Friends of Riverside Established 1989 46, Throop Road, Bournemouth Dorset BH8 0BY 01202 392982 [email protected] www.bournemouthfriendsofriverside.org
22/01/2019
Dear Secretary of State,
We are writing to you to request that you call-in Bournemouth Borough Council’s Regulation 3 application for planning permission (application number 7-2018-9177-DL). This is an application for roads infrastructure that will in theory facilitate business park development (originally submitted as application 7-2017-9177-DH in December 2017). We set out the reasons for our request below. This request accompanies those made by Tobias Ellwood Bournemouth East MP and several other organisations and local representatives.
Given the Case Officer’s recommendations report released on Friday 18th January 2019, Bournemouth appears minded to grant itself permission for the above application, also known as the ‘A338-Wessex Fields Link’. The date of 28th January 2019 has been set for a Planning Board decision.
This proposal, were it to go ahead, would have significant and damaging consequences both for the immediate area and raise issues of national concern, in that it would damage Green Belt openness and set a disturbing precedent for further development on Green Belt and Conservation Area land. It would indicate that national legislation and regulation, as well as local development plans, could be set aside on the weakest of grounds, when it suited an applicant for this to happen.
As we will show, the proposal conflicts with numerous aspects of national legislation and regulation – e.g. as regards Sustainable Development, promotion of sustainable transport, Conservation Areas, protection of Green Belt land, promotion of Biodiversity, and Transport Analysis Guidance -, as well as with many aspects of Bournemouth’s own Local Plan and other relevant documents. It will also have negative consequences for local residents in terms of noise, air and light pollution, in particular for some of the most vulnerable residents i.e. those living at the Retired Nurses National Home.
Furthermore, we are extremely concerned as to how Bournemouth Borough Council, as applicant, land-owner and decision-maker has conducted itself throughout the planning process. The appointment of David Innes, Director of Blue Print Planning and Development Ltd., as the Case Officer, is of the utmost relevance.
1
Reference is made throughout this document to the concerns raised by Ms Sophie Edwards, who was Bournemouth Borough Council’s former Senior Planning Officer - and ‘A338- Wessex Fields Link’ Case Officer – until summer 2018. In her letter of 28th March 2018 to Claire Clark (A338-Wessex Fields Project Manager, Bournemouth International Growth (BIG) Programme) she set out her reasons for recommending refusal of the proposals (7-2017 9177-DH). A copy of this letter is attached as an appendix.
In addition to quoting her where appropriate – i.e. where her objections to 7-2017-9177-DH are relevant to 7-2018-9177-DL -, more detail is given in: ‘9.5 The former Senior Planning Officer’s letter’, ‘9.6 The appointment of David Innes’ and ‘9.9 David Innes’ recommendations report’.
All italics and highlights are my own unless otherwise stated.
Policy and statutory considerations
The Bournemouth development plan consists of a number of documents, those relevant to this case being the Bournemouth Core Strategy (CS) (2012) and the saved policies of the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan (2002). Also of relevance is the Christchurch Local Plan 2001 (saved policies) and the Core Strategy (2014):
The National Planning Policy Framework and other guidance – e.g. Department of Transport Transport Analysis Guidance - is also of relevance.
Emerging local plan
In September 2017, Bournemouth Council released its ‘Initial Stakeholder Consultation and Request for Potential Development Sites, Bournemouth Local Plan Review (Regulation 18)’. The next step is for the publication for consultation of a ‘Local Plan and Issues and possible options’ document. By the date of submission of this request, the Council had confirmed that they were currently not able to progress the LPR due to a number of issues, one of which being the upcoming merger with Poole and Christchurch councils.
The emerging plan is thus at a very early stage and thus limited weight should be given to any potential changes. Conversely, given the early stage of the Local Plan process, we would argue – for reasons set out below – that if planning permission is granted at all, it should not be granted until the process is complete (or very close to being so). Furthermore, Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Councils are in the process of merging and it is far from certain that the application would receive the support of the new authority.
2
Sophie Edwards had the following to say as regards the upcoming restructuring of local authorities:
“Need for the right solution for long term
It is noted that the business case includes other options to a road bridge, such as linking with the existing Blackwater Junction. It would seem sensible to further investigate the wider options and work together with neighbouring authorities (potentially under the new merged authority) to get the right long term solution for Bournemouth and the wider area; as opposed to rushing ahead with something that doesn’t even have full funding”.
As far as this is concerned, nothing has changed between application 7-2017-9177-DH and 7-2018-9177-DL. David Innes does not address this issue in his recommendations report.
Main issues
1. Green Belt
The Secretary of State’s right to ‘call-in’ as regards Green Belt matters is confirmed in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
At 133. the NPPF says: “The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence.”
At Paragraph 134. it states that Green Belt serves five purposes:
“to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built up areas; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land”.
Paragraph 141. highlights the fact that “local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged or derelict land.”
Paragraph 144. makes it very clear that “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt.”
3
Paragraph 146. allows for local transport infrastructure developments in the Green Belt “provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt...”
These stipulations are reflected in Policy CS37 ‘Green Belt’ of the Bournemouth Core Strategy, which also goes on to say that at ‘4.5.19’:
“It” (i.e. the Green Belt) “will also continue to protect the identities of the villages of Throop and Holdenhurst”.
The policy itself states: “inappropriate development will include any development which does not maintain the openness of the land...”
In developing these proposals, the Council has shown itself to be entirely indifferent to the inherent value of Green Belt (the ‘five principal purposes’ as given above).
A review of the plan’s development to date shows just how little value the Council placed on Green Belt. The Council’s ‘A338 information pages’ at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/A338info give both it and the Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area only cursory mention. The public exhibitions on the original application held in March 2017 and February 2018 did not highlight these designations at all (no public exhibitions have been held for the new application).
The Planning Statements released with both the original and new planning applications, show no indication that the Council recognises the seriousness of damaging Green Belt. In an attempt to justify the scheme’s location, the Planning Statements list the five principal purposes of Green Belt, then going on to state with no justification:
“The scheme will not lead to the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, will not lead to neighbouring towns merging into one another, will assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and will not adversely affect the setting or special character of historic towns. The scheme will assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of urban land and as such it is considered that the proposed scheme does not conflict with the Green Belt purposes.”
It is hardly surprising they do this perhaps, since the proposals actually fail on at least four of the five principals i.e.
● they clearly contribute to urban sprawl on the edge of Bournemouth. They consist of large-scale roads infrastructure placed on farmland between Townsend Housing Estate and Holdenhurst Village on the west side of the A338 and farmland between Royal Bournemouth Hospital and fields leading to Play Golf Bournemouth on the east side. The land to the west is both Green Belt and conservation area land, whilst the land to the east is, in part, Green Belt land. The road scheme in itself will add to urban sprawl and it should be remembered that the primary purpose of the scheme is to facilitate business park development on the east side of the A338, which would further add to such sprawl.
4
● they encroach on the countryside and, having set a precedent, could potentially allow for further development in the Green Belt and Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area to the west of the A338;
● they cut through the Holdenhurst Village Conservation area, damaging the character of this historic place, mentioned in the Domesday Book;
● they are not indicative of a Council attempting to find urban sites to recycle. As we have set out in our substantial objections case, there are appropriate sites for such development – e.g. Lansdowne Business District – and no meaningful attempt has been made to avoid building on Green Belt and conservation area land.
The Planning Statement discusses the ‘need’ for a Green Belt location, the three ‘sustainable transport’ options being discounted because they “would not resolve the existing transport issues”. This is highly disingenuous, given that the scheme’s primary purpose is to facilitate further development i.e. not primarily to deal with existing congestion issues. Investment in sustainable transport modes would certainly help resolve the ‘existing’ situation and would not require Green Belt land to do so.
In fact, the Council clearly never had any intention other than to build on Green Belt land – having spent £2.25m to purchase it in January 2017, now two years in advance of planning permission potentially being granted - and it is unsurprising that they have ‘objectively’ demonstrated a need to do so.
Addressing the issue of ‘openness’ the Council attempts to maintain that “the scheme will not impact upon the openness of the Green Belt for the following reasons:
● The proposed scheme is in an area of urban fringe that includes an existing footbridge within the Green Belt which is to be removed as part of the proposed scheme. As such the proposed bridge, located further west of the existing footbridge, although it is slightly larger, will not result in any material additional impact on the openness of the Green Belt in this location.
●Planting is proposed on the scheme embankments that will help assimilate the scheme into the landscape.“
In no way can the proposed bridge be said to be only ‘slightly larger’ than the current footbridge. This is obvious from the scheme maps enclosed with this document, which show the entire structure, with bridge ramps and retaining walls, stretching out across the fields (Green Belt land) on both sides of the A338 (the total span length being over 80m). The footbridge in comparison is only a few metres wider than the width of the A338 (c20m). It will be impossible to see through the retaining walls, giving the lie to the Council’s argument that openness will not be materially adversely impacted.
5
In its Environmental Statement (Chapter 9. Landscape and Visual), the applicant acknowledges that its proposals will damage the character of the landscape (slight adverse for two of three Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs)) and have numerous adverse visual impacts from slight to moderate.
In her letter, Ms Edwards highlighted the fact that:
“there would be a negative visual impact from the scheme, which has a very utilitarian and functional appearance... in the context of the more sensitive countryside landscape – including the conservation area – and as a gateway to Bournemouth the visual impact is less appropriate.”
It should be noted that as far as landscape mitigation is concerned, the proposals remain largely unchanged in the new application.
Furthermore, the High Court judgement in the case of Boot v Elmbridge Borough Council (December 6th 2016) makes it clear that damage to ‘openness’, no matter how small, is unacceptable. In addition, any benefits that might result from the development, or any mitigation measures undertaken, are irrelevant.
Whilst the judgement focused upon paragraph 89. of the NPPF (2012) – i.e. including the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport – and roads infrastructure is covered by paragraph 90., the relevance of this judgement to the A338-Wessex Fields Link proposals is clear, as Landmark Chambers, one of the UK’s leading Planning and Environmental Law firms confirmed in a statement after the judgement1:
“This interpretation of the proviso in the second bullet point of paragraph 89. of the NPPF is likely equally to apply to paragraph 90. of the NPPF which provides that certain changes of use are not inappropriate development provided they ‘preserve the openness of the Green Belt’”. The relevant NPPF (2018) paragraphs are 145. & 146.
The applicant realises that it may not convince the Local Planning Authority that openness will remain ‘materially’ undamaged – the High Court decision making any arguments as to ‘material’ damage irrelevant anyway -, going on to say:
“If, however the LPA is of the view that the proposed scheme will impact on the openness of the Green Belt it is considered that very special circumstances can be demonstrated such that any harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. These are detailed below.
●The proposed scheme provides economic benefits and addresses the problems that are set out in Section 2 of this Statement, including the delivery of the Riverside Avenue Employment Site, reducing congestion and providing a second access to the hospital. The existing highway network is unsuitable to accommodate the level and type of traffic that development on the Riverside Avenue Employment Site will generate and any scheme
1 www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news.aspx?id=4545
6 which provides north bound access onto the A338 will require the construction of a new bridge with embankments.
●Development of the Riverside Avenue Employment Site without the support of the proposed scheme is forecast to have significant capacity implications on the existing highway network.”
In a wonderfully self-justificatory piece of reasoning, the report writers thus essentially contend that since they intend to create a problem by going ahead with the Riverside Avenue employment site, they will need to find a solution. As is clear from their own Transport Assessment, far from reducing current local congestion problems, they will further exacerbate them. The obvious answer is not to exacerbate them in the first place.
The argument that the Royal Bournemouth Hospital would benefit from a second access route is similarly disingenuous. Whilst such a route, built solely for this purpose, might help address some congestion issues, the fact of the matter is that the primary purpose of the application is to facilitate further development which will significantly increase the numbers of cars on the local network. In an astonishing display of ‘Alice-in-Wonderland’ logic, the Hospital has effectively agreed to accept a scheme that will increase its congestion problems.
Furthermore, as the applicant’s own Socio-Economic Statement makes clear, the Riverside Avenue employment site is not of particular importance:
“The Riverside Avenue employment site would have a minor beneficial impact on employment at the local level (Bournemouth), when considering Phase 1 separately (25% operation) as well as both Phases 1 and 2 together (100% operation)”.
It should be further highlighted that the applicant has failed to provide the public with a master plan for the Wessex Fields site, leaving us in the dark as to any potential development. We are told that this master plan will be provided after planning permission is granted, a highly unusual and frankly unacceptable situation. In her letter, Ms Sophie Edwards made her concern plain:
“No proper assessment of how employment land would cater for 2000 jobs, appears to be an arbitrary figure.”
Statements made at Bournemouth International Growth (BIG) programme Stakeholder Meetings suggesting that some of the jobs will in fact be ‘re-locations’ from elsewhere in Bournemouth seem to support this belief.
7
The failure to prove ‘very special circumstances’
In the Planning Statement, the authors admit that they may not be able to convince the Planning Board that the scheme will not harm Green Belt openness. Thus they try to argue that there are ‘very special circumstances’ to overcome this consideration.
As indicated above, the congestion argument falls at the first hurdle. As far as the ‘need’ for 200 jobs is concerned - covered in further depth in ‘2. Sustainable Development’-, the Riverside Avenue employment site is far from ‘necessary’ given the number of alternatives available across the local area and the mooted economic benefits will in fact be minor – if there are any at all; questionable given the lack of publicly available plans. ‘Very special circumstances’ have not been shown to exist.
David Innes’ report
In his report, David Innes mistakenly claims that the openness of the Green Belt will not be affected. At paragraph 107. he conflates access with openness in that he asserts that the provision of a public nature reserve preserves ‘openness’. The ‘openness’ – i.e. the ability to see across a landscape - will have been damaged by the retaining walls and gabions of the proposed flyover, however.
At paragraph 113. he further employs a convoluted and essentially empty argument to insist that ‘openness’ will not be damaged:
“development of the proposed junction would not impact on the openness of the green belt in the corridor of land between the built up area of Bournemouth and the River Stour because of the restricted area of the site in comparison to the wider green belt area and due to the proposal involving the construction of a road adjacent to the A338. The new road would be seen in the context of the existing road.
Adjacent to Holdenhurst Village, the road would be constructed at ground level so a visual gap would be retained. The embankment would be constructed to the southern end of the site, away from Holdenhurst Village so that views would still be available across the corridor of Green Belt land between the development and the Village. Openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt has been considered in the design.”
Apparently admitting some impact on openness, without actually saying so, David Innes appears to be unaware that the Boot v Elmbridge Borough Council judgement renders all such hair-splitting irrelevant: no damage to ‘openness’ is allowed under the NPPF, no matter how small.
Furthermore, in telling us that “views would still be available across the corridor of Green Belt land between the development and the Village” he conveniently forgets to mention the fact that this only applies to views looking south (see attached proposals maps). For people walking or cycling north from the Townsend Estate area, their current views across the
8
Green Belt towards Holdenhurst Village will be lost, presented as they will be by the retaining walls of the proposed flyover.
In their response to the application, the Council’s own Design and Heritage team have this to say about visual impact:
“This is a significant area that is highly valued at local level and as a largely unchanged historic landscape is sensitive to change, especially large scale change such as the proposed road bridge.
Not moderate sensitivity.
I disagree that the magnitude of the adverse impact would be minor, and that the long term adverse impact would be slight.
I disagree that there would be no significant effects on landscape character across the three landscape areas assessed. I remain particularly concerned about the visual impact of Phase 2 from the Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area. In my opinion the assessment conclusion of slight adverse impact is an underestimate. I am concerned that the proposal would have a lasting negative impact on the eastern part of the Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area and its setting.”
David Innes refers several times to the Inspector’s decision at the Troika Inquiry in 2007 (ref: APP/G1250/A/06/2020319 – dated 6 March 2007). In a ruling confirmed by the Secretary of State, the Inspector found that a similar scheme at the same site would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This ruling did not refer to ‘openness’ at all as a consideration, and in any event predates the NPPF and Boot v Elmbridge Borough Council.
At paragraph 117. David Innes tells us:
“Third party representations have raised concerns that the proposed development would set a precedent for further development in the Green Belt and encourage urban sprawl. This proposal would not set a precedent for further development given this infrastructure project has been held to be “not inappropriate” development in the Green Belt. The proposed development does not include a road link into the Green Belt to the north of the site so a gateway is not being created.”
The proposal is clearly “inappropriate” since it will in fact damage openness and will thus set a precedent for the very development referred to above.
Conclusion
The applicant has given no weight whatsoever to the importance of the Green Belt in its deliberations and its proposals will have an impact on its openness. This means that it is ‘inappropriate development’, yet it has failed to show that ‘very special circumstances’ exist
9 and there is no justification for withholding the Master Plan until after permission is granted.
Neither Ms Edwards’ nor the Council’s own Design and Heritage Team’s concerns have been addressed in the new planning application.
2. Sustainable Development
NPPF Paragraph 8. states: “Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the three objectives).
The three objectives are ‘economic’, ‘social’ and ‘environmental’. As regards the latter the NPPF says:
“to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.”
The presumption in favour of sustainable development
The NPPF makes clear that both for ‘plan-making’ and ‘decision-making’, there are severe restrictions on proposals that affect “land designated as Green Belt”, “designated heritage assets” and “areas at risk of flooding”. These all apply to the proposals site.
This is reflected in Policy CS1 of the Bournemouth Core Strategy and Policy KS1 of the Christchurch Core Strategy.
The proposals are contrary to the NPPF paragraphs above and Policies CS1 and KS1 because they effectively ignore the restrictions placed upon development in sites such as this which meet many of the above criteria (Green Belt, Flood Risk Zone, Conservation Area).
The ‘need’ for further development
In the applicant’s Outline Business Case 2018 ‘2.2 Business Strategy – Economic Growth: Dorset Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)’ the SEP is quoted as follows:
“Employment provides our core focus. It is our key measure for successful growth and our main ambition”.
At ‘2.4 Impact of not changing’, the report tells us:
“The key, allocated, undeveloped Riverside Avenue employment site cannot be ‘unlocked’ in planning terms...There are few allocated employment sites in Bournemouth. The allocated 6.07ha Riverside Avenue employment site is particularly important as it is ideally situated
10 adjacent to the A338 Wessex Way. However, it requires a new transport access on to the A338.
Without the new A338/Wessex Fields Link the allocated 6.07ha Riverside Avenue Employment Site would remain “locked” in planning terms and the potential 2000 jobs would not be created which would have significant detrimental impact upon the forecast economic potential4 of the Bournemouth area and the realisation of LEP and Government economic growth objectives”.
As to the number of allocated sites, there are 14 listed in the Core Strategy. Examination of the floor space available at these sites at the beginning of 2018 – undertaken by research using Goadsby and other commercial property sites -, show that there was c3150m2 available in properties ranging in size from 175m2 at Elliot Road, to c900m2 at the Lansdowne.
A Freedom of Information request to Bournemouth earlier in 2017 resulted in data being provided which showed that in March of that year, there was a total ‘Office List EGi’ floorspace availability across Bournemouth of 26,283m2. A number of subtractions from this figure were made to take into account ‘appeal sites’, sites not finished or withdrawn. The ‘final availability’ was shown as 6,988m2, with a ‘vacancy rate’ of 2.6%
The number of ‘new’ – i.e. A grade – properties was listed as 7 (11,559m2): less appeal and unfinished sites, a total availability of 1,146m2.
By early 2018, a property search at www.propertylinkestatesgazette.com showed at least 31 office sites available – or due to become available - across Bournemouth, of which 8 were A grade. These A grade properties gave a total combined office space of c18,950m2. Two of these sites are the Lansdowne Oxford Point and Digital Point sites, due to come on the market in September 2018 and 19, respectively (a combined floorspace of c13,000m2). Thus, the availability of A grade properties in January 2018 was almost 6000m2, an increase of c500% on March 2017. Theoretically, – i.e. without any of the properties being let - final addition of the two Lansdowne sites would mean a huge 16-fold increase in A grade office space availability compared to March 2017.
In its public statements (see the Wessex fields page on the Council’s website), Bournemouth has quoted Co-Star, a national commercial property database as providing evidence that “currently, the supply of vacant offices in Bournemouth is under 2%”. However, in discussions with Co-Star, they told us that this figure is “not likely to be accurate”, since they do not list all commercial properties on their site.
None of this, of course, takes account of the Aviation Business Park development site at Bournemouth Airport, which according to the LEP’s 2016 brochure ‘Business Space at Bournemouth Airport’, holds 60ha of development land, dwarfing that at Riverside Avenue by 10 times. The report predicts that the Bournemouth International Growth Programme
11 will lead to “10,000 new highly skilled jobs over the next decade” at the airport site, leading it to become “the single largest employment site in the South East Dorset conurbation”.
Any attempt by Bournemouth to claim that since the Aviation Business Park lies outside of the borough it is not relevant to employment considerations in the town would be entirely disingenuous. Many of the potential employees would, of course, live in Bournemouth and pay taxes and spend money there.
The Council consistently claims that the jobs to be provided by the Riverside Avenue site would meet local needs, but the current levels of unemployment in Bournemouth are nationally low: the Labour Market Profile (www.nomisweb.co.uk) shows that between October 2017 and September 2018, model-based unemployment in the town stood at 3.5%, significantly lower than the GB figure of 4.2%.
More recently, both the CEO of Dorset Chamber of Commerce Ian Girling and Bournemouth Council Leader John Beesley have gone on public record to highlight the serious recruitment problems faced by businesses across the conurbation.
As highlighted before, it is obvious that proposals for such infrastructure should only be given planning permission – if at all - when plans for the associated development(s) are made publicly available for scrutiny. It should also be obvious that any statements on the potential economic impact of the associated development(s) – e.g. number of jobs etc. -, should be treated with extreme caution.
Retention of jobs in the Wessex Fields area i.e. Royal Bournemouth Hospital, other businesses
Bournemouth Borough Council claims that the current c10,000 jobs in the Wessex Fields area will be at risk if measures are not taken to deal with congestion problems on the local roads network. They quote support for their plans from the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and local businesses. In their joint statement, the businesses at Wessex Fields say that
“a full, effective and sustainable resolution will require strategic investment in increasing the capacity of the local road infrastructure”(my italics).
This statement is highly ironic, given that sustainable transport does not include the private car.
Furthermore, at Outline Business Case 2018 ‘2.3.12’, the report writers tell us that:
“In addition to the above” i.e. the 10,000 jobs quoted “through Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC) discussions with employers it has been indicated that not all buildings are currently fully occupied. Some businesses have indicated to BBC that they would consider expanding their operations within the existing footprint of their sites should the traffic issues be resolved, which would lead to new jobs being created”.
12
The implications for traffic levels have not been taken into account in the Council’s assessments, however. And as always, the ‘Alice-in-Wonderland’ answer to congestion is to introduce more cars to the area.
As will be obvious to the reader by now, the plans were never primarily about easing local point congestion (if they were, they would be for an entry/exit route, solely for the use of the Hospital, with no extra development). Rather they are about accessing Growth Fund money for development; development which will inevitably increase the burden of traffic on the local network and lead to associated rises in noise, air, light and water run-off pollution, whilst at the same time destroying a route well-loved by cyclists and walkers. Hardly an attractive prospect.
Many people – including many commuters to the Wessex Fields site – will be left worse off than in 2019, if the Council insists in going ahead. How this situation will help to retain jobs in the area is anyone’s guess.
Conclusion
The proposals focus entirely on the ‘economic’ pillar of sustainable development almost to the complete exclusion of the ‘social’ and ‘environmental’ pillars, but cannot even provide solid evidence-based argument for the former.
3. Conservation Areas
It is beyond doubt that the planning application conflicts with national policy on the protection of Conservation Areas, per the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Section 16. of The NPPF (‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’) sets out clearly that local authorities should recognise the importance due to heritage assets.
It goes on to highlight the fact that local planning authorities should take into account the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits conservation of the historic environment can bring.
In its own 2014 ‘Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area Appraisal2’, the Council plainly states the damage any new A338 road proposals would cause:
“An additional junction on the edge of the Conservation Area would again result in a significant increase in traffic noise and visual intrusion” (note here that the current proposals actually go through, rather than run adjacent to, the Conservation Area).
However, in its planning application the applicant now contradicts and downplays these earlier findings.
2 See www.bournemouth.gov.uk ‘conservation areas in Bournemouth’
13
In its Advice Note for Planning Authorities, ‘Conservation Area designation, appraisal and management’, Historic England makes it clear that there is a legislative obligation to ‘preserve and/or enhance’ Conservation Areas. The A338-Wessex Fields Link proposals can in no way be said to meet either of these requirements and the Environmental Impact Assessment released with the planning application confirms this, finding that Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area will suffer ‘moderate adverse’ effects due to the scheme.
The planning application is also contrary to Policies 39 (‘Designated heritage assets’) & 40 (‘Local heritage assets’) of the Bournemouth Local Plan ‘Core Strategy’, which assert that they will ‘protect them from proposals that will adversely affect’ - and ‘only support development that sustains or enhances’ -, their significance.
The proposals are also contrary to Policies PC4 (‘The rural economy’) and HE3 (‘Landscape quality) of the Christchurch Core Strategy and BE4 of the Christchurch Local Plan saved policies (‘New development in conservation areas’).
In her letter, Sophie Edwards makes it clear that “In heritage terms the proposed solution” – i.e. the proposal – “has a number of substantial negative impacts, both to the setting of the conservation area and the conservation area itself”.
She then goes on to list 15 negative impacts, including, for example, noise, loss of agricultural land, urbanised setting, impact upon conservation area and the Village Hall, and loss of good quality trees (B and C quality). The only significant change made in the new planning application is the removal of the threat to demolish the 500 year old Cob Barn. It should be noted that despite this ‘promise’, according to the Planning Statement, the Barn, which is in the Council’s care and has been allowed to deteriorate, will not be refurbished until after the completion of Phase 2, sometime in the 2030s. It is this author’s opinion that it is highly unlikely the structure will survive this duration.
The David Innes report
At paragraph 217. the Case Officer accepts that the Conservation Area will suffer as a result of the development:
“It has been clear that there are no alternatives that will remove the heritage objection, and while the ES states that the impact will be ‘moderate adverse’ (ES 8.8.2); the Heritage Officer deems it ‘significant adverse’”.
Highlighted earlier in section ‘1. Green Belt’ the Design and Heritage Team’s continuing objections confirm the relative indifference with which the applicant - and in light of his assessment, the Case Officer – view the need to protect a Conservation Area.
14
In further comments, the Design and Heritage Team tell us:
“Objection Impact on CA and its setting would be significant. Harm requires justification and should be weighed against public benefit. Phase 2 would detrimentally encroach on the south west corner of the CA and result in an adverse impact on Holdenhurst Village, substantially exacerbating a negative feature within the setting of the CA.
Phase 1 is of a lesser impact. Retaining the Cob barn is deemed to lessen the impact on the CA, although its retention leads to a wider bridge span. New hedging/woodland would minimise visual intrusion and help with noise impact. Road would interfere with the setting of the village Hall and the Cob Barn. Slip lane would be closer to Holdenhurst Farm. Balancing pond may confuse the history of the settlement, which has evidence of old ponds.”
Ironically, whilst the Design and Heritage Team feel that Phase 1 is of lesser impact, the changes to Phase 2 – i.e. the retention of the Cob Barn - have resulted in a longer bridge span which further increases the damage to openness of the Green Belt.
At paragraph 218. David Innes quotes Historic England’s response:
“the proposals will still cause harm to the character and appearance of the Holdenhurst Conservation Area; its rural character and agricultural origins will be fundamentally altered by the presence of a large new road bridge. However, the retention and restoration of the cob barn suggest that the harm has been minimised, in line with the guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework”.
Thus, Historic England confirm that the CA will suffer ‘fundamental’ - i.e. negative - change. It may be that retention of the barn ‘minimises’ harm, but the whole matter smacks of threatening an extreme event, then withdrawing the threat, in order to gain support for proposals that are still fundamentally damaging.
Referring back to the 2007 appeal decision, David Innes quotes the Inspector:
“I appreciate that there would be a change in the setting of the Conservation Area. The new interchange would serve to emphasise and give greater prominence to the presence of the adjoining main highway and its related structures. However, the road is peripheral to the Conservation Area. The rural feel of the village would still predominate.
Having regard to the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I conclude that there would be no material effect on the character and appearance of the Holdenhurst Village East Conservation Area.” (Inspector’s Report Para 256.)
15
The Secretary of State agreed that “there would be no material effect on the character and appearance of the Holdenhurst Village East Conservation Area.” (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government letter 15 May 2007 Para SS20.)
It is unacceptable to quote as facts things that are no longer the case. The proposals are now not peripheral to the Conservation Area, as they were in 2007, but cut a swath through it, following its extension in 2014.
The reason for the extension was clearly to provide the area with greater protection, something the Council now wishes to ignore.
Conclusion
Contrary to national guidance to ‘preserve and enhance’, the proposals will cause significant damage to the ancient village of Holdenhurst and its Conservation Area, setting a precedent for further damaging development across such supposedly protected areas.
4. Areas at risk of flooding
NPPF Paragraph 155. makes it clear that “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”
At 158. the NPPF highlights the Sequential Test for flood risk: “...to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding”.
Paragraph 163. states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere...”
Saved Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan Policy 3.28 ‘Flooding’ makes it clear that any new development “will not be permitted in, or in the vicinity of, areas liable to flood...where it would...increase flooding risks elsewhere...”.
The proposals lie in part in Environment Agency Flood in Zones 1, 2 & 3. The scheme also sits within an Environment Agency Flood Warning Area.
The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) released with the planning application very conveniently makes only passing mention of the Sequential Test, having already concluded that the scheme is deemed appropriate in the proposed location “as long as the exception test is passed”. The Council appears to believe that by classing the scheme as ‘essential infrastructure’, it negates the need to apply the Sequential Test.
This is wrong, however. The Technical Guidance to the NPPF defines ‘essential infrastructure’ as including “essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation
16 routes) which has to cross the area at risk”. Thus, this definition does not necessarily apply to the proposal and the Council’s argument essentially amounts to “because we want the scheme to go through this area, we will class it as essential”, a very beneficial loop of reasoning.
As must be repeated again, the primary purpose of the scheme is to facilitate large-scale office/business park development and the Exception Test can only be applied after the Sequential Test for development – i.e. town centre, edge of town centre, out of town - has been passed.
Given that the Council has not undertaken any assessment of cumulative impact – i.e. of road scheme and office development combined -, the situation may later arise that planners turn down plans based on a FRA that will have to take this into account. Thus, the plans are contrary to the NPPF without clear explanation as to how they meet the Sequential Test.
Conclusion
Until we know the specifics of any future development on the Riverside Avenue employment site – through a publically available master plan for buildings and parking spaces provided before planning permission is sought -, it is impossible to assess cumulative impact and thus produce meaningful assessments of overall flood risk.
5. Biodiversity
5.1 Biodiversity net gains
The National Planning Policy Framework (2018) makes it clear that achieving net gains for biodiversity is not discretionary3:
“170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
The applicant produced a ‘Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment’ (Environmental Statement Appendices, Appendix 10.14) and submitted this along with its application. This report
3 Please note, of stipulations a-f at 170., I have only included those relevant to the planning application.
17 states plainly that the scheme will cause significant damage to biodiversity and furthermore, any mitigation measures undertaken – including the creation of a nature reserve – will at best result in “no net loss in biodiversity”, something that is contrary to NPPF 170., which calls for “net gains”. Thus:
“4.1.2. The Proposed Scheme will result in the loss of 68.78 BUs generated by woodland, scrub, arable and grassland habitats. Using the post-development unit calculation, and the landscape planning, the Proposed Scheme will only achieve a creation of 18.09 BUs.
4.1.4. The Proposed Scheme will result in the loss of 3,690 LUs. In terms of habitat recreation this equates to 3,690m of hedgerow planting required for the Proposed Scheme to achieve no net loss of linear habitats. However, the creation of only 2,234m of hedgerow has been considered for the Proposed Scheme.
5.1.2. The Proposed Scheme will have a net loss in terms of both BUs (-50.7) and LUs (- 1,456)” (assessment authors’ own highlighting).
At “5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS”, the assessment tells us that:
“5.2.1. The Applicant is committed to achieving the following measures recommended by the BNG assessment:
Seek to improve biodiversity by restoring habitats within the application site boundary, thus minimising off-site requirements. Areas within the landscape design currently without a specific assigned planting regime should be recreated to contribute to no net-loss of biodiversity (e.g. by planting species-rich grassland on roadside verges or in other areas currently not earmarked for such habitat) in order to minimise the in-site biodiversity net loss.
It will not be possible to deliver the amount of ecological compensation required within the Proposed Scheme footprint (50.7 BU and 1456LU). Therefore, in order to achieve no net loss, a Nature Reserve in the south of the Proposed Scheme should be created for habitat compensation. The Nature Reserve currently comprises mainly semi-improved species-poor grassland and semi-natural broadleaved woodland.”
Furthermore, the Outline Business Case (Rev 4. October 2018) tells us at “3.10 Environmental impacts – biodiversity” that the impact on biodiversity will be ‘neutral’. This once again confirms that the applicant does not expect to achieve “net gains” and thus the scheme is contrary to this requirement of the NPPF.
The David Innes report
The Case Officer tells us at paragraph 20.:
“Natural England 16/11/18 – no objection subject to conditions. No net loss in biodiversity with residual net gains compliant with NPPF.
18
Whilst this may be what Natural England has said, as explained earlier they have no reason for doing so. The applicant’s own Biodiversity Net Gains Assessment never says that “net gains” – residual or otherwise – will be achieved. We can only speculate at the reasons for Natural England’s assertions.
5.2 Veteran trees
Veteran trees have been given the highest level of protection possible in the new NPPF (2018):
“175. c) Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;”
Strangely, the Council’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Rev 1 October 2018) still quotes the old 2012 NPPF:
“4.2.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) includes relevant guidance in chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Paragraph 118 of this chapter includes an expectation that planning permission should be refused where it results in the loss of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees ‘unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss’.
Given the significant increase in protection provided by NPPF 2018, and given that the applicant has not been able to show “wholly exceptional reasons”, this mistake is extremely important.
In its discussion of Root Protection Areas (RPAs), the Assessment tells us that:
“5.3.5. It is therefore recommended that, unless there is an overriding reason, all development (e.g. structures, hard surfacing, level changes and underground services) is excluded from the RPA, as defined in the British Standard.”
This refers to British Standard 5837, the assessment authors stating that:
“For a single stem tree, this is typically a circle with a radius 12 times the stem diameter. However, it does not account for significant future growth of the tree.”
However, at “5.3.6”, the assessment goes on to say that:
“There are other ways of assessing the RPA’s. For veteran trees including “Ancient and other Veteran Trees: further guidance on management” by the Ancient Tree Forum, 2013. This states an RPA of at least 15 times stem diameter is recommended.”
19
At “6.2 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DIRECT IMPACTS Phase 1”, we are told:
“6.2.2. Veteran Trees: The survey has identified the potential for a single Veteran Tree (VT41) to be affected by the construction proposals according to the BS 5837 assessment of their RPAs.”
As far as Phase 2 is concerned:
“6.2.9. Veteran Trees: The most recent survey (11/17) identified that two of the 22 Veteran Trees (VT71 and VT74) may be affected by the construction proposals according to the detailed assessment of their RPAs contained within Appendix D. 6.2.10. Two additional Veteran Trees (VT46, VT57) are close to construction but outside the estimated RPA. It is recommended that all should be retained and protected in accordance with the AMS, as it is important to retain as many of the existing trees as possible.”
At ‘Phase 2 7.2.6. Veteran trees’ we are told:
“For veteran oak trees VT57, VT71, and VT74, work will occur on the edge of the RPA for construction of the Bridge Ramp East. Incursion into the RPA’s of VT74 and VT73 is unavoidable and these trees may be impacted by construction.”
It should be noted that the applicant has not taken the precautionary approach when assessing potential damage to Veteran Trees. It has chosen to apply the minimal acceptable BS 5837 rather than the Ancient Tree Forum’s much larger RDA.
Despite assuring us that “the proposed scheme does not have an adverse impact on a Local Nature Reserve, Site of Nature Conservation Interest, linear landscape feature, river or wetland and woodland or veteran tree4”, this is not true, as the 2017 Planning Statement (application 7-2017-9177-DH) makes clear at ‘Biodiversity 5.6.1’:
Assessments have “demonstrated that notwithstanding proposed mitigation measures relative to veteran trees, risks related to changes in the availability of water to the trees during construction and following the opening of the proposed scheme to use could be of such detriment to the trees and their future survival that there would be a significant effect”. “Individual veteran trees may be damaged or die as a result of the proposed scheme...”
This section has been dropped from the new application (7-2018-9177-DL), but the current ‘Arboricultural Statement’ makes it clear that veteran trees will be at risk. In ‘Conclusions’, the uncertainty as regards the effectiveness of any mitigation measures undertaken is stark:
4 Planning Statement at ‘Table 9 – Assessment of the proposed scheme against policies of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy, CS35’
20
“However, up to 12 further high-quality trees are at risk or are sufficiently close to require protection measures, if roots are more extensive than the RPA assessment indicates. This includes 8 Veteran Trees, 4 Category A, and 1 Category B),” (Phase 1)
“However, up to 7 further high-quality trees are at risk if roots are more extensive than the RPA assessment indicates. This includes 6 Veteran Trees and 1 Category B),” (Phase 2)
Measures proposed to protect veteran trees clearly require continuous monitoring and engagement for years after the construction work begins. It is highly questionable as to whether or not the applicant will carry out its duty diligently in this regard. In an indication that proposed mitigation works may in fact fail to save affected trees:
“8.2.4. If it is not possible to successfully retain high-quality trees appropriate mitigation, i.e. heavy standard trees in appropriate quantities, locations and suitable species selection should be provided. Several new trees would be required to replace mature or veteran trees, numbers to be assessed according to location and value. Such planting should be carried out to ensure the ongoing presence of large canopy trees on this site into the future.”
Given the extremely high level of protection afforded to veteran trees in the NPPF, it is unacceptable to take risks with them in such a way.
Ms Edwards makes exactly the same points in her letter and highlighted concerns not only as regards veteran trees but also as regards category ‘A’ and ‘B’ trees:
“Two category ‘A’ trees T39 and T54 are to be removed to facilitate construction. Both of the trees are very good quality and should be retained. The road could easily be designed around these two trees.
Nineteen individual and two groups of category ‘B’ trees are shown to be removed, these are good quality trees and should be retained if possible. I would question whether all these category ‘B’ trees need to be removed.”
Despite this, all of the above trees are scheduled for removal or probable removal in the new application.
The David Innes report
The report makes it clear that the Council’s own Arboricultural Officer maintains his objections to the proposals:
“31. Arboricultural Officer – 13/12/18 - Not able to support the application in its present form.
Two category ‘A’ trees are to be removed. Both of these trees are very good quality and should be retained. Nineteen individual and two groups of category ‘B’ trees are shown to be removed, these are good quality trees and should be retained if possible.
21
32. Veteran Trees at Risk There is some encroachment of the proposed road into the Root Protection Areas of these trees which is not acceptable, Ancient trees do not tolerate root removal or disturbance. I consider that tree VT74 is particularly at risk. This is not acceptable. The proposed ‘new no dig surfacing’ does not comply with BS5837 or the leading manufactures recommendations. This should be revised to ensure the health of trees is not compromised. I have concerns that the proposed balancing ponds will have a detrimental effect on the retained trees, in that there will be a change of ground levels and a change to ground water levels, and therefore the available water supply to the trees.
My concern is that the retained Veteran trees that are close to the proposed new road will be under continual pressure to be pruned or removed because of health and safety concerns. The AMS specifies the use of “cellweb” or similar for the highway construction. This is not usually acceptable. The AMS specifies Type 1 sub base to fill the cellweb this is contrary to the manufacturers recommendation and would be detrimental to the health of the trees.
It is important that all Veteran and over mature trees on this site are retained and not compromised by the development as their historical environmental and landscape value cannot be replaced by mitigation planting.”
Innes takes every opportunity to dismiss the objections raised by the Tree Officer in a manner suggesting a lack of impartiality. In one example, at paragraph 152 he tells us:
“NPPF Para 175 states “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.” (The NPPF explains that “wholly exceptional reasons” includes infrastructure projects.)”
However, the Case Officer has selectively quoted the passage relating to ‘infrastructure projects’, which actually says the following at footnote ‘58’:
“For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.”
The proposals do not meet any of these criteria.
5.3 Ecosystem services
The NPPF makes it clear that:
“170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
22 b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;
The applicant has signally failed to recognise any of these aspects, however, just as Ms Edwards reported.
“There would be a negative visual impact from the scheme, which has a very utilitarian and functional appearance... in the context of the more sensitive countryside landscape – including the conservation area – and as a gateway to Bournemouth, the visual impact is less appropriate”.
Nothing has changed in the plans submitted in October 2018 to affect this assessment.
Furthermore, the applicant has never applied an ecosystems services approach to include “the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”, as required by the NPPF. This can be understood by reading the 2018 Outline Business Case at ‘3. Economic Case’ which highlights the scheme’s supposedly high Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR).
Looking at the ‘Analysis of monetised costs and benefits’ table (Appendix D, OBC 2018) and at the ‘Appraisals Summary Table’ (Appendix E, OBC 2018), we can see that none of the predicted negative environmental impacts of the scheme – on noise, landscape, townscape, historic environment, water environment - have been monetised. This means that they cannot be taken into account in the BCR. If they were, the figure would have to be revised downwards.
In a note at the bottom of the ‘Analysis of monetised costs and benefits’ table it states:
“Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions”.
At OBC 2018 ‘3.10 Environmental Impacts’, the report writers tell us:
“This section of the document provides a qualitative assessment of the likely key environmental implications of the proposed scheme. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the methodology presented in TAG Unit A3: Environmental Impact Appraisal and is considered to be proportionate in view of the scale of the scheme”.
23
The fact is however, that the appraisal has not been carried out in line with TAG Unit A3, since it very conveniently ignores the quantitative (monetisation) assessment required for noise and air quality.
The HM Treasury Green Book is a public sector resource produced by central government. In its ‘Accounting for Environmental Impacts: Supplementary Green Book Guidance (Helen Dunn, 2012), the author explains that the Green Book recommends using Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) and an ‘ecosystem services framework’ approach to help address some of the failings of the traditional BCR calculation. Many if not all of the adverse impacts conveniently ignored by the Council’s OBC BCR would be taken into account, if the ‘ecosystem services framework’ approach was used.
The negative economic impact of development has long been written off the books as ‘externalities’. In standard accounting, deleterious impacts on the environment and our health disappear because they are not ‘monetised’. As has been explained above, this very conveniently allows for dubious claims to be made as to the ‘value’ of proposals such as the A338-Wessex Fields Link.
It is no longer acceptable for such impacts to be ignored and there are effective ways to assess them e.g. Social Cost Benefit Analysis/the ‘ecosystems services’ approach.
As far back as 2008, Defra published its ‘An economic valuation of noise pollution – developing a tool for policy appraisal’. In 2014, it published ‘Environmental Noise: valuing impacts on: sleep disturbance, annoyance, hypertension, productivity and quiet’.
In its October 2017 article, ‘ The UK environment – fighting pollution, improving our health and saving us money’, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) explores the vital role the environment plays in “tackling the problem of poor air quality and helping to protect people’s health and reduce spending on healthcare”.
A study commissioned by the ONS from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) suggests: “that the environment is playing a vital role in tackling the problem of poor air quality. In 2015 it is estimated that there were 5,800 fewer respiratory hospital admissions, 1,300 fewer cardiovascular hospital admissions, 27,000 fewer life years lost and 1,900 fewer premature deaths as a result of natural pollution removal by plants across the UK. This resulted in an estimated saving of over £1bn of avoided health costs in that year alone”.
The report find that “PM2.5 particles are the most harmful pollutants”. The most effective habitats in particulate removal are woodlands, followed by farmland.
The report finishes by highlighting the other work Defra and ONS have done “to monitor and value the services from the UK’s natural environment (‘the natural capital accounting project’). This is clearly not something the applicants are interested in.
24
Further, NPPF paragraphs 170. & 180. specify that significant weight be given to achieving reductions in pollution from a number of sources, something that cannot be said to have been a primary concern of those developing the proposals. The Outline Business Case (2018) lists the following environmental impacts:
Noise – neutral to slight adverse
Air quality and Greenhouse gases – neutral to slight adverse
Impact on biodiversity – neutral
Water environment – neutral
Townscape and urban environment (containing information on light pollution) – slight adverse
(it should be noted that Friends of Riverside believe that these represent underestimations of the damage to be caused by the scheme).
Bournemouth’s Core Strategy policy 35 ‘Nature and geological conservation interests’ sets out the measures the Council will take to protect, among other nature and geological interests, woodland, wetland and veteran trees:
“the Council will seek to ensure that the sites, or features, biodiversity and/or geodiversity interest is maintained and enhanced.
If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided through:
1. relocating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts
2. adequate mitigation
3. as a last resort, through adequate compensation then planning permission will be refused by the local authority”.
The Council never applied the Sequential Test for development and thus cannot be said to have considered alternative sites. The mitigation measures they propose in the application still leave veteran trees at those risks outlined above and by their nature, they cannot be adequately compensated for, since this suggests planting other trees which will themselves not be veterans.
The Christchurch Local Plan Core Strategy also makes protection of Green Belt and biodiversity a priority. At ‘KS3 Green Belt’ it says:
“A wildlife strategy is to be agreed with the Council that ensures no harm to features of acknowledged biodiversity importance, as well as enhancing the biodiversity where possible through improving the condition of existing habitats or creation of new ones”.
25
The David Innes report
David Innes makes only fleeting mention of ecosystem services, telling us at paragraph 145.:
“The NPPF at para 170 states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services including trees and woodland.”
He fails to tell us how the application has met this stipulation.
As far as agricultural land is concerned, he comments at 119.:
“The NPPF paragraph 170 states that economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land should be recognised. The proposed development, however, is not taking over a significant area of Grade 2 agricultural land, and it is considered that the economic and other benefits of the new road junction and access outweigh the need to retain this small area of agricultural land, based on the need for the development previously outlined in this report.”
He fails to give any justification for the statement above and it is clear that the applicant never applied an ecosystems services approach to include “the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”, as required by the NPPF.
Conclusion
The proposals are clearly contrary to NPPF paragraphs 170. and 175. because:
●The applicant has not been able to show that its scheme mitigation measures – i.e. the nature reserve – will result in “net gains” for biodiversity. At most it will achieve “no net loss”.
●The scheme will almost certainly damage veteran trees, quite probably leading to their later death. It will destroy high quality category ‘A’ and ‘B’ trees.
●The applicant has failed to take into account the wider benefits – including monetised benefits - of ecosystems and farmland.
6. Promoting sustainable transport
NPPF Paragraph 103. states:
“Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health.”
26
NPPF Paragraph 110. goes on to say:
“Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas, and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport...” b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive - which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;
The Bournemouth Local Plan has a number of policies relevant to the promotion of sustainable transport/active travel modes, including Core Strategy 5 (promoting healthy communities), CS 13 (key transport routes), CS 15 (Green travel plan and transport assessments), CS 18 (increasing opportunities for cycling and walking), CS 36 (Stour Valley project).
In addition, ‘The Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 (LTP3)’ sets out its ‘vision’ thus: “a safe, reliable and accessible low carbon transport system for Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset that assists in the development of a strong low carbon economy, maximises the opportunities for sustainable transport and respects and protects the area’s unique environmental assets.”
The proposals are contrary to the paragraphs and policies above because they are entirely indifferent to the promotion of sustainable transport/active travel modes and focus almost exclusively on provision for cars, whilst damaging the local environment. Bournemouth’s own modelling shows that traffic will increase across the whole scheme area, should the proposals go ahead, whilst the numbers of those cycling and walking are not expected to increase by any significant amount. Indeed, in the Planning Statement’s ‘Conclusion’ highlighting the benefits of the proposed scheme (6.1.6), no mention at all is made as regards sustainable transport.
No serious attempt has been made to explore alternatives to the car and the proposals will actually increase the risk to cyclists and walkers at Riverside Avenue, in comparison with the current situation, by forcing them to join a flyover over the A338. It should be noted that when the scheme’s proponents claim significant risk reduction for these road users, they mean as opposed to not including a segregated lane on the flyover and thus not in comparison with the current situation (a footbridge with cycle rail, with no risk at all). The Transport Assessment’s ‘Personal injury collision’ section (3.4.25-3.4.38) records no
27 instances on Riverside Avenue in or near the scheme area in a 5-year period between 2012- 2016.
Even cursory examination of the of the proposals maps shows that cyclists and walkers will be much worse off after the scheme goes ahead. ‘Table 13.4 Operational magnitudes of severance’ (ES ‘Chapter 13. Effects on all travellers (13.5)’) finds that pedestrians will suffer ‘moderate’ to ‘severe’ adverse impacts associated with both Phases 1 & 2. Despite admitting this however, the report writers go on to claim that:
“There will be no marked change in amenity value for either of the routes given the existing influence the A338 traffic has on amenity value.”
The assessment goes on to downplay the results of the DMRB severance findings:
“The DMRB severance ratings have been used to inform this assessment, although it is concluded that, considering the purpose of those using the routes and the likely duration of most of their journeys, the additional distance on pedestrian journeys at the location of the new junction are not fundamental to their experience and are considered to be not significant. As cyclists and equestrians are less affected by increases in the lengths of journeys, it is considered that the effect of the Proposed Scheme on these NMUs is also not significant.”
It is noted that the Non-Motorised User survey carried out was undertaken once on a Wednesday during the morning and evening rush hours. It is impossible to logically argue that an extra 10 minutes for pedestrians – a shorter period for cyclists - alongside what at this time would expected to be a very busy route would not affect their experience (it must be remembered that at the current time, they do not have to walk or cycle alongside traffic at all). They would be exposed to greater levels of noise and air pollution, for longer periods every day.
Furthermore, it is a gross failing not to have carried out a weekend survey of footbridge use, since it is well known that there are many runners, recreational walkers – including dog walkers - and cyclists who use this route. There would most definitely be a severe adverse effect upon their experience since they use the route not to get to work, but to enjoy the pleasant surroundings of Holdenhurst Village and Riverside Avenue. Being forced to join a long-looped flyover will almost certainly result in a decrease in the number of people using the route for recreational purposes, especially from local areas such as Townsend Estate.
In terms of ‘driver stress’, the assessment finds that it:
“will largely be unaffected by the introduction of the proposed scheme into the local road network and that there will accordingly be not significant effect”.
28
A staggering achievement, given that all measures of stress are currently shown as between ‘moderate’ - ‘high’. Imagine what could be achieved if the Council dedicated itself to reducing the number of cars on the roads.
Another telling example of the Council’s indifference to cycling and walking provision can be read in the Transport Assessment and the associated appendices.
In two short paragraphs at ‘Transport Assessment Bournemouth Cycle Forum 4.7.7.-8.’, the Council refers to a meeting held with the Cycle Forum to discuss the proposals. The Council highlights that some changes were made in response to the questions raised e.g. dropped kerbs and tactile paving.
They do not mention, however, that the Cycle Forum was entirely dissatisfied with the proposals, something that is clear from reading ‘Appendix F – Bournemouth Cycle Forum Response’:
“The Cycle Forum believes the proposals presented do not cater adequately for the needs of cyclists and pedestrians.
The current proposals are a significant missed opportunity to create infrastructure that can be used safely by all road users including cyclists and pedestrians.”
The measures added in response by the Council cannot in way be said to have met the fundamental concerns of the Cycle Forum. Furthermore, the Bournemouth Cycle Forum were only consulted as regards the original application and not the one discussed here. Consequently, they submitted objections to the new application as did Christchurch Cycling Club.
Similarly, the Ramblers’ Association were only consulted as regards the original application, making it clear in their response that nationally recognised walking routes such as the Stour Valley Way should not be routed next to major roads – as would happen should the proposals gain permission -, except where absolutely necessary. Friends of Riverside alerted them to the new application and the Ramblers’ Association’s response in which they decry the Council’s failure to re-consult can be read on the online planning register.
Ms Sophie Edwards made it abundantly clear that the proposals did nothing to encourage cycling and walking and were in fact almost entirely car-focused:
“the public benefit is limited in that this is strongly car related. It is queried whether the extra capacity would not just become swallowed up in a reasonably short passage of time.”
“It is extremely disappointing that provision for walking and cycling is very limited in the proposals.”
“The proposed road within the employment site also has a motor vehicle focus, which would not create a welcoming place or a positive character for the new development.”
29
“The proposal would create convoluted shared pedestrian and cycle routes and difficult informal crossings where vehicle speeds and frequencies are likely to be high. These would not promote pedestrian and cycle access from the Holdenhurst area.”
“...especially as the scheme introduces busy road crossings to the previously nearly traffic free Stour Valley Way, reducing the quality of the route and its ease of use by all parts of the community”.
Nothing meaningful has changed as far as walking and cycling provision since Ms Edwards wrote these statements.
The David Innes report
This section shows perhaps the most blatant example of partiality in favour of the applicant, highlighting the conflict of interest that his appointment represents.
In a ludicrously exaggerated passage, he tries to convince readers of the tiresome nature of current cycling provision:
“Currently cyclists need to cross the footbridge by dismounting, fixing their bike wheels in a rail gully bike ramp, walking up the stairs pushing their bike along the bike ramp, lifting the bike out of the bike ramp to cross the bridge, placing the bike back in the bike ramp on the other side, then walking down the stairs pushing the bike, before lifting the bike out of the ramp and cycling away.”
This has clearly been written for effect. No impartial Case Officer would engage in such behaviour and would probably say something like “currently, cyclists must dismount to cross the footbridge.”
He concludes by stating that:
“80. It is considered that the proposed scheme results in improved conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, other non-motorised users, wheelchair users and mobility scooter users. This is in keeping with policies to enable safe and accessible access in order to encourage walking, cycling and healthy activity.”
Given that the Bournemouth Cycle Forum and Christchurch Bicycle Club objected to the proposals, and the Ramblers’ Association expressed serious reservations, it is nothing short of bizarre that he never once refers to them in his report. Furthermore, Bournemouth Council’s own Cycling Officer is also not mentioned.
The Council’s Design and Heritage Team do comment, however:
“34. Design & Heritage Team – Urban Design Comments 13/12/18 – continue to have serious concerns about the visual impact of the scheme, details of fencing, details of landscaping, and the usability of the scheme by pedestrians and cyclists.
30
Place-making – Designing for pedestrians and cyclists I remain disappointed about the character of the access road running through the allocated development site. The proposed shared use pedestrian and cycle ways are disappointing as pedestrians can find them intimidating and cyclists can find them inconvenient. I am concerned that pedestrians and cyclists would find it difficult to cross at the raised table crossings, which would further put them off using the route.”
Conclusion
In January 2019, the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence (NICE) released ‘Physical activity – encouraging activity in the general population’, calling for planners to prioritise walking and cycling to be over car usage.
As Friends of Riverside, East Dorset Friends of the Earth, former Senior Planning Officer Ms Sophie Edwards, the Bournemouth Cycle Forum, Christchurch Cycle Club and Ramblers’ Society have found, the proposed scheme is entirely car-focused and the applicant is in fact indifferent to the impact its proposals will have on cyclists and pedestrians (there is also virtually no mention of public transport provision).
Not only does the applicant fail to prioritise cycling and walking as demanded by the NPPF, but it will leave these groups much worse off than before. The one area where we would welcome change is to allow for disabled access, either by introducing a modified footbridge or subway. It is not acceptable to use this as an argument for a roads flyover, making things slightly better for one group of people, whilst also making it worse for others. The situation should be improved for all non-motorised users.
7. Air, noise and light pollution
If the applicant is granted permission, local residents will experience increased levels of air, noise and light pollution. For all that the applicant attempts to maintain that any increase will be minimal, it has been disingenuous and displayed indifference when assessing impact.
7.1 Air pollution
NPPF 170. States
“e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans;”
31
And yet, if the Council were to go ahead with the proposals they would effectively entomb the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Retired Nurses National Home in a blanket of air pollution, surrounded as they will be on all four sides by busy roads.
There are no ‘safe’ thresholds for pollutants such as PM2.5 and that many of those in close proximity to proposed development and local road network are highly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. The Council’s position, which essentially amounts to a claim that if a pollutant does not exceed its objective threshold, everything is fine, is wrong and unacceptable.
Bournemouth’s statements re air quality both in the area of the proposals and across the town in general are highly questionable. They have failed to employ the correct threshold for PM2.5 and have not carried out any assessment of the contribution of PM2.5 to regional emissions.
Despite obligations to reduce pollutant emission from current baselines – including carbon dioxide and NOx, the latter damaging to vegetation and ecosystem health –, the proposals will in fact increase them. The argument that such increases are “not significant” is thus irrelevant.
The car-centric nature of the proposals – cycling and walking provision utterly inadequate and ‘tick-box’ in nature - run entirely counter to the recommendations of both NICE and Public Health England and the Royal Colleges, the latter stating: “Government, employers and schools should encourage and facilitate the use of public transport and active travel options like walking and cycling”.
The sheer indifference shown by the plan’s developers to the most vulnerable members of society – i.e. the ill, the elderly, young children, babies and expectant mothers – is as astonishing as it is depressing.
7.2 Noise pollution
NPPF 180. states
“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life;
32 b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason;”
At ‘3.10 Environmental Impacts’ (Outline Business Case 2018), the report authors find that the proposed scheme will have a neutral to slight adverse impact on noise levels. Impacts will be both construction and operation related.
Many people living in the area of the proposed site are suffering noise levels injurious to health now (and have been since at least 2012, when the Defra noise mapping was carried out). The Council’s own report shows that many people will in fact suffer from further adverse noise impacts associated with the development (from slight to major). Yet again, those most at risk are the most vulnerable i.e. the residents of the Retired Nurses National Home.
The Council’s argument essentially seems to be that residents will see in large part only slight increases in noise levels – extremely dubious in itself – on top of what they now experience. However, the current levels are damaging to health. The Council should be seeking to reduce noise in the local area, not to increase it.
7.3 light pollution
The Council admits that residents at the Retired Nurses National Home will be adversely affected and has failed to take into account the serious matter of light reflection both for them and for wildlife populations. It has produced no assessment of cumulative impact relating to further development and furthermore, appears to be planning to extend lighting across the whole scheme area at some later date (the impact of which has similarly not been taken into account).
8. Significant wider local effects
Allowing this development will inevitably lead to calls for further development of the Green Belt west of the site. For example, although the so-called ‘Castle Lane West relief road’ was deleted from the current Bournemouth Local Plan, the Plan is now under review and it is not known whether re-instatement of this option is subject of internal discussion (furthermore, the ‘Castle Lane relief road corridor’ is a retained policy in the Christchurch Local Plan and is highlighted as relevant to this planning application).
It is clear that allowing the development would materially facilitate the ‘relief road’ as a renewed possibility.
9. Process objections
This section looks at how Bournemouth Council has failed to correctly carry out its duties with due care and diligence, given its role as developer, land-owner and decision-maker.
33
9.1 Transport Analysis Guidance
Local Highways Authorities must follow this guidance when planning transport interventions. The Outline Business Case 2018 ‘1.6’ tells us that the applicants have indeed followed it, but they have only done so selectively.
TAG gives detail on “the process of appraisal and associated requirements for transport interventions – from initial intervention genesis to the detailed appraisal required to support preparation of business or investment cases to support subsequent approval stages and through to post-implementation evaluation”. As I will show, Bournemouth failed to follow this guidance from the outset.
‘1.1.2 The three stages in the Transport Appraisal Process are as follows
● Stage 1 – option development. This involves identifying the need for intervention and developing options to address a clear set of locally developed objectives which express desired outcomes. These are then sifted for the better performing options to be taken on to further detailed appraisal in Stage 2.
● Stage 2 – Further Appraisal of a small number of better performing options in order to obtain sufficient information to enable decision-makers to make a rational and auditable decision whether or not to proceed with intervention. The focus of analysis is on estimating the likely performance and impact(s) of interventions in sufficient detail.
● Stage 3 – Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
At ‘1.1.5’ the document summarises the key principles that should be followed in the appraisal process
● There must be a clear rationale for any proposal and it must be based upon a clear presentation of problems and challenges that establish the ‘need’ for a project
● There must be consideration of genuine, discrete options, and not an assessment of previously selected option against some clearly inferior alternatives (my italics). A range of solutions should be considered across networks and modes.
● There should be an auditable and documented process which identifies the best performing options to be taken forward for further appraisal.
● There should be an appropriate level of public and stakeholder participation and engagement at suitable points in the process. In most cases this should inform the evidence- base which establishes the need for an intervention, guide the option generation, sifting and assessment steps, as well as informing further appraisal in Stage 2.
As the document makes clear at ‘2.2 Core elements of the process’ (Appendix 17), stakeholder engagement is at the heart of Stage 1 i.e. the start of the process.
34
“Stage 1 should be informed by engagement with stakeholders on an on-going basis, tailored to the specific circumstances to ensure the approach is proportionate to the scale and complexity of the intervention.
All interested parties – including local people (my italics), local authorities, regional partners, statutory bodies, businesses, environmental interests (my italics), transport users and operators – will need to be involved in the study and help shape decisions. Wide participation and consultation will be a key factor in gaining public support and gauging acceptability for options put forward in the studies (my italics). A strategy for involving these groups will need to be established early on in the study process...
The document goes on to give some considerable further guidance as to engagement with stakeholders – including the public – at this initial stage. At ‘Generating options, 2.8.10’ it states:
“a range of sources and approaches can be used to generate ideas” e.g. feedback from local stakeholders, colleagues, consultants, neighbouring authorities, and the public – it will be useful to seek views from people living and travelling within the affected geographical area on the types of intervention they consider appropriate (my italics).
Still at Stage 1 of the process, at ‘Development and assessment of potential options, 2.10.18 – Public consultation’:
“It is good practice to draw on evidence about the view of the public regarding potential options to gauge the level of public support and identify any (previously unidentified) public acceptability issues. These views can then be accounted for in selecting the better performing options to be taken forward for further appraisal in Stage 2”.
Inherent bias, no meaningful local engagement, failure to follow guidance
It is clear from the above that local people have to be involved in the earliest stages of transport intervention appraisal and options development, and that they must have the ability to influence the choice of options that might finally come forward. However, in the development of the A338-Wessex Fields Link plans, local people and others – e.g. local ward members, environmental organisations – were only brought in at a late stage, when the option had already been decided upon, essentially to allow the Council to ‘tick’ a consultation box.
In fact, as will become obvious, in complete contradiction to the requirements of the Transport Analysis Guidance, there never really were any options to consider, since the Council always intended to find a way to go ahead with the scheme, whatever the outcome of any so-called ‘optioneering’ and ‘engagement’.
35
In its 2018 Outline Business Case (OBC), WSP/Mouchel tells us at ‘1.5.4 Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership and funding for the A338/Wessex Fields Link’ that in response to the Government’s October 2014 announcement of additional Growth Deal ‘top-up’ funding:
“Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC) submitted a bid through the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP) for £6.7m for the A338/Wessex Fields Link”, this forming the first part of the sequence of scheme development.
Later, the Council describes its stakeholder engagement activities. At ‘2.12 Stakeholders’ the OBC lists ‘local residents’, ‘local ward members’ and ‘specialist interest groups’ as some of those “to be engaged with on the delivery of the improvement scheme” i.e. not to influence options, for there are none to influence. As the Outline Business Case makes clear, the preferred option – i.e. the all movements full grade-separated junction – had already been decided upon.
In describing the engagement activities undertaken to that date, the OBC talks about ‘various meetings held with the businesses on Wessex Fields’ in 2014, as well as an ‘internal technical stakeholders ‘Options Workshop’. The outcome of these meetings with businesses and the technical workshop lead to the options described in OBC 2.13.
A further stakeholder meeting took place in January 2015, but none of these meetings involved the public, or even local ward councillors. The section closes by saying:
“As part of the planning process for the scheme further opportunity will be provided for stakeholder engagement, in particular involving the general public” (my italics). OBC ‘6.6 Communications and Stakeholder Management Plan’ clarifies exactly what role local people will have as regards input to the appraisal process: very little
“The remaining stakeholders from the list” – these including local ward members and residents – “will be consulted in the near future, prior to any construction, with the ultimate aim to minimise any potential impacts upon these groups” (my italics).
Thus, neither local people nor their representatives were to have any meaningful involvement in a process which requires their involvement at the earliest stages, allowing them to influence the option selection process. In fact, the first time that the public were ‘consulted’ was at the exhibitions on the chosen ‘option’ held in March 2017 – in other words, after stage 2 and just before Stage 3 was to begin-, more than two years after the initial stakeholder consultations began. Completely contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Transport Analysis Guidance.
To quote the National Audit Office Report on LEPs again:
“LEPs themselves are not as transparent to the public as we would expect given that they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money. The Department did not
36 set clear objectives for what it wanted to achieve through Growth Deals, meaning that it is difficult to assess their success”.
The Options
‘2.13 Options’ describes the process through which the ideas generated at the earlier stakeholder meetings were grouped into six options, supposedly to assess them all equally with no bias or favour. As the TAG says at 1.1.5:
“There must be consideration of genuine, discrete options, and not an assessment of a previously selected option against some clearly inferior alternatives”.
However, as already made clear above, this is exactly what happened. In presenting the 12 options, options 1-3 are described as ‘sustainable transport measures/small-scale interventions’, including ‘application of smarter choices’, ‘minor interventions to improve highway capacity’ and ‘interventions to provide additional capacity to pedestrians and cyclists’ (options 4-12 are road infrastructure interventions). Close examination of the options shown in the OBC 2017 (‘Table 3-3 Macro Options Appraisal Rationale’, which has been dropped from OBC 2018) appears to show no difference between options 1 & 3, and none of the options appear to consider public transport improvements, only cycling and walking. Obviously, any meaningful alternative to roads construction would need to evaluate the impact of the three sustainable transport modes in combination, but this has not been done, as the report writers helpfully point out at ‘Option testing results, 2.13.4’:
“The assessment of options against objectives, demonstrated that if the sustainable transport measures/small scale interventions (Options 1, 2 & 3) were introduced on their own they would have limited effectiveness. These options would lead to small improvements in capacity and network performance as well as encouraging greener travel and physical activity. However, none of these options (1,2 and 3), on their own, even if refined an improved would fully resolve the existing transport problems” (my italics).
Because of the deliberately biased way the assessments have been constructed, ‘Table 9 Assessment of the tested options against the objectives’ ludicrously finds that the options specifically targeted at sustainable transport/active travel measures would do less to encourage sustainable transport than the building of the A338-Wessex Fields Link.
Also, because of the Council’s deliberate failure to monetise benefits from active travel and other aspects – e.g. biodiversity -, they are able to disregard the true costs of the roads proposals.
Furthermore, a cursory glance at the project delivery team table (OBC 2015 8.4.2) shows how little regard was given to environmental and sustainable travel considerations, the role having no named person, unlike the other 4 roles in the ‘highway design team’, and unlike almost all other members of the whole project team.
37
Conclusions
The public and their local representatives were not involved at the start of the appraisal process, as is required by the Transport Analysis Guidance. In addition, the ‘options selection’ process was biased towards confirming the A338-Wessex Fields Link as the final choice. Thus the whole process was flawed from the start.
9.2 The Cabinet Meeting, 9th November 2016
On 9th November 2016, Bournemouth Borough Council’s Cabinet held a meeting at which the A338-Wessex Fields Link scheme was discussed and agreement was reached on its progression. The public were excluded from one part of the meeting which included a non- public report- ‘Item 10, Clause number 110’ on the Agenda5 -, the Cabinet giving grounds per Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 “that the business involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighed such interest in disclosing the information” (Paragraph 3 relates to “information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person – including the authority holding that information”).
The Council were not entitled to exclude the public from this item, as is here made clear:
The House of Commons Standard Note SN/SC/1195 describes some issues that arise when a local authority applies to itself for planning permission:
Local authorities “May grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest but that ability is subject to several important safeguards,” one of which is the following:
“The public cannot be excluded from committee meetings at which local authority development proposals are discussed”.
In Appendix B of its guide ‘Open and accountable local government’6 the Department for Communities and Local Government sets out the ‘Descriptions of exempt information’, including the Paragraph 3. Exemption. However, it goes on to add qualifications to the list of exempt information, item B being relevant to our case:
“B. Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992.”
5 Minutes, Bournemouth Borough Council Cabinet, 9th November 2016 6 ‘Open and accountable local government – a guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government’ August 2014, Department for Communities and Local Government
38
The question is then, did the Cabinet know of this qualification when it made the decision to exclude the public or was it misinformed as to its right to do so? Either the way, the situation is totally unacceptable.
After contacting Bournemouth Council about this matter on Friday 29th September 2017, and having afterwards received no satisfactory reply, formal complaints procedures were started on 09th October. This resulted in the withheld material being made public, but the Council failed to satisfactorily answer the central question as to the legality of the original exclusion of the press and public. On the 6th November, the matter moved through to complaints procedure stage 3 i.e. to Executive Director Susan Shaw. Despite the fact that a response is required within 10 days, I had by 9th January, not even received an acknowledgment from Ms Shaw. Given that the 12-week deadline had by then expired, I wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), who shortly after replied to say that I should expect a reply from Ms Shaw by the 19th January. I received a response on her behalf on the 24th January, essentially stating that as the matter under discussion was not actually a ‘planning application’, the complaint was not valid. Friends of Riverside did not agree with the decision and applied to the LGO, who later ruled that they would not be able to investigate the matter until a planning decision had taken place.
9.3 Land purchase, January 2017
Bournemouth Borough Council spent £2.25m in January 2017 to buy the land necessary for the A338-Wessex Fields Link development. This included Green Belt land on both sides of the A338 at Riverside Avenue and Holdenhurst Village Road.
The public were not consulted as to the purchase of the Green Belt, which makes a mockery of the current Local Plan Review’s ‘Initial Stakeholder Consultation and Request for Potential Development Sites’ call for public comment on ‘Issue 3: The future of Green Belt land in Bournemouth’.
Furthermore, the fact that the Council spent such a large amount of money in advance of planning permission is highly suggestive of the decision being seen as a minor inconvenience or a fait accompli. This raises serious concerns as to the nature of the planning process.
9.4 The appearance of generic support slips with no provenance, February 2018
By the time of the supposed deadline for public comments after submission of the original planning application (7-2017-9177-DH) in December 2017, several hundred people had written in to object, whilst very few had written in to support. In late February, however, generic support slips began to appear on the online planning register with no information given as to who had produced them. We discovered that it was in fact the applicant’s creation, the slips being distributed to businesses in Wessex Fields and the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. All told, approximately 300 support slips were added online, signatories being employees.
39
Given that the management of the businesses and Hospital all support the scheme, the obvious question this behaviour gave rise to was whether or not any pressure might have been put on employees to sign. Even if no direct pressure was applied, we find these actions highly questionable, given the manager-employee relationship dynamic.
As was reported on in the Daily Echo, the Council were forced to admit that were they to produce such slips again, they would place provenance information on them.
9.5 The Former Senior Planning Officer’s letter
As has already been discussed earlier in this document, at the end of March 2018, Senior Planning Officer and Case Officer for the A338-Wessex Fields scheme, Sophie Edwards, wrote a letter about the proposals to Programme Manager Claire Clark (attached with this document). In the letter, she set out quite clearly the reasons for her opposition to the scheme and indicated that she was going to recommend refusal. This letter was never made separately public on the online planning register, but was effectively hidden in the appendices (Appendix E) of the Revised Arboricultral Impact Assessment. It only came to light by chance some months later.
To date, none of the substantial objections raised by Ms Edwards have been answered.
9.6 The appointment of David Innes
Sophie Edwards left the Council in the summer of 2018 and was replaced as A338-Wessex Fields Case Officer by David Innes, the Director of Blue Print Planning and Development Ltd, a company whose sole purpose is to help developers gain planning permission. The Council denies that this constitutes a conflict of interest but it clearly does. The Planning Inspectorate’s own policy on conflicts of interest (March 2018) tells us:
“2.2 Even if the individual doesn’t actually benefit, a conflict can still occur if it appears a decision may have been influenced. The perception of competing interests, impaired judgement or undue influence can also be a conflict of interest.”
It is impossible to imagine that a Director of a company whose clients are developers seeking planning permission could write a recommendation to refuse planning permission, which obviously must be possible if the planning officer is to be impartial. In fact, as we have already shown, David Innes’ report appears effectively to have been written on behalf of the applicant.
9.7 The submission of a ‘new’ planning application
After almost 44 weeks without a decision, on October 23rd 2018, the applicant withdrew the original planning application (7-2017-9177-DH) and at the same time submitted a ‘new’ one (7-2018-9177-DL). The Planning Statement accompanying the ‘new’ application states that:
40
“the improvements do not materially change the scheme”.
However, what the submission of the ‘new’ application did do was annul all of the 500+ written and 2000 petition objections that were obtained for the original application. We believe that the Council hoped that far fewer objections would be received, thus allowing them to paint a picture more favourable to granting planning permission. The Council has failed to achieve this, however (see ‘10. Scale of public opposition’).
9.8 The First Tier Tribunal Ruling
The unanimous First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) ruling on 8th January 2019 in favour of Friends of Riverside against the Information Commissioner and by extension against Bournemouth Borough Council relates to the Council’s refusal to provide A338-Wessex Fields Link information following requests made under Environmental Information Regulations, specifically as regards correspondence between the Leader of the Council, Cllr John Beesley; Cllr Mike Greene, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the A338-Wessex Fields Link scheme and members of the Planning Board and officers in the Planning Department.
The Tribunal found that we had very strong public interest grounds in expecting the material to be made public, especially in light of the fact that Bournemouth Council is the developer, decision maker and landowner.
9.9 David Innes’ recommendations report
The report released by David Innes on the 18th January 2019 confirms the serious concerns we already had about the Council’s behaviour throughout the planning process. It is clearly biased and has effectively been written on behalf of the applicant, rather than on behalf of the Planning Authority.
10. The Human Rights Act
The Council is asking the Planning Board to give consent to a planning application which spans a period of approximately 13 years from 2018-2031. Once planning permission is given, works must start within 3 years, unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority. Whilst Phase 1 would begin within this timeframe (2018-2021), even if everything were to go as planned, work on Phase 2 would only begin in 2028, a further 7 years on from the completion of Phase 1.
Aside from the obvious fact that the Planning Board should not grant such extended permission, given the impossibility of making accurate predictions as regards planning- relevant economic and social matters over this time period, they should also be aware, that by doing so, they will effectively be hanging ‘the sword of Damocles’ over the heads of local residents for years, causing untold psychological stress.
41
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law (see Appendix 16). The Articles of the ECHR relevant to planning are:
Article 6 (right to a fair hearing)
Article 8 (respect of family life)
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)
Article 1 of Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property)
We argue that by granting planning permission for such an period, the Planning Board would: contravene Article 6, in that no reasonable person could think that the findings of a hearing held in 2018 – i.e. the submission of comments followed by Planning Board decision- could be said to apply without recourse to further consideration, 13 years later; contravene Article 8, in that the family life of those living in close proximity to the proposals site would be detrimentally affected by stress caused by having to live with the ‘unknown’ i.e. whether or not the highly damaging Phase 2 proposals would ever go ahead, effectively making it impossible to plan for the future in many cases; contravene Article 14, in that the public authority, for no objective or reasonable reason, in applying supposedly ‘neutral’ policies, will in fact discriminate against and disproportionately affect individuals and communities living in the vicinity of the proposed scheme; contravene Article 1 of Protocol 1, in that the public authority will interfere with local residents’ peaceful enjoyment of property, given the impact of the scheme itself and the ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging over them (further, the possible use of Compulsory Purchase Orders may deprive people of their possessions).
11. Scale of public opposition
In a spirit of compromise, prior to the submission of the original application (7-2017-9177- DH), Tobias Ellwood MP (Bournemouth East), asked Bournemouth Council to separate out the two phases of the planning application, the second phase being the most highly damaging. Despite this, the Council refused. He resubmitted this request for the new application (7-2018-9177-DL) and the Council again refused.
As of the date of this application for call-in, over 300 individual objections – mostly from local residents - have been sent to the planning authority (this including Tobias Ellwood MP and Councillors John Adams and John Trickett). Bournemouth Cycle Forum, Christchurch
42
Bicycle Club, East Dorset Friends of the Earth, Friends of Riverside and Holdenhurst Village Parish Meeting, have also objected.
36 letters of support were received, many of these coming from organisations such as the Bournemouth BID (Town Centre Development) and Bournemouth Borough Council’s Economic Department.
In his report, David Innes cursorily dismisses the scale of public opposition to the Council’s proposals. At paragraph 295. he tells us the following:
“The initial application submitted in December 2017 was withdrawn in October 2018. A revised application was submitted that sought to address consultee and public concerns raised in that application, to provide a form of development that can now be supported.”
Given that over 300 people have objected to the ‘new’ planning application, it is clear that the Council has entirely failed to address the public’s concerns.
11. Conclusion
We believe that Planning Board members wish to carry out their responsibilities to the best of their abilities. However, it is a fact that 10 of the 11 member Board are of the governing party – though one has resigned the party whip - and it is unfair that they should be placed in the invidious position of deciding on a planning application that has the full backing of Bournemouth Council’s Cabinet, Council Leader and leading council officers (as evidenced by numerous statements in the public domain). The fact that the Case Officer David Innes has now released a recommendation to grant makes this situation all the more untenable.
The application is in clear conflict with national policy on a number of issues, and given the fact that as applicant, land-owner and decision-maker, Bournemouth Borough Council has a vested interest in granting itself planning permission, we are of the opinion that a fair hearing can only be guaranteed by placing the matter in the hands of an independent planning inspector.
We look forward to receipt of grounds for grant or refusal of this request.
Respectfully yours,
Conor Niall O’Luby, Coordinator Friends of Riverside
43