PART B – Please copy and use a separate sheet for each representation ______
Name or Organisation: Pegasus Group on behalf of KBEG
1. To which part of the Plan does this representation relate?
Paragraph number: 4.22 - 4.32
Policy / site reference or name: CP3 Settlement Hierarchy
Map number / name: Figure 5 Settlement Hierarchy
2. Do you consider the Plan so far as the part of the Plan with which this representation is concerned is:
2.(1) Legally Compliant Yes No
2.(2) Sound* Yes No
2.(3) Complies with the Yes No Duty to co-operate
* The considerations in relation to the Plan being “sound” are explained in the National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 182 and are set out in Appendix A of this form. If you have entered No to 2.(2) please continue to Q3. In all other circumstances, please go to Q4.
3. Do you consider the Plan so far as the part of the Plan with which this representation is concerned is unsound because it is:
(1) Not positively prepared
(2) Not justified
(3) Not effective
(4) Not consistent with national policy
4. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
REPRESENTATION SEEKING MODIFICATION OF POLICY CP3 (AND ASSOCIATED PARAGRAPHS) OF THE REGULATION 19 WYCOMBE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
Introduction and summary
Policy CP3 of the Wycombe District Local Plan Regulation 19 publication version (for consultation October 2017) (“the WDLP”) identifies what it terms ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ as a ‘Tier 2 settlement’.
The villages of Bourne End, Wooburn and Hawks Hill/Harvest Hill, are, in fact, separate settlements (it is unclear whether the WDLP concept of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ includes part or all of Wooburn Green, another separate settlement).
Despite this, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ was identified as a Tier 2 settlement in the Regulation 18 Consultation on Wycombe District Local Plan that commenced in June 2016 and that has been carried through to the WDLP.
The evidence base that underpins the settlement hierarchy for the WDLP is the ‘Wycombe District Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy Study - Final Report 2017’ and its associated Appendices (“the Settlement Hierarchy Study”). The Settlement Hierarchy Study was published to support the Regulation 18 version and then updated to support the Regulation 19 publication version.
Pegasus on behalf of Keep Bourne End Green (“KBEG”) object to the designation of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ as a Tier 2 settlement in Policy CP3 of the WDLP for the following principal reasons; 1. ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is not a single settlement, as Wycombe District Council has itself acknowledged, but is an artificial conjoining of separate settlements for the purposes of the WDLP, which (self-serving) artificial conjoining is then used to justify, inter alia, a position in the settlement hierarchy that in turn is said to justify a disproportionately large housing allocation based on significant Green Belt release at Bourne End. 2. Bourne End and Wooburn fall within the ‘Rural Settlements and Rural Areas’ policy in the current Core Strategy (2008), by contrast Marlow and Princes Risborough have their own proprietary policies (Bourne End is also a Tier 3 retail settlement in the current Core Strategy, whereas Marlow and Princes Risborough are Tier 2). Local services and facilities have if anything reduced since the adoption of the Core Strategy. There is no justification for the elevation of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ in the settlement hierarchy in the WDLP. 3. Even taken as an artificial single settlement, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’: (a) does not satisfy all the criteria tests for a Tier 2 settlement in terms of the services and facilities offered; and (b) is a much lower order of settlement than Marlow and Princes Risborough, which are also defined as Tier 2 settlements by this Policy. Sober consideration of the evidence provides no support for the designation of a Tier 2 ‘settlement’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the designation is self-serving, to justify a disproportionately large housing allocation (Policies CP2 and CP4 of the WDLP) based on a significant Green Belt release (Policy BE2 of the WDLP).
These matters are considered further below.
1. ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is not a single settlement, as Wycombe District Council has itself acknowledged, but is an artificial conjoining of separate settlements for the purposes of the WDLP which (self-serving) artificial conjoining is then used to justify, inter alia, a position in the settlement hierarchy that in turn is said to justify a disproportionately large housing allocation based on significant Green Belt release at Bourne End.
1.1 ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is an artificial concept, rather than a reflection of the reality. The reality is that there a number of separate settlements here, and no evidential basis for treating them as one. 1.2 The village of Bourne End and the villages of Wooburn and Hawks Hill/Harvest Hill are separate settlements, viewed as such by their inhabitants, and with distinctive characters. 1.3 It is unclear whether the WDLP concept of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ includes part or all of Wooburn Green, which is another separate settlement that forms part of the ‘High Wycombe area’ (see WDLP paragraph 5.1.2) albeit it lies within the Parish of Wooburn and Bourne End. 1.4 The WDLP and its evidence base, including the ‘Topic Papers’ that explain the WDLP, acknowledge the distinct nature of the settlements at various points, including (by way of non- exhaustive list): • ‘ Topic Paper 1: Strategy’ acknowledges at pages 31-32 that Bourne End and Wooburn are separate communities but states that for the purposes of plan making they have been considered as one. The latter comment is a revealing admission. • W WDLP paragraph 4.30 at page 40 (supporting text to Policy CP3) acknowledges that ‘Bourne End and Wooburn regards itself as a number of villages’. • W WDLP paragraph 5.4.1 at page 259 acknowledges Bourne End as a ‘village’ and later refers to ‘villages’, implicitly acknowledging the existence of more than one village. • W WDLP paragraph 4.75 at page 62 (supporting text to Policy CP6) states that ‘Bourne End has a smaller centre – regarding itself as a village not a town’, again acknowledging Bourne End’s status as a distinct settlement, and a village rather than a town. 1.5 The WDLP’s confusion over the nature of the villages of Bourne End and Wooburn is mirrored by apparent confusion regarding the Parish, which is the Parish of ‘Wooburn and Bourne End’, not ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ as paragraph 5.4.3 (at page 259) of the WDLP states, and includes Wooburn Green in its area. There is a suspicion that the fact that the Parish covers both Bourne End and Wooburn has informed the WDLP’s artificial lumping together of the distinct villages. 1.6 Elsewhere, the WDLP creates further confusion by referring to ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ as a ‘main town’ (see pages 15 and 53). 1.7 Beyond the evidence base and the Topic Papers, Wycombe District Council’s recent consultation on a Draft Development Brief for Slate Meadow (August 2017) (Site BE1 in the WDLP), which is situated on the south western edge of Wooburn, draws attention to the fact that Bourne End and Wooburn or Wooburn Green (it is not clear whether the Development Brief is referring to Wooburn and Wooburn Green as distinct or one and the same), are two distinct and separate settlements.
‘2.7.6 Open Space (page 22) “Although Slate Meadow is identified for development, the land currently functions as an undeveloped gap between the built-up areas of Bourne End and Wooburn Green.” 2.11.1 Opportunities - Key Points: Opportunities (page 31) “Take advantage of the village green and open space requirement to maintain a gap between Bourne End and Wooburn Green, …” 3.5 Landscape - Objective 6 (Page 39) “Ensure a visually-meaningful gap between the built-up areas of Bourne End and Wooburn.”’ (emphasis added). 1.8 It is clear from the Draft Development Brief for Slate Meadow (August 2017) that Wycombe District Council acknowledges that Bourne End and Wooburn are separate settlements in practice on the ground, and that the development of the Slate Meadow site should seek to retain the separation between the two settlements through the use of good design and well-placed open space. It is plainly inconsistent for Wycombe District Council to treat the settlements as a single entity for the purposes of plan making. 1.9 Summary: The WDLP concept of the ‘settlement’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is an artificial one, that appears to be self-serving: it leads to the contrived position in the WDLP that because the artificial concept of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is deemed a ‘Tier 2 settlement’ then that, in turn, justifies a large quantum of housing development in the area (800 dwellings) (Policies CP2 and CP4 of the WDLP), including via significant Green Belt release for allocation (Policy BE2 of the WDLP).
2. Bourne End and Wooburn fall within the ‘Rural Settlements and Rural Areas’ policy in the current Core Strategy (2008), by contrast Marlow and Princes Risborough have their own proprietary policies (Bourne End is also a Tier 3 retail settlement in the current Core Strategy, whereas Marlow and Princes Risborough are Tier 2). Local services and facilities have if anything reduced since the adoption of the Core Strategy. There is no justification for the elevation of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ in the settlement hierarchy in the WDLP. 2.1 In the adopted Wycombe Core Strategy 2008, Bourne End and Wooburn fall within the Rural Settlements and the Rural Areas policy, Policy CS 7. Whether taken individually or together, Bourne End and Wooburn are ‘rural settlements’ (plural) or a ‘rural settlement’ (singular) in the current statutory development plan. 2.2 By contrast, Marlow and Princes Risborough, the other ‘Tier 2’ settlements in the WDLP, have their own policies in the current Core Strategy, CS 5 and CS 6, and are clearly treated as higher order settlements than Bourne End and Wooburn (whether Bourne End and Wooburn are taken individually or collectively). 2.3 It is also the case that Marlow and Princes Risborough are designated Tier 2 Town Centres in Policy CS 10 of the current Core Strategy, whilst Bourne End is designated Tier 3 to reflect the district centre status of the village centre, a position that is (rightly) unchanged by Policy CP6 of the WDLP. 2.4 The question that presents itself, then, is whether anything has changed since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2008 to justify the elevation of Bourne End and Wooburn to a settlement status equal to that of Marlow and Princes Risborough. The short answer to that question is ‘no’. 2.5 Consideration of local evidence demonstrates that, if anything, the provision of retail, services and transport connectivity has actually declined since 2008, and certainly the nature and ‘offer’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not come close to that of Marlow or Princes Risborough. This is explored further under item 3 below, but in terms of changes since 2008 the picture is a revealing one: Community Services • Closures of main police station on The Parade and police office on Boston Drive • Youth club closed • Reduced library services and hours, now community library relying on volunteers Transport • Direct train service to London removed Banks • Closure of National Westminster Bank • Closure of Lloyds Bank Pubs and Restaurants • Closure of The Firefly • Closure of Heart in Hand • Closure of Ayoush (formerly The Old Red Lion pub) • Black Lion given a community protection order in response to loss of other pubs • The Garibaldi Pub adopted by the community Business • Commercial property area closed off Wharf Lane • Commercial property converted to apartments on Furlong Road • Commercial property converted to house on Cores End roundabout Health • Closure of local infant health clinic • Day care centre now operated by the community following BCC planned closure • GP service impacted by closure of satellite surgery in Flackwell Heath Retail • Closure of Billinghurst, Chinese takeaway and newsagent; replaced by McCarthy & Stone • Opening of Co-Op under McCarthy & Stone • Closure of Co-Op in The Parade (presently vacant) • Opening of Tesco Express on site of old police station • Opening of small Simply M&S within BP forecourt • Closure of car wash facilities within BP forecourt • Closure of gallery on Hedsor Road; converted to apartments • Several retail shops lost and converted to charity shops 2.6 It is notable that the relevant public authorities have not deemed Bourne End a suitable location for the maintenance of the various public facilities that have been lost or scaled back since 2008. 2.7 Summary: Bourne End and Wooburn are deliberately treated as lower order settlements or a lower order settlement by comparison with Marlow and Princes Risborough in the current Core Strategy. Since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2008 nothing has changed that would justify elevating ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ to sit on the same tier of the settlement hierarchy as Marlow and Princes Risborough (the differing nature of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and Marlow and Princes Risborough is explored further below, under item 3).
3. Even taken as an artificial single settlement, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’: (a) does not satisfy all the criteria tests for a Tier 2 settlement in terms of the services and facilities offered; and (b) is a much lower order of settlement than Marlow and Princes Risborough, which are also defined as Tier 2 settlements by this Policy. 3.1 Through the Settlement Hierarchy Study, Wycombe District Council has set selection criteria for the various tiers of the settlement hierarchy, including for Tier 2, in which it has placed ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’. But by the Council’s own admission, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not satisfy the criteria for a Tier 2 settlement: it does not have an indoor sport or leisure facility. 3.2 The Council’s criteria are flawed in any event as they mask the true nature of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and frustrate its proper placement in the settlement hierarchy, which should be into Tier 3 (addressed further below). However, before that the Council seeks to overcome the fact that ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not meet its own Tier 2 criteria by pointing to the following (see Appendix E of the Settlement Hierarchy Study, ‘Bourne End/Wooburn’ page): - ‘a good stock of employment units’ - ‘a wide retail offer’ - ‘good public transport accessibility’ and ‘close to both Marlow and High Wycombe, as well as Maidenhead in the adjacent district’ 3.3 Whilst it is true that the business parks across Bourne End, Wooburn and Wooburn Green (and query whether Wooburn Green is part of the concept of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’) provide a good stock of employment units, the other factors relied upon do not stand up to scrutiny and, overall, they miss the true nature of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ by comparison with the other settlements in Wycombe District. 3.4 As regards the suggested ‘wide retail offer’, that is not borne out by the reality, and the WDLP (rightly) designates Bourne End a District Centre, the same as Flackwell Heath and Hazlemere (see, for example, Figure 4 ‘The Spatial Strategy’ at page 31 of the WDLP and Table 10 at page 53, supporting Policy CP6). By contrast, both Marlow and Princes Risborough are (rightly) Town Centres in the WDLP. 3.5 That Wycombe District Council’s own WDLP retail policy, Policy CP6, supplemented by Table 10 ‘Town Centre Hierarchy’ (pages 60 and 63 of the WDLP), state that Bourne End is a District Centre, not a Town Centre, acknowledges the lower order retail offer in the centre compared to other retail centres in the authority and the importance of the settlement in relation to its hinterland. Equally, that both Marlow and Princes Risborough, the other Tier 2 settlements, are identified as Town Centres by Policy CP6 reflects their importance as higher order settlements in relation to their hinterlands. 3.6 Policy CP6 states that district centres: ‘provide basic food and grocery shopping facilities, supported by a limited range of other shops and non-retail services serving their local communities.’ 3.7 The assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy Study that ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ has a ‘wide retail offer’ is inconsistent with the Council’s acknowledgement that Bourne End centre is no more than a district centre. 3.8 As regards the suggested ‘good public transport accessibility’, there is nothing to explain, qualify or evidence what is meant by this statement, and proximity to both Marlow and High Wycombe is, of course, something that could equally be said of Flackwell Heath, designated a Tier 3 settlement. 3.9 As or more importantly than the above, the Council’s selection criteria and their application in the Settlement Hierarchy Study masks vast differences between ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and Marlow and Princes Risborough, the settlements that are (rightly) Tier 2 settlements, and equally masks the similarities between ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and the Tier 3 settlements that it should, in fact, sit alongside. 3.10 ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is, on any sound analysis of the evidence, a materially lower order of settlement than Marlow or Princes Risborough, the comparator Tier 2 settlements under Policy CP3. 3.11 Publicly available information on the three settlements demonstrates the following differences in relation to nature, services and facilities:
• Footprint size of settlement, Marlow 689ha; Princes Risborough 820ha; ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ 461ha (measured using Wycombe District Council published settlement mapping) • Marlow and Princes Risborough have their own Town Councils, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ falls under the (wider spatial) remit of Wooburn and Bourne End Parish Council. • WDLP Policy CP6 identifies Bourne End as a District Centre and Marlow and Princes Risborough as higher order Town Centres. • Marlow has 1304m of shop frontage; Princes Risborough has 703m of shop frontage and Bourne End and Wooburn 354m of shop frontage. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not have a Police Station, a Fire Station, a Tourist Information Centre or a Recycling Centre, Marlow and Princes Risborough have at least one of each of these facilities. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ has three primary schools, Marlow and Princes Risborough have eight and five respectively. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not have a hospital. Both Marlow and Princes Risborough have a hospital. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ offers one dentist, one chemist, one optician, two doctors and one vet. Marlow and Princes Risborough each offer at least two, if not more than two, of these services. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not have a bank. Marlow has seven banks and Princes Risborough has four. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ does not have an indoor sports or leisure centre, or a public swimming pool. Marlow and Princes Risborough each have a sports or leisure centre and a swimming pool. • ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ has one Council car park offering 80 spaces. Marlow has nine Council car parks with 745 spaces and Princes Risborough has two Council car parks with 229 spaces. 3.12 The Settlement Hierarchy Study misses these crucial differences, illustrating the inadequacy of the Council’s selection criteria and their application in this case. Both Marlow and Princes Risborough are historic towns and that is reflected across numerous key indices. By comparison, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is not a single settlement but separate villages combined as a concept for planning making purposes, by the Council’s own admission. 3.13 Even in terms of the population of the artificial ‘settlement’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’, the ‘settlement’ is closer in population to the largest Tier 3 settlement of Flackwell Heath, than it is to Princes Risborough, the smallest of the other Tier 2 settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Study used data from the 2011 census output areas to allow consideration of the population of each ‘settlement’ considered, and sets the relevant figures out within Appendix E: • The population of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ (the artificial combination of the two) is given as 6,890. • The population of Princes Risborough, the smallest Tier 2 settlement, is given as 7,961, this is 1,071 more than ‘Bourne End & Wooburn’. • The population of Flackwell Heath, the biggest Tier 3 settlement is stated as 5,965, only 925 less than ‘Bourne End & Wooburn’. 3.14 It is clear, then, that at the base date of 2011 even if one considered the artificial amalgamation of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’, that ‘settlement’ was closer in population size to the largest Tier 3 settlement than to the smallest Tier 2 settlement. 3.15 Furthermore, in terms of physical size, the ‘settlement’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’, when measured using Wycombe District Council’s own settlement mapping, is indistinguishable from the Tier 3 settlements of Flackwell Heath and Stokenchurch, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ measures 461ha, Flackwell Heath 443ha and Stokenchurch 554ha. By contrast, and as set out above, the Tier 2 settlements of Princes Risborough and Marlow measure 820ha and 689ha respectively. 3.16 Summary: On the evidence, as opposed to the evidentially unjustified approach taken by the WDLP, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’, even if taken as a single ‘settlement’, does not bear comparison with the Tier 2 settlements of Marlow and Princes Risborough and should be a Tier 3 settlement, which position would be consistent with the present approach of the current Core Strategy.
4. Conclusion 4.1 ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is an artificial concept, rather than a reflection of the reality, which is that there are a number of separate villages here, and no evidential basis for treating them as one. 4.2 The current development plan (Core Strategy, 2008), rightly treats the historic market towns of Marlow and Princes Risborough as higher order settlements, yet the WDLP seeks to elevate ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ to the same settlement tier with no change having occurred ‘on the ground’ to justify that elevation (if anything, the opposite). Comparison of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ with Marlow and Princes Risborough amply bears that out. 4.3 On the evidence, as opposed to the evidentially unjustified approach taken by the WDLP, ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’, even if taken as a single ‘settlement’, does not bear comparison with the Tier 2 settlements of Marlow and Princes Risborough and should be a Tier 3 settlement, owing to its population, size and the level of services and facilities that it offers, which are commensurate to the size and scale of the local community, a collection of smaller village settlements. 4.4 Sober consideration of the evidence provides no support for the designation of a Tier 2 ‘settlement’ of ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ and it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the designation is self-serving, to justify a disproportionately large housing allocation (Policies CP2 and CP4 of the WDLP) based on a significant Green Belt release (Policy BE2 of the WDLP).
(Please continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary) 5. Please set out what changes(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound, having regard to the Matter you have identified at 5 above where this relates to soundness. Please note that any non-compliance with the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination. You will need to say why this modification will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
That ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ should either be disaggregated and re-classified within the settlement hierarchy at lower tiers commensurate with the individual settlements, or if ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ is retain in the WDLP as a single ‘settlement’ it should be re-classified as a Tier 3 settlement. In either event, the quantum of development to be absorbed by ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ through the WDLP should be commensurate with Tier 3 status. The effect of that would be to substantially reduce the housing numbers that the WDLP expects ‘Bourne End and Wooburn’ to absorb and further weaken the already inadequate case for removal of Hollands Farm from Green Belt and its allocation for development by Policy BE2 of the WDLP.
(Please continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at publication stage. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.
6. If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? Please note, you must answer yes to this question if you wish to have the opportunity to speak at the public examination.
No, I do not wish to participate Yes, I do wish to participate at the at the oral examination oral examination
7. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:
In order to be able to draw to the Inspector’s attention the errors in the authority’s assessment of Bourne End and Wooburn as a Tier 2 settlement for Plan Making purposes.
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.
Signature: Date: 4th December 2017