village at Milton Ernest. Proposals for development will need to be subject to consultation with Historic England and require a Statement of Significance and Impact Assessment to accompany any planning application. This shall include assessments of Lindham Court, Barn and Outhouse, Stone Cottage, the Church and Scheduled Monument. Given the

38 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

archaeological potential of the site itself, this Statement will also need to include the results of an archaeological evaluation.

8.8 The Bedford Borough Council Open Space SPD 2013 sets standards for the amount of allotment space that should be provided for local residents at 0.35ha per 1000 people, accessible on foot within 15 minutes. Any allotments should be designed in line with BBC’s guidance, as laid out in the Open Space SPD 2013.12 8.9 The Bedford Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update 2016 establishes the Full Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Market Housing and Affordable Housing for Bedford Borough over the 20-year period 2015-2035. Across the wider Borough, most of the housing need is for housing rather than flats; in particular, three- and four-bedroom houses are in short supply. A total affordable housing supply of 5,500 will also be needed across the plan period, with one-bedroom flats and two- and three-bedroom houses making up the majority of the need.13

12 Open Space Supplementary Planning Document, 2013; Bedford Borough Council 13 Bedford Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update 2016

39 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Policy ME H1: Rushden Road housing allocation Land at Rushden Road, identified on Figure 9 is allocated for a maximum of to meet the Local Plan 2030 minimum requirement of 25 new homes in Milton Ernest. The layout and scheme design must reflect the principles established in the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan Masterplanning report, being: a) Vehicular access must only be provided from the A6. For the avoidance of doubt, no vehicular access (with the exception of access for bicycles and emergency vehicles) from Marsh Lane will be permitted. Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation and facilitate sensitively designed crossing and traffic calming schemes along Rushden Road. b) The design of the scheme and development density must reflect the Character Area ‘compatible to traditional character’ as described in the Character Assessment. c) A permanent ‘buffer zone’ at least 10 metres wide of public amenity land must be created along the entire boundary with the adjacent farmland and shared boundaries with the two listed buildings (in order to preserve their significance). This could be achieved, for example, by the provision of a woodland area or public allotments.

d) A permanent buffer zone, at least 5 metres wide, to screen the new buildings from overlooking residential properties to the west, south and east.

Proposals for development on land at Rushden Road should provide a mix of housing types, predominantly including a mix of starter homes, family homes (3/4 bedrooms) and homes specifically for older people. A heritage Statement of Significance and Impact Assessment will be required in order to describe the significance of the surrounding heritage assets and the likely impacts upon them. This document will need to incorporate or be accompanied by the results of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation.

40 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 11 Rushden Road Site Allocation and revised SPA

41 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Figure 12 Rushden Road Site Allocation and revised SPA

Amended Figure 9 that identifies the location of the 5 metre and 10 metre buffer zones.

42 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Housing quality and design 8.10 It is likely that, over the life of the Plan, smaller sites in addition to the Rushden Road allocation may come forward for development, which, if approved, would provide additional housing. All new housing development, whether on the allocated site or not, should reflect best practice urban design principles.

8.11 Good design has a major role in contributing to quality of life and creating attractive, liveable places. The achievement of high-quality design is a core principle of the NPPF. It states, at paragraph 124, that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps makes development acceptable to communities’. The importance of the design of the built environment and its contribution to making better places for people is emphasised. It goes on to note that ‘Neighbourhood Plans can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development’ (paragraph 125).

8.12 In short, good design will help create high quality, safe and successful places where people enjoy living, working and visiting. This is emphasised in the National Design Guide14, which should be referred to by all involved in the planning system when shaping, responding to and considering applications for planning permission. This recognises the importance of local character and the role of the community in the design process. It states that: ‘Local communities can play a vital role in achieving well-designed places and buildings and making sure there is a relationship between the built environment and quality of life’ (paragraph 17). 8.13 Planning Practice Guidance15 notes that there are a variety of specialist housing types that can meet the needs of older people. This includes, but is not limited to, (1) age restricted general market housing, (2) retirement living or sheltered housing, (3) extra care housing or housing with care, and (4) residential care homes and nursing homes. 8.14 Housing for the elderly in Milton Ernest should ideally offer easy access to community facilities, services and good public transport. The design of homes for the elderly should reflect the principles of inclusive design outlined in Planning Practice Guidance16 and those established in the HAPPI (Housing our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation) report17 which are applicable to housing for elderly people and age friendly places.

14 MHCLG, September 2019, National Design Guide: Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places 15 MHCLG, June 2019, PPG: Housing for older and disabled people 16 ibid 17 https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/browse/Design-building/HAPPI/

43 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Policy ME H2: Design All proposals for new development must reflect best practice design principles as established in the National Design Guide. In Milton Ernest, the design of new development must be appropriate to the location and the character of the area as described in the Character Assessment, taking into account: • The appropriate housing density.

• The historical context. • Good compatibility with local character and natural surroundings.

Where affordable housing is to be provided these should be designed such that they are tenure-blind (that is, they are indistinguishable from market housing). Where there is an up-to-date evidenced need, the proposal should provide units suitable for senior residents. Such housing provision should be located within easy access of shops, facilities and public transport services. Housing should be well- integrated within the wider neighbourhood and be designed in accordance with the HAPPI principles.

Policy ME H3: Parking Proposals for new development shall provide parking in line with standards and design guidance established in the Bedford Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document (Parking Standards for Sustainable Communities) or a subsequent update of this. The preference is for car parking spaces to be provided off-road so as not to add to existing pressures. Parking should, where required, be close to the home to avoid on- street parking and should be set back from the main building line to avoid parked cars from visually dominating the street scene. Car parking spaces should be water permeable or drained off-road parking to prevent run-off. Parking courts should be avoided where possible. In the event that these are the only practicable solution, the parking spaces should be limited in number and be overlooked by active development frontages.

44 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Policy ME H4: Housing Standards Each dwelling must be designed to be suitable for, or easily adaptable for, a range of potential occupants. Good levels of space, natural lighting, thermal comfort, privacy and security should be provided. New developments must contribute to safe environments and support crime prevention. Encouragement is given to schemes that meet the Nationally Described Space Standards.

45 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

9. Transport

Objective 06: To improve the safety, sustainability and convenience of all forms of transport within the village and to reduce any negative impacts to the local community

Objective 07: To ensure that the local environment enables residents to have an enjoyable, safe, and peaceful place to live, including mitigating severance of the community by the A6.

9.1 Policies and projects included in this section of the Neighbourhood Plan respond to the following aims:

• To encourage active and sustainable forms of transport. • To ensure a safe environment, with appropriate speed limits, for all highway users including, specifically, pedestrians and cyclists. • To minimise the impact to residents on the parish’s two residential through roads (Radwell Road and Thurleigh Road) of traffic arising from new developments. • To support facilities that contribute within the parish towards cyclists being able to safely access Clapham, Oakley and Bedford, including a safe crossing of the A6 at the eastern end of the existing shared cycle/footway and/or a new cycle/footway on the northern side of the A6. • To support facilities that contribute within the parish towards cyclists being able to safely access Sharnbrook (which includes a secondary school serving Milton Ernest). • To seek to ensure that new developments in the parish (including changes of use) do not significantly increase the amount of traffic using Thurleigh Road and Radwell Road. • To support the use of public transport to and from the parish, including the provision of suitable bus shelters in the right places. • To minimise the noise, pollution and safety impact of traffic, particularly that using the A6.

46 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Access and movement 9.2 In response to consultation comments and the aims outlined above, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to encourage the uptake of active transportation opportunities (walking and cycling) for those living and working in Milton Ernest.

9.3 In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, cycling and walking infrastructure has become more important than ever, providing a way for people to travel and exercise whilst maintaining social distance from others. In line with Traffic Management Act 2004: network management in response to COVID-1918, this neighbourhood plan looks to take advantage of this opportunity to deliver “transformative change” and fundamentally alter the travel habits of Milton Ernest residents.

9.4 All routes for pedestrians and cyclists should be safe and attractive, for all people, of all ages, making these an appealing proposition for people to use. In particular, aall walking routes should reflect the ‘Five Cs’:

• Connected: good pedestrian routes which link the places where people want to go, and form a network

• Convenient: direct routes following desire lines, with easy-to-use crossings • Comfortable: good quality footways, with adequate widths and without obstructions • Convivial: attractive well-lit and safe, and with variety along the route • Conspicuous: legible routes easy to find and follow, with surface treatments and signs to guide pedestrians

9.5 New or improved cycling infrastructure should reflect best practice principles, drawing on the summary principles for cycle infrastructure design as laid out in the Department for Transport’s ‘Gear Change’ strategy19. This includes: • Treating cyclists as vehicles, not pedestrians. • Physically separating cyclists from high volume motor traffic. • Joining cycling infrastructure together to create a seamless network between nodes.

18 See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory- guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19 19 Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking. Department for Transport, 2020.

47 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

9.6 Examples from the Netherlands and Denmark20, where cycling is a far more prevalent mode of transport, should also be used for inspiration and guidance. In parallel with improved cycling routes, so development should also include improved provision of cycle parking. Safe and secure parking facilities should be accommodated within the public realm, though designed such that provision responds positively to the character and quality of the built environment. Covered cycle parking is also encouraged, particularly within new commercial and development and community facilities, which should also provide shower and locker facilities for cyclists where appropriate.

Policy ME T1: Traffic mitigation Proposed developments must demonstrate what measures will be put in place to mitigate against any increase in traffic, or changes in traffic patterns on Radwell Road or Thurleigh Road as a result of that development. This could include journey planning advice, cycle storage or improved access to a bus stop. Any proposed traffic measures shall be designed such that they do not impact on the setting of heritage assets.

Policy ME T2: Active travel Support will be given to proposals for development that incorporate improved and extended footpaths and cycle paths where appropriate. They should be direct, convenient and safe to use. Wherever possible, proposed new development should provide natural surveillance of public spaces and a safe pedestrian environment. Proposals for non-residential use should support and enable active travel through inclusion of safe, secure and convenient cycle parking as well as changing facilities where appropriate. Proposals for development that reduce the capacity or safety of existing active travel infrastructure, including footpath or cycle space, will not be considered favourably.

20 The London Cycling Design Standards (Transport for London, 2014, updated 2016) includes guidance and advice for delivery of cycle friendly infrastructure based upon best practice lessons learnt from cities in The Netherlands and Denmark amongst others. This should be used as a guide for delivering improved cycling conditions in Milton Ernest. The document is available via: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/streets-toolkit

48 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Project/Aspiration ME T1: Crossing the A6 The Parish Council will investigate the potential for a public realm improvement scheme along the A6 in partnership with Bedford Borough Council. Any such scheme would be subject to community involvement, with the intention being to minimise the impact of vehicular traffic on the setting of the A6 and to help facilitate a safer environment. Specifically, it will include arrangements for safer cycling to Clapham and beyond through an effective cycle crossing facility of the A6 or a footway/cycle path on the northern side or a combination of such arrangements.

Additionally, any scheme would create a better balance between pedestrian and vehicle space and reduce the severance caused by the A6. This could, at least partially, be achieved by narrowing the road with the created space used for planting, seating or other environmental benefits.

49 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

10. Policies Map

50 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

10. 11.Evidence and next steps

Supporting documents 10.1 11.1 A suite of documents have been prepared that support the draft Neighbourhood Plan and which are available to view on the neighbourhood planning page of the Parish Council website. These include: • The Milton Ernest Character Assessment 2017: a detailed analysis of the historical, built and natural character of the village.

• The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment Report: analysis and evaluation of the sites identified from BBC’s Call for Sites exercises in 2014/2015 and 2017.

• The Milton Ernest Masterplanning Report (April 2018): options for development of the preferred site.

• Natural Spaces in Milton Ernest: rationale behind the designation of Local Green Spaces and Milton Ernest Natural Areas.

• SEA Screening / Habitats Regulation: prepared in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning regulations, these review the potential social and environmental impacts of the proposed policies in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

10.2 11.2 In addition to the above the technical documents and material prepared in support of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan have been utilised as appropriate in the production of this Neighbourhood Plan. They are available to view on the planning policy pages of the Borough Council website. 10.3 11.3 Following consultation on this draft Neighbourhood Plan a set of additional documents will also be prepared for submission to Bedford Borough Council which will enable the ‘examination process’ to commence. These include: • Basic conditions statement: evidence that the plan is in conformity with national and local planning requirements

• Consultation statement: description of consultation undertaken and evidence of how the results have fed into the plan.

51 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Next Steps 10.4 11.4 This is the submission version Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Ernest. Bedford Council will formally consult on this and appoint an independent examiner to review the Plan and any comments made in response to it. Following this, the examiner will issue a report to the Borough Council advising whether:

• The Plan should proceed to referendum. • The Plan should proceed to referendum subject to modification. • The Plan should not proceed to referendum.

10.5 11.5 For the examiner to advise that the Plan proceed to referendum it will need to be demonstrated that the Plan meets what are called the ‘Basic Conditions’. These include showing that the Plan is in general conformity with the strategic objectives of the Local Development Plan (i.e.: the Bedford Local Plan). 10.6 11.6 Bedford Council will organise the referendum. All people of voting age in the Parish are eligible to vote on whether the Plan should be brought into force (‘made’) or not. If more than 50% of all people who turnout vote in favour of making the Plan, then it will become part of the suite of planning policies used by Bedford Council to help shape and determine planning applications in the Parish.

Monitoring the Neighbourhood Plan 10.7 11.7 MEPC will ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan is actively managed during its intended life. It will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it addresses any changes in both national and local planning policies. 10.8 11.8 Each Annual Parish Council meeting after implementation of the MENP will include a report on the effectiveness of the MENP in the previous year and the likely implications and impact of the Plan for the forthcoming year. The Parish Council website will include a copy of these annual reports. 10.9 11.9 Five years after the MENP is implemented, a thorough review of the effectiveness of the MENP will be undertaken by MEPC, including seeking the views of the community. This review will guide MEPC as to whether an amendment to the MENP is required. It is intended that this will coincide with the review of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan.

52 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix A: Statutory Heritage Assets This appendix includes a list of all heritage assets in Milton Ernest, as recorded by Historic England.

Title Link Heritage Grade Location Category DOVECOTE AT MILTON https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1159789 Listing II DOVECOTE AT MILTON ERNEST HALL BEDFORD ROAD ERNEST HALL Milton Ernest Bedford

MILTON ERNEST HALL https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1310881 Listing I MILTON ERNEST HALL BEDFORD ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford HOUSE, FORMERLY STABLE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114299 Listing II HOUSE FORMERLY STABLE BLOCK AT MILTON BLOCK, AT MILTON ERNEST ERNEST HALL BEDFORD ROAD Milton Ernest HALL Bedford WALL TO GROUNDS OF https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114300 Listing II WALL TO GROUNDS OF MILTON ERNEST HALL ON MILTON ERNEST HALL ON EASTERN SIDE BORDERING A6 TRUNK ROAD EASTERN SIDE BORDERING A6 BEDFORD ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford TRUNK ROAD MILTON MILL https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321516 Listing II MILTON MILL BEDFORD ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford Shrunken medieval village at https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1009554 Scheduling Milton Ernest Bedford Milton Ernest, Bedfordshire

Vertical spinning tunnel https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1457464 Listing II 36 Twinwoods Business Park Thurleigh Road Milton Ernest Bedford MK44 1FD Milton Ernest Bedford 7, RUSHDEN ROAD https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114306 Listing II 7 RUSHDEN ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford

BARN ADJACENT TO HOME https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114304 Listing II BARN ADJACENT TO HOME FARMHOUSE RUSHDEN FARMHOUSE ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford QUEENS HEAD PUBLIC HOUSE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321519 Listing II QUEENS HEAD PUBLIC HOUSE RUSHDEN ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford BARN AND OUTHOUSE AT https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114307 Listing II BARN AND OUTHOUSE AT LINDHAM COURT STAREY LINDHAM COURT CLOSE Milton Ernest Bedford 13, RADWELL ROAD https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1159803 Listing II 13 RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford

3, RADWELL ROAD https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114301 Listing II 3 RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford

FORGE COTTAGE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114305 Listing II FORGE COTTAGE RUSHDEN ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford LINDHAM COURT https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321520 Listing II LINDHAM COURT STAREY CLOSE Milton Ernest Bedford STONE COTTAGE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1159800 Listing II STONE COTTAGE FLEWTON END Milton Ernest Bedford

15, RADWELL ROAD https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321517 Listing II 15 RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford

VILLAGE FARMHOUSE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114302 Listing II VILLAGE FARMHOUSE RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford 25, RADWELL ROAD https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1310865 Listing II 25 RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford

MANOR FARMHOUSE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114303 Listing II MANOR FARMHOUSE 52-56 RADWELL ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford PARISH CHURCH OF ALL https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321521 Listing I PARISH CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS THURLEIGH ROAD SAINTS Milton Ernest Bedford MANOR FARMHOUSE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1114308 Listing II MANOR FARMHOUSE THURLEIGH ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford HOME FARMHOUSE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1321518 Listing II HOME FARMHOUSE RUSHDEN ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford WOODLANDS https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1159833 Listing II WOODLANDS THURLEIGH ROAD Milton Ernest Bedford Chicheley War Memorial https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1445289 Listing II Hall Lane Chicheley Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK16 9JE Chicheley Milton Keynes Yarl's Wood hermitage and https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1012057 Scheduling Milton Ernest Bedford moated site RADWELL BRIDGE https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1159240 Listing II RADWELL BRIDGE FELMERSHAM ROAD Milton Ernest RADWELL| Bedford QUEEN ANNES ALMSHOUSES https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1380128 Listing II QUEEN ANNES ALMSHOUSES 34-42 ST JOHN STREET Newport Pagnell Milton Keynes Silvergates and attached https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1434490 Listing II Silvergates 52 The Drive Craigweil-on-Sea Aldwick terrace, well-head and walls Arun West Sussex THE DELL, THE DIAMOND AND https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1001637 Park and II Wirral THE CAUSEWAY, PORT Garden SUNLIGHT

53 Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix B: Character Assessment The Character Assessment forms a free-standing appendix to the Neighbourhood Plan.

Milton Ernest Parish Council

Neighbourhood Plan for Milton Ernest, 2020-2030 Submission version: January 2021

Milton Ernest Parish Council https://miltonernest-pc.gov.uk/

Milton Ernest

Character Assessment

January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN www.troyplanning.com Office: 0207 0961 329 Mobile: 07964149559 Address: 3 Waterhouse Square, 138 Holborn, London, EC1N 2SW

P 2/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4

2 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ...... 7

3 THE APPROACH IN THIS CHARACTER ASSESSMENT ...... 15

4 CHARACTER AREAS ...... 19

5 HISTORIC MEDIAN ...... 23

6 HISTORIC EASTERN ...... 26

7 PRE-60S ...... 30

8 70S-80S ...... 33

9 80S-90S ...... 37

10 VILLAGE EDGE ...... 40

ANNEX 1 - LOCAL MATERIALS ...... 43

ANNEX 2 - LOCAL ARCHITECTURE ...... 44

ANNEX 3 - TEXTURES & MATERIALS ...... 46

ANNEX 5 - SIGNAGE & OBJECTS ...... 48

ANNEX 4 - ROOF TYPES ...... 48

ANNEX 6 – GARDENS, BOUNDARY TREATMENTS, GREEN FEATURES ...... 51

ANNEX 7 - VIEWS & LANDMARKS ...... 55

SOURCES ...... 58

P 3/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

1 Introduction

1.1 This is the Milton Ernest Character Assessment (CA). A character assessment is a

document that describes the distinct appearance and feel of a settlement or an area. It

communicates the key physical features and characteristics that combine to give a

particular settlement or an area its local distinctiveness and unique identity.

1.2 The CA was prepared to inform the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan being prepared

by members of the Neighbourhood Plan Working Group. This was undertaken through

site visits and spatial analysis of satellite imagery and historic maps.

1.3 The CA sits alongside the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan and specifically informs the

policies relating to character areas, design and local heritage. It should be used by those

wishing to bring forward development proposals within any of the character areas

identified.

Overview of the area

1.4 Milton Ernest is a village and civil parish in Bedfordshire, England, about 5 miles (8.0 km)

north of Bedford itself (Figure 1). It had a population of 754 in 2001 that had risen to

761 according to the 2011 census. The village is situated on the east bank of the River

Great Ouse, and is the site of Milton Ernest Hall, which was used as the United States

Eighth Air Force's support command headquarters in the Second World War.

P 4/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

1.5 In terms of topography, the terrain has a slope between 40m in south west and 60m in

north east (as shown in Figure 2). There is a low declivity between River Great Ouse and

Rushden Road (38m to 48m) but with steeper gradients leading to the east and north of

the village, particularly beyond All Saints’ Church along Thurleigh Road where the

elevation towards the ‘Twinwoods’ Airfield is over 80m.

P 5/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Figure 1 - Location of Milton Ernest in relation to Bedford

Figure 2 - Elevation points in Milton Ernest

P 6/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

2 Historic Development

2.1 Milton Ernest is located in North Bedfordshire and records date back to the Domesday

Book of 1086 when the various manors were listed. The entry reads:

"Middletone / Mildentone: Miles Crispin and William

Basset from Hugh de Beauchamp; Thorgils from

Nigel d'Aubigny; Reginald from Walter of Flanders;

Ivo, Hugh de Grandmesnil's steward from Adelaide,

Hugh de Grandmesnil's wife; a beadle from the king.

Mill."

2.2 All Saints' Church was built between the 12th and

15th centuries and is Grade I Listed.

2.3 In more recent times, the village was distinguished for its relationship with Victorian

architect, William Butterfield, who constructed and renovated a number of buildings

including Milton Ernest Hall. Now a nursing home, it is known internationally by fans of

musician and band leader, Glenn Miller, who was stationed there during World War II.

P 7/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Before 10861

2.4 The Bedfordshire Historic Environment Record [HER] contains information on the county’s

historic buildings and landscapes. The record mentions several ring ditches in the parish.

These are usually thought to be the remains of round barrows and so date to the Bronze Age.

2.5 One of these sits on a gravel terrace in the C-curve of the River Great Ouse west of Radwell

Road and was visible on one aerial photograph, though not on other subsequent photographs.

2.6 There are a number of Iron Age sites in the parish. One of these is a collection of small

irregular enclosures in an area from which slag, from iron working, and Iron Age pottery have

been found when field walking. The site is north of Little Oakley Wood and south-west of

Yarlswood. Another Iron Age site highlighted by field walking lies south-east of Wigney Wood

on the east side of Thurleigh.

2.7 There is a site in the C-bow of the river Great Ouse opposite the junction of Radwell Road with

New Road which may be Iron Age, or Romano-British, or both. It comprises a ring ditch within

a rectangular enclosure, lies on a gravel terrace and is visible on aerial photographs. Some

indistinct crop marks north of Thurleigh Road and east of the A6 seem to show a large

rectangular enclosure "which may be Roman but this is unproven". A potential Roman

occupation site has been identified just east of the railway line on the south bank of the river

in the north of the parish where field walking has turned up Romano-British material.

Milton Ernest in 10862

2.8 Milton Ernest was divided into six different holdings. The mill would have been a watermill on

the River Great Ouse because windmills were unknown in England for about another century.

2.9 The population was around one hundred and ten, from which twenty eight were heads

of household, a very large settlement in relation to the rest of the county where many

parishes with much higher numbers of people today had perhaps fifty or so population

in 1086.

1 Source: http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/CommunityArchives/MiltonErnest/MiltonErnestBefore1086.aspx 2 Source: http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/CommunityArchives/MiltonErnest/MiltonErnestIn1086.aspx

P 8/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Milton Ernest Hermitage (1271)3

2.10 Milton Ernest seems to have had a hermitage first mentioned in 1271, as part of Cauldwell

Priory. Volume III of The Victoria County History for Bedfordshire, published in 1912, states:

“In 1279 half a virgate of arable land and 6 rods of pasture, being part of this property, was

held by the prior of John Erneys, Lord of the Manor of Milton Ernest or Harnesse for three

masses for the souls of John’s ancestors”.

2.11 The Valor Ecclesiasticus was a survey of church lands made under King Henry VIII (1509-1547)

prior to his dissolution of the religious houses and orders in England.

2.12 Hermitage Close is mentioned in the Inclosure Award for Milton Ernest of 1804 and in a sale

catalogue of 1909 [X65/69-70] when it formed part of West Manor Farm. A note written in

1963 [CRT130/MiltonErnest1] states: “The site was apparently moated and it is now being

excavated by local people. We do not seem to have any deeds relating to the site. There is no

building marked on our earliest maps (1803)”.

2.13 "The excavations have uncovered a stone building, probably with only one room, containing

a stone hearth at one end. In front of this building is a cobbled courtyard with the remains of

wattle and daub outhouses on at least two sides. These outhouses probably served as stables

and byres. A large part of the site inside the moat remains to be excavated and the

surrounding fields also contain interesting features which may throw more light on the

remains so far uncovered".

Milton Ernest Vicarages4

2.14 The earliest description of the Vicarage at Milton Ernest is in a terrier of land belonging to the

Archdeaconry of Bedford in 1608. The building is described as stone built with a thatched

roof. It was five bays long and comprised: a hall, two parlours, a buttery and a kitchen

downstairs with four chambers above and lofts above them. A barn of two bays' length stood

outside, it was timber built and thatched. There was also a stone built and thatched stable.

3 Source: http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/CommunityArchives/MiltonErnest/MiltonErnestHermitage.aspx 4 Source: http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/CommunityArchives/MiltonErnest/MiltonErnestVicarages.aspx

P 9/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

2.15 An account of the building of the next Milton Ernest Vicarage runs as follows: "Sir Edmund

Turnor, Kt, a very worthy promoter of piety and virtue did, about the year 1695, at his own

proper cost & charges, erect a new brick House containing two Rooms on a floor with closets,

three stories high; and stables & other out Houses convenient to the same; together with a

court yard and orchard for the better accommodation of the Vicar & his Successors; the old

Vicarage House being so decayed as near to ruine that it was not fit to be inhabited, which

House & all impropriated Tythes of the said Parish, he legally settled in the hands of Trustees

for the use & benefit of the said Vicar & his Successors for ever.

2.16 This building was described in an archdeaconry terrier of 1708 [ABE ii (volume 1 page 223)]

as containing a hall and a parlour, each with a board floor, a kitchen, a larder and a buttery

each with a brick floor. There were three chambers above, which were ceiled, with two garrets

above them. A larger barn had been provided, eight bays long, made of stone and thatched

and there was stone-built and thatched two-bay stable.

2.17 This building survives today as Woodlands, which was listed by English Heritage in August

1987 as Grade II, of special interest. The listing points out the date stone on the north-east

elevation with the date 1694. The building was extended to the south about 1836, the date on

a date stone on the south-east gable. It is constructed of coursed limestone rubble with some

dressings in both ashlar and brick. Roofs are composed of Welsh slates.

2.18 A new vicarage in Thurleigh Road was designed by Bedford architect John Gedge in 1967

[P80/2/4/1].

P 10/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

19th Century5

1803

1820 Watercolour by Thomas Fisher

Milton Ernest Hall (built 1854-1858)

2.19 Milton Ernest Hall was designed by the architect William Butterfield (1814-1900), an

architect famous for his Gothic Revival churches. It was listed by the former Department

5Source: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/1388 Maps: http://maps.nls.uk/

P 11/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

of Environment in June 1971 as Grade I, of

exceptional interest, because it is Butterfield’s

only complete country house. The stable

block, dovecote and wall to the grounds were

listed in August 1987 as Grade II, of special

interest.

2.20 In 1870-72, John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales described Milton

Ernest:

"MILTON-ERNEST, a village and a parish in the district and county of Bedford. The village

stands on the river Ouse, 2 miles N of Oakley r. station, and 4½ N W by N of Bedford; and has

a post office under Bedford. The parish comprises 2,070 acres. Real property, £2,393. Pop.,

485. Houses, 111. The manor belongs to Earl Brownlow and B. H. Starey, Esq.; and Milton-

Ernest Hall is Mr. Starey's seat. The Bedfordshire subscription hounds are kenneled here. The

living is a vicarage in the diocese of Ely. Value, £275. * Patron, Turner, Esq. The church is

ancient; comprises Norman portions; was restored in 1865, at a cost of £1,364; consists of

nave, aisles, and chancel, with a tower; and contains some ancient monuments to the Rolls

and the Turnors. There are a Wesleyan chapel, a national school, alms houses with £65 a

year, and other charities £10."

1884

P 12/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

20th Century – Present

2.21 Successive developments emerged after 1960, expanding the village in north east and

south west.

1901

1946

P 13/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

1952

1956

P 14/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

3 The Approach in this

Character Assessment

3.1 The purpose of this document is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the history

of Milton Ernest, but the summary provided in the earlier chapter sets the overall

context. Far more detailed information on the important locations, people and events

in the history of Milton Ernest is available elsewhere.

3.2 The book “The Importance of Milton Ernest” (Newman, 2006) and the associated

Heritage Trail are a particularly comprehensive resource and invaluable for the

Character Assessment. This is particularly relevant in terms of charting the development

of the village and identifying heritage assets. Although not a land use planning

document the matters raised are undeniably of potential relevance to learning from the

past and managing future growth.

3.3 This Character Assessment provides an important link in helping to establish those

aspects of historic character, the historic pattern development and the associated

relationships with the built and natural environment that represent considerations for

planning policy in guiding development and managing land use change.

3.4 The Character Areas, upon which the remainder of this CA are based, therefore have a

relatively strong relationship with the history and key features of the village. The CA is

designed so that it can be read alongside other sources to provide the fullest possible

understanding, albeit the different resources fulfil different main purposes.

3.5 Having a full range of complementary and comprehensive evidence available will

support the preparation of detailed and effective policies in the Neighbourhood Plan.

As part of drafting these policies, those preparing the Neighbourhood Plan may find it

necessary to review and further refine the information available. For example, this may

mean specifying the specific buildings (or ‘heritage assets’) where policies are expected

to apply.

P 15/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Defining Character Areas

3.6 It is particularly true in Milton Ernest that none of the Character Areas identified are

entirely homogenous. Each contains some examples of old and new development and

many contain specific features of heritage interest alongside more modern additions.

3.7 The Character Areas also tend to comprise a variety of land uses (both present and

historic) which adds to variety and means uniformity is unlikely. For the same reason,

where residential densities are calculated these should be interpreted as ‘gross’

densities on the basis that the wider Character Area will typically include non-residential

functions.

Summary of Approach and Key Definitions and Characteristics

3.8 The approach to defining the Character Areas identified is broadly defined by two key

themes. These relate firstly to the age and characteristics of different phases of

development in the village; and secondly the balance of land uses in the village and its

relationship with key transport corridors (both road, river and rail).

3.9 Although today Milton Ernest appears relatively ‘nucleated’ when viewed in ‘plan’ form

(i.e. from aerial photography) the assessment of historic records and mapping indicates

this is not reflective of the past. The position of farmsteads (both historic and remaining)

plus analysis of place names (e.g. ‘London End’, Flewton End’) indicates that historically

the village was more loosely knit around a series of ‘Ends’ each with differences in

location, function and character. This is not uncommon in Bedfordshire Villages in-

particular.

3.10 Gradual phases of development and redevelopment appear to have eroded the gaps

between many of the different ‘Ends’ occurring across Milton Ernest, although different

locations within the village retain some key buildings and features keeping intact local

character even where separation has been reduced. These different phases of recent

development have their own intrinsic character as well as a relationship with older parts

of the village.

P 16/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

3.11 Particularly to the west and north, built development in the village now appears to end

abruptly. To the north eastern edge of the village along Thurleigh Road the pattern of

development disperses more gradually towards the countryside and more closely

reflects the historic edge of the settlement.

3.12 The second key theme relates to Milton Ernest’s position on a number of important

transport routes. This is relevant to identifying the ‘centre’ of the village, the balance of

different land uses and pattern of development.

3.13 Historic development has been concentrated around the junction of Rushden Road and

Radwell Road, extending along Thurleigh Road to All Saints’ Church and the Vicarage

beyond. Services and facilities, commercial activity and non-residential uses (e.g.

education, community buildings) have tended to concentrate in this area. This generally

gives a lower density of residential uses.

3.14 The frontage of buildings along Radwell Road shows a historic trend of linear

development. Many of these older buildings remain, albeit interspersed with modern

additions or redevelopment. This creates a different character and more active road

frontage. At different times, various facilities (e.g. shops, public houses) appear to have

been located at different points along this route, providing some connection between

different ‘Ends’ of the village. Features such as traffic volumes and the closer proximity

of the river may have influenced this pattern of development.

3.15 The Rushden Road (A6) is undoubtedly a historically important North-South route

through the village. Historic patterns of development show limited linear development

along this route (perhaps due to the location further away from the river) but different

land uses and buildings (e.g. the Oakley Hunt Kennels) had openings onto the route. In

recent times, following redevelopment and increases in road movement, buildings have

‘turned their back’ on the A6, giving a limited role and purpose to this route for non-

motorised road-users and limiting the connection with activity in the village.

3.16 It should also be kept in mind that there are some unifying features found across the

whole village in terms of wider patterns of materials and building design (e.g. roof styles)

and these complement the sense of character as a whole.

P 17/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

3.17 Care has been taken to recognise that the ‘Village Edge’ to the west comprises almost

exclusively non-residential uses, with a more limited reference or connection to local

character (albeit the playing field is a well-established local facility that the community

has sought to retain in this position).

P 18/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

4 Character Areas

Map 1 - Character Areas & Heritage Trail in Milton Ernes – Satellite view (Source for basemap: Google Earth)

P 19/59 January 2017

Map 2 - Character Areas in Milton Ernest TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

P 21/59 January 2017

Map 3 - Density variation in Milton Ernest TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

4.1 The assessed area is approximately 28 ha, defined by the following Character Areas:

Historic Median 3.5 ha

Historic Eastern 8.2 ha

Pre-60s 1.6 ha

70s-80s 6.2 ha

80s-90s 3.5 ha

Village Edge 3.4 ha

4.2 Historic development is a major factor considered in determining the character areas in

Milton Ernest, as it defines the architectural style, site and street layouts and materials

used.

4.3 The streets along the heritage trail determines two areas developed on the historic core

of the village:

 Historic Median – perceived as the backbone of historic Milton Ernest, defined by the architectural style and the general character of a residential main street. Includes historic buildings of great importance for the local identity.  Historic Eastern – developed organically around All Saints Church, and dispersed as low density irregular sites. Includes buildings of administrative, religious and community importance.

4.4 Recent developments are integrated in different ways in the overall character of the

village:

 Pre-60s – low integration in the overall character in terms of materials used, architectural style, layout and urban fabric. However, the amount of development from this period appears of a relatively limited scale and occurring over a number of years.  70s-80s – balanced integration, especially along the middle of Radwell Road, less integration along Arkwright Road and Huntsman Way (for example the vivid colours of garage doors and use of parking courts).

 80s-90s – good compatibility with the local character and in relation to natural surroundings in south.

 Village Edge – no strong connection with the overall character.

P 22/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

5 Historic Median

General character area overview

5.1 Mostly linear residential development along Radwell Road which combines historic

buildings with some recent additions and variations between historic periods in terms

layout variations, design and materials used.

5.2 Average density is 13 dph (35 dwellings per 2.6 ha of residential sites – See Map 3).

Layout

5.3 Linear and irregular, with verges in west.

5.4 Setbacks: Most of the buildings are close to road and there is a high variation from east

to west: between 0-12m.

5.5 Plots are long and narrow in south of Radwell Road and irregular in north and Queens

Head with a fair consistency of the building line.

5.6 Gardens: short front gardens, long back gardens

Roads, street, routes

5.7 The Historic Median area is developed along Radwell Road (vehicular and pedestrian

street) from the core of the historic village. There is a right of way which connects

Radwell Road to Rushden Road and further leads towards the village edge.

P 23/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Buildings and details

5.8 Two storey detached and semi-detached well-preserved pre-20th Century dwellings

with some recent additions.

5.9 Facade and Elevation Details: stone, white painted brick, red and orange brick,

sometimes brick with decorative models, wood frames, stucco.

5.10 Roofs:

 steep gabled and cross gabled,

 hipped, cross hipped and half hipped,

 made of: thatch, slate tiles, red and brown clay tiles and curved shingles.

5.11 Windows: casement windows, hung windows, multi-panes.

5.12 Other elements and features:

 occasional dormer windows,

 majority of wide fronted units,

 varied ridge and eaves height,

 chimneys are common features.

Landmarks

5.13 There is a significant amount of historic buildings along the Heritage Trail on Radwell

Road (Map 1), including Queens Head, The Strawberry Tree, Swan House and The Barns.

Green and natural features

5.14 Hedgerows, verges and trees along the Radwell Road play a significant role in the

character area, balancing the visual perception between built and natural environment.

There is a natural area south of the character area with wild vegetation and a view to

Milton Ernest Hall, which is likely to be a locally important visual connection.

P 24/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Streetscape features

5.15 There is a combination of locally specific materials that strongly supports the rural

character of the village: stone, wood, brick, stucco (Annex 3). Mossy stone wall built with local materials is a recurring feature around the village.

5.16 There are details found in signage and boundary treatments which play an important

role in the local character (Annex 5).

Views

5.17 View towards Queens Head Hotel is representative for the local identity (Annex 7).

Uses and activity

5.18 Mostly residential C3 dwelling houses.

5.19 Queens Head: C1 Hotel

Ambience

5.20 Silent area in the heart of the village with relatively low traffic volume compared to

Rushden Road.

P 25/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

6 Historic Eastern

General character area overview

6.1 Mixture of development areas (from historic buildings to more recent additions and

renovations), surrounded by rural green fields, which presents significant differences in

terms of layout (from scattered to aligned), architectural design and materials used.

6.2 Residential development density has high variations (See Map 3):

 Highest along Bedford Road - Church Green: 22 dph (11 dwg per 0.5 ha),  Lowest along Thurleigh Road: 8 dph.

Layout

6.3 The layout is scattered and irregular. In terms of setbacks from the road, there are high variations between 6m (along Church Green) and 20 m (Thurleigh Road).

6.4 Plots have a narrow shape and consistent building line along Church Green and south

of Thurleigh Road and irregular shapes and building line in rest.

6.5 Gardens: short front and back gardens along Church Green, large front and back

gardens south of Thurleigh Road.

Roads, street, routes

6.6 The main route developed along Thurleigh Road - vehicular, pedestrian and cycle route (bright green line - Map 2).

P 26/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

6.7 There is right of way along Church Green, which goes 90 degrees to the right and leads

to the green field in the east (dark green line - Map 2).

Spaces

6.8 There are green areas around Milton Ernest Village Hall and Lower School. All Saints

Church hosts a graveyard of over 300 sqm.

Buildings and details

6.9 One and two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced well-preserved historic

buildings with some recent additions and renovations. Any redevelopment is generally

small-scale and responds to local character or seeks a unique identity, for example the

‘new’ Almshouses provided alongside Church Green.

6.10 Facade and Elevation Details: stone, white painted brick, red and orange brindle brick,

sometimes brick with decorative models, wood panels and frames, stucco, pastel

coloured textured render.

6.11 Roofs:  gabled and cross gabled,

 lean-to roofs,

 hipped, cross hipped and half hipped,

 made of: thatch, slate tiles, red and brown clay tiles.

6.12 Windows: casement windows, hung windows, multi-panes, tall and narrow windows.

6.13 Other elements and features:

 occasional dormer windows,

 varied ridge and eaves height,

 chimneys and unique details (windows, doors, wall and roof decorations) are

common features.

P 27/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Landmarks

6.14 The character area includes some of the most important locally significant buildings: All

Saints Church (major importance in terms of visual guidance and compositional

hierarchy), Milton Ernest Hall, The Old Vicarage, The Old School.

Green and natural features

6.15 Rural landscape surrounds the area. There are green pockets adjacent to Village Hall

and Lower School which enable good views of All Saints Church. The old and tall trees

around the Old Vicarage are a unique asset of the character area.

6.16 The land and road rises fairly steeply beyond ‘Woodlands’ which quickly establishes a

separation from the character of the main built development in the village and a change

in landscape character.

Streetscape features

6.17 The rural character of the village is strongly supported by the use of locally specific

materials: stone, brick, wood, stucco (Annex 3). Mossy stone wall built with local materials

is a recurring feature around the village. There are details found in signage, benches and

boundary treatments which play an important role in the local character (Annex 5).

Views

6.18 Views from Church Green towards All Saints Church and from Thurleigh Road to The Old

Vicarage (Annex 7).

Uses and activity

6.19 Mostly residential C3 dwelling houses.

6.20 Others:  C2 Residential Institutions: Milton Ernest Hall in South West

 D1 Non-Residential Institutions:

. Education: Milton Ernest V.C. Lower School

. Religious: All Saints Church

. Administrative: Milton Ernest Village Hall

P 28/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Ambience

6.21 Vibrant ambience around Milton Ernest Lower School. Silent and peaceful ambience around All Saints Church, The Old Vicarage and Milton Ernest Hall.

P 29/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

7 Pre-60s

General character area overview

7.1 Residential development with regular layout and similar architectural design and

materials used. The character area appears to have been established over a series of

discrete, smaller developments with minor differences in style and detailing.

7.2 Average density is 20 dph (32 dwellings per 1.6 ha – See Map 3).

Layout

7.3 Layout is regular with setbacks from road as follows:

 around 9m along Church Cl, and

 varied along Marsh Lane - between 5m and 24m.

7.4 Plots have a narrow shape with a consistent and continuous building line.

7.5 Gardens: short front gardens along Church Cl, large front gardens along Thurleigh Road,

long and narrow back gardens along Marsh Lane.

Roads, street, routes

7.6 The area is accessed mainly from Church Cl via Thurleigh Road (vehicular, pedestrian

and cycle route - bright green line - Map 2) which further leads to a right of way on the

east side of the character area.

P 30/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

7.7 Marsh Lane connects the area with a right of way along the northern green edge of the

village.

Spaces

7.8 North of the character area there is a wide green space and paddock area on the urban fringe with a rural right of way.

Buildings and details

7.9 One and two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced buildings in good condition.

Unit size generally slightly smaller than more recent developments but overall a mix of

dwellings is provided in the Character Area.

7.10 Facade and Elevation Details: red and orange brindle brick.

7.11 Roofs:

 gabled and cross gabled, made of bright and dark brown clay tiles,

 some lean-to roofs.

7.12 Windows: casement windows, hung windows, some bay windows and multi-panes.

7.13 Other features and elements:

 dormer windows are often,

 constant ridge and eaves height,

 chimneys are common features,

 low variation of architectural styles and materials used.

Landmarks

7.14 No significant landmarks in this particular area, but there is a good view of All Saints

Church.

Green and natural features

7.15 The area is surrounded by a wide rural landscape in the north and a diversity of tall trees

in the east.

P 31/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Streetscape features

7.16 The streetscape is slightly detached from the overall village character away from major

transport routes. Hedgerows used as boundary treatments is the strongest way the

character area is linked to the overall streetscape character of the village.

Views

7.17 View from north-west towards All Saints Church from Church Close.

Uses and activity

7.18 Only residential C3 dwelling houses.

Ambience

7.19 Silent and secluded area, surrounded by connections to the natural environment in the north and east.

P 32/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

8 70s-80s

General character area overview

8.1 Residential area with consistent architectural design, materials used and layout along

Arkwright Road-Huntsman Way and some design differences in rest. The Character Area

successfully integrates a limited number of historic dwellings and outbuildings

particularly along Radwell Road due to the similarity of roof styles and colour of building

materials.

8.2 Development density has high variations with an average density of 19 dph (c.119

dwellings per 6.22 ha – See Map 3):

o Highest in West of Huntsman Way: 26 dph (29 dwellings per 1.12 ha)

o Lowest in North-East of Rushden Road: 11 dph (13 dwellings per 1.18 ha)

Layout

8.3 Winding and irregular with high variations in terms of setback from road:

 Rushden Road: 9-12m,

 South-East of Huntsman Way and Arkwright Road: 6-11m,

 West of Huntsman Way: 0-18m,

 North of Radwell Road: 0-13m,

 Starey Cl: 9-45m,

 Marsh Lane: 4-10m.

P 33/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

8.4 Plots:

 regular rectangular shape along South-East of Huntsman Way and Arkwright Rd,

long and narrow East and West along Radwell Road and South East of Starey Cl -

those areas have a consistent building line.

 irregular and compact in rest with an inconsistent building line.

8.5 Gardens:

 East of Radwell Road: long and narrow back gardens (38m) and front gardens (11m),

 West of Radwell Road: back gardens (16m) and front gardens (11m),

 South-East of Huntsman Way and Arkwright Rd - balanced front and back gardens

between 11-16m,

 Starey Cl: large front gardens between 20-42m.

Roads, street, routes

8.6 Properties are accessed mainly from Radwell Road - Huntsmans Way - Arkwright Road

along a winding, cul-de-sac route typical of a more suburban environment.

8.7 Rushden Road has a strong character of a motorized and linear corridor as there are

high walls and hedgerows, buildings that are facing ‘backwards’ to the road and noisy

traffic.

8.8 There is a right of way along Starey Cl that connects three different character areas

between Rushed Road to Marsh Lane - Historic Median, 70s-80s and Pre-60s.

Spaces

8.9 There are no significant public spaces in this character area.

Buildings and details

8.10 Two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings, mostly in good condition.

8.11 Facade and Elevation Details: mostly red and orange bridle brick, some grey stucco in

north-west of Radwell Road and some pastel coloured textured render and white

painted brick around Marsh Lane and east of Radwell Road.

P 34/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

8.12 Roofs:

gabled and cross gabled (in north east), often with catslide (along Huntsman Way and

Arkwright Road),

made of: red and brown clay tiles, thatch (Green Farm)

8.13 Windows: casement windows, bay windows, hung windows, few multi-panes.

8.14 Other elements and features:

 occasional dormer windows,

 orangeries,

 garage doors painted in bright colours,

 varied ridge and eaves height,

 chimneys are common features.

Landmarks

8.15 Green Farm stands out as part of the Heritage Trail with a large setback from the street

and traditional architecture with thatched roof.

Green and natural features

8.16 Hedgerows are an integral part of the overall local character of the village. The character

area is surrounded by natural rural landscape to the north and a playing field to the

west.

8.17 There are some green buffers around the Rushden Road which isolates the noise from

the motorized transport.

Streetscape features

8.18 Main features are:

 hedgerows, small and medium vegetation as the main boundary treatments,

 contemporary lamp posts and signage,

P 35/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

 the combination of asphalt (pedestrian and vehicular routes) and red brick

(residential parking).

Views

8.19 Views of north of Milton Ernest - out of the settlement towards the wider rural landscape

and views into Milton Ernest (Annex 7).

Uses and activity

8.20 Only residential C3 dwelling houses.

Ambience

8.21 Silent area along Arkwright Road and Marsh Lane with some subtle smells of burned

wood from chimneys.

8.22 Traffic noise and the visual barrier of walls and hedgerows along Rushden Road give the

feeling of walking far away from the settlement.

P 36/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

9 80s-90s

General character area overview

9.1 Residential development with two sub-areas in terms of visual perception:

 Riverside View – consistent architectural design and combination of materials. The

area includes a mix of dwelling sizes, which are generally larger towards the river

and smaller in the north of the development towards Radwell Road

 London End - River Lane – mixture of styles, materials, designs and historic periods.

This relates more closely to the historic pattern of ‘loose-knit’ development in the

village

9.2 Average density is 18 dph (61 dwellings per 3.4 ha of residential sites – See Map 3).

Layout

9.3 Winding and regular along Riverside View and London End and linear along River Lane.

9.4 The set back from road is between 4-6m with a consistent building line.

9.5 Plots usually have a regular rectangular shape with the narrow side adjacent to the road.

Properties along Riverside View have some of the largest plots (and larger dwelling size)

amongst the different phases of growth in the village.

9.6 Gardens are shorter in the front and larger in the back.

P 37/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Roads, street, routes

9.7 The character area can be accessed from Riverside View off Radwell Road in the north

(vehicular and pedestrian) and south (pedestrian only) and London End runs West off

the historic route along River Lane.

Spaces

9.8 There are is a small playground north of River View and a wide open green space in the

south of the area.

Buildings and details

9.9 Two storey detached and semi-detached properties with well-preserved pre-20th

Century dwellings with some recent additions.

9.10 Facade and Elevation Details: mostly red and soft orange brick (sometimes with

decorations), white painted brick (especially in east), some wood frame (along River

Lane)

9.11 Roofs:

 London End and River Lane: gabled and cross gabled, hipped

 Along Riverside View: hipped, half hipped, pyramid hip, gabled. The mix of roof

patterns is contemporary and more ‘complex’ amongst the larger properties but use

features and styles (such as the half-hip ‘bonnet’) that are evident elsewhere in the

village

 made of: slate tiles, red and brown clay tiles (plain and curved).

9.12 Windows: casement windows, hung windows, multi-panes, bay windows are often.

9.13 Other features and elements:

 occasional dormer windows,

 varied ridge and eaves height,

 Various house types incorporate bay windows to the ground floor, with a higher

frequency than seen elsewhere in the village

P 38/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

 varied architectural styles and materials used around London End - River Lane due

to the mix of properties of different ages and historic period

 chimneys are common features.

Landmarks

9.14 There are no significant landmarks in this particular area, but there is a good view to the

green field north of River Great Ouse providing open space and outdoor amenity.

Green and natural features

9.15 There is a high diversity of vegetation. The area has a wide opening to the green field

along River Great Ouse and it is adjacent to an open rural landscape immediately the

west beyond the river.

9.16 Small ‘Local Area of Play’ incorporated within the main residential development is likely

an outcome of the planning activity for the scheme and provides local recreation for

very young children.

Streetscape features

9.17 The streetscape is well integrated in the overall local character, combining:

 a mixture of boundary treatments: wood, mossy stone, iron, brick, hedgerows,  a mixture of pavements,  lamp posts - both contemporary and Victorian style e.g. the village ‘Water Pumps’.

Views

9.18 Views to River Great Ouse - south to north (Annex 7).

Uses and activity

9.19 Only residential C3 dwelling houses.

Ambience

9.20 River Great Ouse creates a silent ambient location around the natural areas contributing

to local amenity.

P 39/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

10 Village Edge

General character area overview

10.1 Peripheral rural area consisting of contemporary buildings (Garden Centre and a car

body shop) with a low FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.20, car parks in front of the Garden

Centre and a playground.

Layout

10.2 Rectangular plots with single buildings on the southern edge of the property line have

a large parking area to the front, next to residential areas in the east.

Roads, street, routes

10.3 Accessed from Radwell Road in south (vehicular and pedestrian) and Rushden Road in

north (mostly vehicular).

Spaces

10.4 There is a large playing field in the middle of the character area and two car parks

adjacent to the Garden Centre and car body shop.

P 40/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Buildings and details

10.5 One storey contemporary buildings with completely different design characteristics, low

pitch gambled metalic roofs and red and orange bridle brick for elevations which have

a limited relationship with local residential character.

Landmarks

10.6 Milton Ernest Garden Centre is considered a local landmark and part of the Heritage

Trail and it hosts the Post Office, retail, art supplies, a coffee shop and gardening shop.

Although separate from the village ‘core’ the location is likely to provide an important

role for the local community and appeared well-used.

Green and natural features

10.7 The green fields adjacent to Radwell Road give a good view to the natural rural edge of

the village.

Streetscape features

10.8 The streetscape is strongly influenced by contemporary elements in terms of signage,

boundary treatment (iron fence in north), combination of asphalt and pavement (in

south).

Views

10.9 No significant views.

Uses and activity

10.10 Retail: A1 Shops

Car Body Shop: B2/B8 General Industrial and Storage

Leisure & Recreation: Playground

P 41/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Ambience

10.11 Milton Ernest Garden Centre creates the impression of a "potential future community hub" on the edge of the village.

10.12 North of the area (the car body shop) disrupts the perception of rural character of the village due to the reasonably intensive commercial nature of the uses.

P 42/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 1 - Local materials

Traditional roof materials and colour

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Slate tile 4. Plain dark brown concrete tile

2. Plain red clay tile 5. Thatch

3. Plain brown clay or concrete tile 6. Curved shingles

Typical wall materials and colours

7 8 9 10 11 12

7. Stone 10. White painted brick

8. Red brick 11. Pastel coloured textured render

9. Orange brindle brick 12. Stucco

P 43/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 2 - Local architecture

Windows and Bays

Dormers

Porches, canopies, orangeries

P 44/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Chimneys

Eaves detail

The photographs illustrate some of the more frequently used building elements on the historic buildings in and around Milton Ernest. These elements could be considered representative of the local vernacular. The images are included as inspiration for future reserved matters applications where contemporary interpretations of these historic forms could help to create a locally distinctive character for the new neighbourhood.

P 45/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 3 - Textures & Materials

P 46/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

P 47/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 4 - Roof Types

P 48/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 5 - Signage & Objects

P 49/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

P 50/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 6 – Gardens, Boundary Treatments, Green Features HISTORIC MEDIAN

P 51/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

HISTORIC EASTERN

P 52/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

70s-80s

P 53/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

80s-90s

P 54/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Annex 7 - Views & Landmarks

Queens Head Hotel (Credits: G. Lokey)

All Saints Church Aerial View

P 55/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

All Saints Church – View from Church Green

The Old Vicarage – View from Thurleigh Road

All Saints Church – View from Church Cl

P 56/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

North of Milton Ernest – View to Pre-60s character Area

North of Milton Ernest – Out of the settlement towards the wider rural landscape

River Great Ouse

P 57/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

Sources

Bedford Borough Council, 2014. Milton Ernest. [Online] Available at: http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/CommunityArchives/MiltonErnest/ [Accessed January 2017].

Google Maps, n.d. Milton Ernest. [Online] Available at: https://goo.gl/maps/KvVgZLU252p [Accessed January 2017].

Milton Ernest Parish Council, 2010. Parish Plan. [Online] Available at: http://milton-ernest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/finalreport.pdf [Accessed January 2017].

Milton Ernest Parish Council, n.d. Milton Ernest Parish Council Village Website. [Online] Available at: http://milton-ernest.co.uk/ [Accessed January 2017].

National Library of Scotland, n.d. Georeferenced Maps. [Online] Available at: http://maps.nls.uk/ [Accessed January 2017].

Newman, D., n.d. The Importance of Milton Ernest. [Online] Available at: http://milton-ernest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/miltontrail.pdf [Accessed January 2017].

Wikipedia, n.d. Milton Ernest. [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Ernest [Accessed January 2017].

P 58/59 January 2017

TROY PLANNING + DESIGN Milton Ernest - Character Assessment (THP174)

About Us

Troy Planning + Design is a professional planning consultancy specialising in all aspects of strategic and community planning, working on a wide range of public and private sector planning, development, and design related assignments across the UK and the USA.

See more: troyplanning.com

P 59/59 January 2017

APPENDIX C

Bedford Borough Council Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan POST- EXAMINATION DECISION STATEMENT

Regulation 18 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)

This document is the decision statement required to be prepared under Regulation 18(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 (as amended). It sets out the response of Bedford Borough Council (“the Council”) to each of the recommendations contained within the independent examination report of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan (“the Plan”) by independent examiner David Hogger, which was received by the Council on 28 July 2021.

This decision statement, the independent examiner’s report and the submission version of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan and supporting documents can be viewed on the neighbourhood planning pages of the Council’s website.

BACKGROUND

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of neighbourhood plans and to take plans through a process of examination and referendum. The Localism Act 2011 (Part 6, Chapter 3) sets out the Local Planning Authority’s neighbourhood planning responsibilities.

This statement confirms that the modifications proposed in the examiner’s report have been considered and accepted and that subject to making the recommended modifications (and other minor modifications) the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan may now be submitted to referendum.

The Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan relates to the area that was designated by the Council as a Neighbourhood Area on 1 July 2013. This area is coterminous with the boundary of the parish of Milton Ernest and is entirely within the Local Planning Authority’s area.

Between 1 November to 13 December 2020, Milton Ernest Parish Council undertook consultation on the draft Plan in accordance with Regulation 14.

Following the submission of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan to the Council on 20 January 2021, the Council publicised the draft Plan for a six-week period and representations were invited in accordance with Regulation 16. This consultation took place between 26 February to 11 April 2021.

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION

The Council appointed David Hogger with the agreement of Milton Ernest Parish Council, to undertake the independent examination of the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan and to prepare a report of the independent examination.

The examiner examined the Plan by way of written representations supported by an unaccompanied site visit of the Neighbourhood Plan Area on 18 May 2021.

The examiner’s report was formally received by the Council on 28 July 2021. The report concludes that subject to making the modifications recommended by the examiner, the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation and should proceed to referendum. The examiner also recommends that the referendum area should be the same as the designated Neighbourhood Area, which is the same as the administrative boundary for Milton Ernest parish.

Following receipt of the examiner’s report, legislation requires that the Council considers each of the modifications recommended, the reasons for them, and decides what action to take. The Council is also required to consider whether to extend the area to be covered by the referendum.

DECISION AND REASONS

Having considered each of the recommendations made in the examiner’s report and the reasons for them, the Council has decided to accept all of the examiner’s recommended modifications to the draft Plan. These are set out in Table 1 below.

The Council considers that, subject to the modifications being made to the Plan as set out in Table 1 below, the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions explained in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), is compatible with the Human Rights Convention and that the requirements of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) have been met.

The examiner recommended that the Plan should proceed to a referendum based on the designated Neighbourhood Area. The Council has considered this recommendation and the reasons for it, and has decided to accept it. The referendum area for the final Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan will therefore be based on the designated Milton Ernest Parish Neighbourhood Area.

These decisions were made by the Mayor on behalf of the Council’s Executive on 20 August 2021.

As a consequence of the required modifications, the Council will alter the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan in order that it can proceed to referendum.

The Neighbourhood Plan document will be re-titled Referendum Version. The date for the referendum and further details will be publicised shortly once a date is set by the Council.

Table 1: Decisions on the Examiner’s Recommended Modifications to the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan Proposed Milton Ernest Examiner’s Report Recommended Modification and Bedford Borough Modification Neighbourhood Plan Reference Reason Council Number Reference Decision/reasoning PM1 Page 10 Insert new paragraph to In the interests of clarity, I therefore Agree with the read: recommend that the MENP includes modification for the After paragraph 2.25 a reference to the LDS, the Local reasons set out in the It should be noted that Plan Review and the potential for examiner’s report. Bedford Borough change to the Development Plan Council is in the policies as they relate to Milton process of reviewing Ernest the Bedford Local Plan. The adopted Local Development Scheme (February 2021) advises, in Appendix 5, that the Local Plan Review will be adopted in December 2023. This may have consequences for the MENP and the Parish Council will monitor the situation, as set out on page 48, to ensure that this document remains up-to-date. (Subsequent paragraph numbers will have to be changed). PM2 Page 18 Delete the second In the interests of clarity all issues Agree with the sentence of the Policy: relating to the allocation should be modification for the Policy ME C1 made in the Housing Chapter, thus reasons set out in the This includes avoiding unnecessary repetition or examiner’s report. development on land confusion. To that end I recommend allocated at Rushden the deletion of the second sentence Road for 25 homes and in Policy ME C1 open space. PM3 Page 19 Add a new paragraph I therefore recommend that a new Agree with the after 4.5 to read: paragraph is inserted after paragraph modification for the Paragraph 4.5 and 4.5 to clarify the situation and that reasons set out in the Policy ME C3 Paragraph 101 of the Policy ME C3 is amended accordingly examiner’s report. NPPF confirms that policies for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts. Modify the last sentence of the Policy to read: Planning applications for dDevelopment on the Locally Designated Green Spaces will not be permitted unless they perform a supplementary and supporting function to the Green Space it is consistent with national policy on Green Belts. PM4 Page 21 Delete from Figure 6 the The Parish Council has Agree with the area of front garden in acknowledged the error and has modification for the Figure 6: Green space Huntsmans Way which is agreed to remove the front garden reasons set out in the in Milton Ernest currently identified as a land from the designation, as (map) examiner’s report.

natural area. referenced ‘73G’ in the undated ‘Local Green Spaces, Milton Ernest Natural Areas and Other Important Environmental Regions’ background paper. PM5 Page 20 Modify the first sentence It should be made clear in Policy ME Agree with the of the Policy to read: C4 that any mitigation measures that modification for the Policy ME C4 are proposed must be capable of reasons set out in the Development that would satisfactory implementation, examiner’s report. have an adverse impact otherwise development will not be on the Milton Ernest approved. Natural Areas (MENA), as shown on figure 6, that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be approved. PM6 Page 24 Modify the second It should be made clear that the Agree with the sentence of the Policy to policy relates only to public views. modification for the Policy ME NE2 read: reasons set out in the examiner’s report. Open public views to key historical and natural features that define the village, as described in the Character Assessment, must be maintained and include: PM7 Page 24 Add the following This amendment is necessary in the Agree with the sentence to the Policy: interests of clarity. modification for the Policy ME NE3 reasons set out in the Any new access into the examiner’s report. site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation. PM8 Page 29 Modify the first sentence It would be unreasonable to expect Agree with the of the Policy to read: the retention of a community facility, if modification for the Policy ME CF1 it can be successfully demonstrated reasons set out in the Subject to the that such an approach would be examiner’s report. satisfactory unviable. Therefore, I recommend, in consideration of PM8, that a reference is made to viability issues Tthe viability in the introductory sentence following existing social of the policy. and community facilities should be protected from loss: PM9 Page 29 Modify bullet point 6 to Riverside Meadow is designated as Agree with the read: Local Green Space (Policy ME C3 on modification for the Policy ME CF1 Page 19) and that it can therefore be reasons set out in the The riverside frontage deleted from Policy ME CF1. examiner’s report. and other oOpen spaces, as shown on Figure 6; and… PM10 Page 30 Modify the first sentence It may be necessary for Agree with the to read: improvements to be made to existing modification for the Policy ME CF2 routes and that should be made clear reasons set out in the Where existing routes in the policy. examiner’s report. forming part of the Public Right of Way network run through proposed development sites the route shall be retained, where justified improved and incorporated into the development proposals. PM11 Page 28 Remove site 5 (Milton The Parish Council has confirmed Agree with the Ernest Hall) from Figure that this is an error and therefore I modification for the Figure 8 Community 8. recommend the removal of Milton reasons set out in the Facilities Ernest Hall (site 5) from Figure 8 examiner’s report.

PM12 Page 36 Modify the first sentence There is no substantive justification Agree with the of bullet point 1 to read: for referring to the 25 dwellings as modification for the Paragraph 8.5 being a maximum and consideration reasons set out in the Development of a may be given as to whether or not examiner’s report. minimum a maximum of that figure could justifiably be 25 new dwellings …. exceeded, without harm to matters of acknowledged importance. Therefore, I recommend the replacement of references to a maximum by a minimum. PM13 Page 38 Modify the first sentence There is no substantive justification Agree with the of the Policy to read: for referring to the 25 dwellings as modification for the Policy ME H1 being a maximum and consideration reasons set out in the Land at Rushden Road, may be given as to whether or not examiner’s report. identified on Figure 9 is that figure could justifiably be allocated for a maximum exceeded, without harm to matters of of to meet the Local acknowledged importance. Therefore, Plan 2030 minimum I recommend the replacement of requirement of 25 new references to a maximum by a homes in Milton Ernest. minimum PM14 Page 38 Add the following That additional wording be included Agree with the sentence at the end of in Policy ME H1 regarding the modification for the Policy ME H1 clause a): protection of the hedgerow. reasons set out in the examiner’s report. Any new access into the site allocated in Policy ME H1 should be designed to minimise the loss of existing vegetation and facilitate sensitively designed crossing and traffic calming schemes along Rushden Road. PM15 Page 38 and 39 Add a new clause d) to Neither zone is clearly identified on Agree with the Policy ME H1 to read: Figure 9. It is important that there is modification for the consistency between the text, the Policy ME H1 and d) A permanent buffer policies and any accompanying reasons set out in the Figure 9 zone, at least 5 metres plans. examiner’s report. wide, to screen the new buildings from overlooking residential properties to the west, south and east. On Figure 9 identify the location of both the 5 metre and 10 metre buffer zones. PM16 Page 38 Modify the second There is a requirement for emergency Agree with the sentence of clause a) to vehicles to be able to access the site modification for the

read: via Marsh Lane. reasons set out in the examiner’s report. For the avoidance of doubt, no vehicular access (with the exception of access for bicycles and emergency vehicles) from Marsh Lane will be permitted. PM17 Page 49 Modify the list of Statutory The Parish Council acknowledges Agree with the Heritage assets by that there are errors in Appendix A modification for the Appendix A deleting: and has agreed that they should be reasons set out in the removed. examiner’s report. • Chicheley War Memorial • Queen Annes almshouses • Silvergates and attached terrace; and The Dell, the Diamond and the Causeway PM18 Page 46/47 Add a new plan under the All the information is included on a Agree with the heading of Policies Map number of other plans in the modification for the which brings together in document (for example Figure 6 on reasons set out in the one place all the land use LGS and Figure 9: Rushden Road examiner’s report.

changes/protections site allocation) but it needs to be which are proposed in the brought together as a single up-to- policies of the MENP. date policies map.

August 2021