Fairfield Parish Council

Date: Thursday 29th June 2017

Councillors:

C Bidwell (Chairman), B E Dack, P Daffarn, S Foster, N P Hanks, S L Jones and T Milliken.

You are hereby summoned to attend the following meeting:

Fairfield Parish Council

Date/ Time: Thursday 6th July 2017 at 7.30 pm.

Venue: Fairfield Community Hall, Kipling Crescent.

Members of the press and public are invited to attend.

Katrina Henshaw, Parish Clerk

Meeting Agenda

1 Apologies for Absence

1.1 To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

2 Disclosures of Interest and Dispensation requests

2.1 To receive any declarations of interest from Councillors on matters contained in the agenda. If, at any time during the meeting, a Councillor feels they have an interest in an item being discussed they should declare it at that point.

2.2 To receive written requests for dispensations for declarable interests.

2.3 To grant any requests for dispensation as appropriate.

3 Council Minutes

3.1 To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Parish Council meeting held on 1st June 2017.

4 Public Participation Session

4.1 15 minutes is allocated for public participation. Up to five members of the public will be given no more than three minutes each to speak, provided the correct notice has been given to the Parish Clerk prior to the meeting.

5 Update on Letchworth Sewage Works

5.1 To receive an update from Chris Hayton and Tim Blakemore, Anglian Water.

6 Central Bedfordshire Council Ward Members Report

6.1 To receive a report from a CBC Ward Members on matters pertaining to Fairfield.

6.2 Draft Local Plan. (Appendix A)

6.3 To receive an update on CBC actions regarding:-

Street lights Damage to Eliot Way roundabouts Broken bollards on Hitchin Road CCTV Speed Watch Hall Completion Certificates

Decision items

7 Neighbourhood Plan

7.1 To receive the Inspectors report on the Neighbourhood Plan. (Appendix B)

7.2 To agree to accept his recommendations and amend the plan accordingly.

8 Trees on Bronte Avenue

8.1 For safety reasons, between meetings FPC has requested MBS lift the trees are uplifted so allowing resident full vision when coming out of their driveways. To agree that MBS will do the work, subject to permission from CBC, at a cost of £865.00.

9 Maintenance Contract

9.1 To discuss and agree maintenance contract for next two years. FPRA is continuing with MBS witha break clause so FPC has only requested a quotation from MBS. (Appendix C)

10 Orchards

10.1 To agree to ask Bob Lever to carry out survey of all fruit trees in September so that FPC can obtain permission from CBC for tree work and plan proposed works.

10.2 To agree to remove old timber piles.

11 Apple Day 2017

11.1 To agree budget for Apple Day 2017. (£350.04 was carried forward from 2016/17 and £500 was allocated for 2017/18)

12 Kingsley Avenue and Eliot Way

12.1 Both roads are having problems with cars who block access to residents trying to get onto Hitchin Road. It is particularly bad at peak flow and exacerbated further by the traffic lights currently in operation for the new development across the road. FPC to discuss and agree requesting CBC and the developer to put white keep clear chequered markings.

13 Christmas Lights

13.1 To receive an update from Councillor Daffarn and to agree budget.

14 Grant application from 1st Fairfield Park Scout Group

14.1 To discuss and agree grant for one year’s rent (£1,462.50). (Appendix D)

15 Grant application from Fairfield Youth Centre

15.1 To discuss and agree grant to replace existing recreational equipment to provide tuition in healthy pursuits, drug awareness, debt counselling, citizenship and cookery lessons. (£2,000). (Appendix E)

16 Request for a Splash Park

16.1 FPC to discuss the request for a splash park in Fairfield to bring the community together.

17 Request for improvements to foot/cycle path on Hitchin Road

17.1 FPC to discuss the request and agree action. (Appendix F)

Information items

18 Transfer of land from Hotbed Investments

18.1 To receive an update from Councillor Bidwell and agree legal fees of £1,750.

19 Parking and safety issues around the school

19.1 To receive an update from Councillors Bidwell, Foster and Hanks.

20 Fairfield Clean-up Day

20.1 To receive a report from Councillors Daffarn and Milliken

21 Annual Report

21.1 The annual report is available on FPC website.

Planning

22 Planning Applications

22.1 CB/17/02007/FULL 24 Heathcliff AvenueSingle storey rear extensionFPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows.

22.2 CB/17/01870/FULL 6 Gladstone DriveSingle storey rear extension and 1st floor rear/side extension. Insertion of new roof window to

existing loft room.FPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows.

22.3 CB/17/02172/FULL 7 Bronte Avenue

Single storey rear extensionFPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all

materials are to match existing bricks and windows. FPC is concerned in particular that the roof tiles are not matching and requests that they do.

22.4 CB/17/02224/FULL 50 Heathcliff AvenueSingle storey rear extensionFPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows.

22.5 CB/1702165/FULL 155 Hitchin RoadErection of two storey extension to rear, erection of gable roof to replace various roofs, external stainless steel flue on side elevation, portico over rear elevation door, alterations including replacement windows and rendering of property walls and removal of chimney.FPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows.

22.6 CB/17/022489/FULL 10 Shaftesbury DriveProposed ground and first floor rear extensions.FPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows

22.7 CB/17/02509/FULL 1 Franklin PlaceSingle storey rear/side extension, single storey extension to other side and rear porch.FPC has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows.

22.8 CB/17/02140/FULL Land adjacent to 161 Hitchin RoadResidential development of four, three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping on land adjacent to 161 Hitchin Road.FPC has no objections to the basic principles of this application however we FPC does request them to provide vehicle swept path analysis to illustrate that all parking spaces can be accessed independently plus plans to illustrate the visibility splays from each access can be achieved within the highway boundary.

22.9 CB/17/02554/FULL 159 Hitchin RoadNew covered raised patio area, steps and planters.FPC has no objections to this application

22.10CB/17/02388/FULL 22 Dickens BoulevardProposed single storey rear extension.Fairfield Parish Council has no objections to the basic principle of the application other than conditions are that all materials are to match existing bricks and windows

22.11CB/17/02627/FULL 95 Bronte AvenueSingle storey rear extension with wood burning flue concealed as brick chimney.

22.12Any urgent planning applications received between 29th June and 6th July.

23 Planning Decisions

23.1 CB/17/ CB/17/01475/FULL 81 Bronte AvenueExternal alterations to include, insertion of new windows to ground floor hall (front elevation), new external door from new utility room (side elevation), insertion of new glazed doors and projecting glass structure, new conservatory and conversion of existing garage into a personal gymnasium space.CBC granted full planning permission 25th May 2017

23.2 CB/17/01482/FULL 31 Copperfield CloseSingle storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 1st June 2017

23.3 CB/17/00002/FULL 4 Brunel Walk

Single storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 2nd June 2017

23.4 CB/17/01620/FULL 6 Brunel WalkSingle storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 2nd June 2017

23.5 CB/17/02007/FULL 24 Heathcliff AvenueSingle storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 15th June 2017

23.6 CB/17/01870/FULL 6 Gladstone DriveSingle storey rear extension and 1st floor rear/side extension. Insertion of new roof window to

existing loft room.CBC granted full planning permission 13th June 2017

23.7 CB/17/02172/FULL 7 Bronte AvenueSingle storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 16th June 2017

23.8 CB/17/02224/FULL 50 Heathcliff Avenue

Single storey rear extension.CBC granted full planning permission 21st June 2017

Finance and Correspondence

24 Finance

24.1 To receive receipts and agree payments. (Appendix G)

24.2 To receive a summary of Q1 expenditure. (Appendix H)

25 Correspondence

25.1 BAPTC – Annual General Meeting 19th October 2017. To agree who to attend. (Appendix I)

25.2 Consulo Limited – Emerging proposals for a Crematorium at Wilbury Hills. To agree if any action is required. (Appendix J)

25.3 Arlesey Town Council Archive Group – Arlesey Fete 2nd September 2017. To agree if to exhibit artefacts. (Appendix K)

25.4 Friends of Bedfordshire – Bedfordshire Day 28th November 2017. To agree if to organise any event. (Appendix L)

25.5 Any urgent correspondence received between 29th June and 6th July.

26 Any other business

NB This is for exchange of information only. No decisions or actions can be agreed at this time.

27 Date of next meeting

27.1 The next Parish Council meeting will be held on 14th September 2017 at 7.30 pm

Appendix A

DRAFT Local Plan

Dear Chairman / Clerk

At the Executive meeting on 20th June, Central Bedfordshire Council Members will consider the

Draft Local Plan and, subject to their approval, this is expected to be launched for public

consultation on 4th July.

The Plan will be a critical policy document for our area, which has high growth pressures

because of its prime location and excellent connectivity. For this reason we need to plan

positively and carefully for how growth will happen, what it will look like, and how it will help

shape Central Bedfordshire.

That is what we’ve been doing whilst preparing the first draft of the Local Plan, which is

published today as part of our Executive Committee papers.

The Draft Plan has been developed in the context of national planning policies and is based on a

solid technical evidence base, with a strong emphasis on ensuring that local opportunities and

needs around transport and other infrastructure are at its heart. Feedback from earlier

consultations and Community Planning has also influenced its development.

You can read the full Draft Local Plan by following the following link:

http://centralbeds.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=577&MId=5344&Ver=4

The Plan is intended to serve the Council and our communities for twenty years and, by

necessity, it is a long and complex document.

However, we recognise how critical it will be for local people and stakeholders to engage with

the ongoing development of the plan, and we have therefore developed a range of briefings and

summaries that you might find useful. The attachments include:

a briefing which summarises the Draft Local Plan

a summary of the growth location options

a map showing the options for growth

an update on community planning and

an update on the site assessments.

If the consultation progresses as planned, it will run for a period of eight weeks and I am

intending to hold a bespoke briefing event for all Town and Parish Councils in July.

Further details will be issued as and when the consultation is confirmed.

Growth location summaries

New village options

Four new villages in Marston Vale(5,000 new homes & 40ha employment)

The proposal is to develop a series of four villages and a business park. Theproposed villages would deliver part of the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Parkand an attractive waterway linking Brogborough and Stewartby lakes. This wouldbring opportunities for leisure, tourism and wildlife. The proposals include green openspace within the new villages and tree planting for the Forest of Marston Vale.

The growth location option lies west of Marston Moretaine, north of Lidlington andeast of Brogborough. The site’s boundary is the new A421 in the north, and theMarston Vale railway line in the south.

The proposed East-West Rail route will also benefit this development. The location isclose to the future East-West Rail Interchange at Ridgmont train station.

Road improvements will also be required, as well as public transport improvementsto link with Ridgmont train station and surrounding settlements.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments; aHealth and Social Care Hub; preschool/nursery/early years facilities; enlargingexisting schools and providing new schools as required.

Employment opportunities will be available through a new high-tech business parkwhich may include research and development; office; distribution; manufacturing;service and tourism, in addition to the employment opportunities provided by localinfrastructure such as schools, shops and healthcare facilities.

Four new villages east of Biggleswade(3,000-6,000 homes & 4.6ha employment land)

The proposal is to develop a network of linked villages and this includes anopportunity to contribute towards the delivery of the Biggleswade “Green Wheel”providing an extension to Biggleswade Common.

This growth location option lies south of Sutton, west of Dunton and east ofBiggleswade. It is bordered by various roads (Baden Powell Way, Dunton Lane,Biggleswade Road and Sutton Road).

This development is dependant on improvements to the A1 and the local roadnetwork so that the road network can cope. Improvements to public transport links toBiggleswade train station will also be required.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments;green open space; a Health and Social Care Hub; preschool/nursery/early yearsfacilities; enlarging existing schools and providing new schools as required.

Series of new villages near Aspley Guise (north of the railway line)(3,000 – 3,500 homes)

The proposal is to develop a series of linked villages and could provide a section ofthe Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Park and waterway.

The potential Oxford to Cambridge Expressway route must be confirmed before thisdevelopment can come forward. Other road and public transport improvements willbe required, including public transport links to Milton Keynes and Ridgmont trainstations and surrounding settlements.

This growth location option lies north of Aspley Guise, north-east of Woburn Sandsand south-west of Brogborough. The site’s northern boundary is the M1 road (withjunction 13 to the east), and the A421 towards Milton Keynes. Its southern boundaryis the Marston Vale railway line (which forms part of the future East-West rail route).

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments; aHealth and Social Care Hub; preschool/nursery/early years facilities; enlargingexisting schools and providing new schools as required.

There is potential to create green infrastructure to protect Aspley Guise and AspleyHeath from development and extensions to the Green Belt shall be considered.

New Market Town option.

New Market Town near Tempsford(2,500- 10,000+ homes & new science and technology/business park)

This proposal is for a settlement in an area that reuses previously developed land atthe old Tempsford Airfield.

This growth location option sits east of the A1 road, and is north of Sandy. Tempsfordvillage lies to the north and west of the site, and Everton village to the east.

Full scale development here is dependant on improvements to existing transportinfrastructure, such as the A1 and A428 roads. It is also dependant on the proposedEast-West Rail being confirmed: a station at the new development will be critical tosupporting this development. The new station will form an interchange between thenew East-West Rail and the East Coast Main Line.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments;green open space including a country park; pedestrian, cycle and vehicular crossingover railway lines; a health and Social Care Hub; preschool/nursery/early yearsfacilities; enlarging existing schools and providing new schools as required.

Employment opportunities will be provided through a new science andtechnology/business park to maximise the opportunity for employment within thetransport corridor between Oxford and Cambridge, as well as through the provision ofinfrastructure, including schools, shops and healthcare facilities.

Town expansion options

North of Luton (4,000 homes & 20ha employment land)

This option looks to expand Luton to the north. This urban extension would lie to thenorth edge of Luton, between the M1 to the west and the A6 to the east. The villagesof Lower Sundon, Upper Sundon and Streatley lie north of the site.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments;Health and Care Hub; open green space; preschool/nursery/early years facilities;enlarging existing schools and providing new schools as required.

Road and public transport improvements (including a new M1/A6 link road) and theopportunity to link with the Busway to improve connections with Leagrave station andLuton town centre are included.

The future M1-A6 link road is critical for this development.

Employment opportunities will be provided through 20 hectares of employment landwith good access to the M1 and suitable for a mix of employment uses, as well asthrough the provision of infrastructure, including schools, shops and healthcarefacilities.

West of Luton(2,000-4,600 homes)

The proposal is to expand Luton to the west of the M1 and to the western edge ofLuton. The village of Caddington lies to the west of the site and Woodside and SlipEnd villages lie to the south. It would be appropriately separated from these existingvillages, as well as from the Caddington Woods development, to preventcoalescence of settlements.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments;Health and Social Care Hub; open green space; preschool/nursery/early yearsfacilities; enlarging existing schools and providing new schools as required.

Road and public transport improvements and the opportunity to link with the Buswayto improve connections with Leagrave station and Luton town centre are included.

East of Arlesey(2,000 new homes)

This growth location option is situated between Arlesey in the east and the A507 roadand Fairfield in the west. The site borders Arlesey Cross in the north and extendssouth of Arlesey beyond the Blue Lagoon. The layout of Arlesey Cross will be takeninto consideration.

The proposal includes a country park that will provide a permanent separationbetween Arlesey and Fairfield, and which will also benefit biodiversity and giveaccess to leisure and recreation facilities. The proposal also includes enhancementsto the Blue Lagoon and Green Lagoon.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; drinking establishments; aHealth and Social Care Hub; a care home, extra care facilities and retirement villageunits; preschool/nursery/early years facilities; enlarging existing schools andproviding a new secondary school as required.

The proposal also includes the north/south relief road, as this will be important forsupporting the new development, as well as public transport links to Arlesey trainstation (which is close by, as is Letchworth train station).

Wixams southern extension(500 new homes)

This is a southern extension to the Wixams development in Central Bedfordshire.The proposal includes green open space within the development, and a country park.

This growth location option is situated north of Houghton Conquest and south of theexisting Wixams housing. The site is bordered by the B530/Ampthill Road to thewest, and by Bedford Road to the south. It does not reach to the A6 in the east.

The proposal includes the following services and amenities: shops;cafes/restaurants; community facilities; leisure facilities; preschool/nursery/earlyyears facilities; enlarging existing schools and providing a new lower/primary schoolas required.

The proposal includes road improvements; in particular the development will beaccessed to/from the B530 road and potential links through the Wixams developmentto the A6.

Village expansions

The plan also proposes to include small growth in and around other villages acrossCentral Bedfordshire, but only where services can support growth and there is goodaccessibility. These will be identified in the next iteration of the Local Plan.

Draft Local Plan overview

What is the Draft Local Plan?

The Local Plan sets out how Central Bedfordshire will develop over the next20 years. It outlines the strategy for ensuring the growth that we need isdelivered in the right place, and is of the right character and quality. It alsoensures that growth is delivered with the supporting roads, schools andservices such as health, as well as retail, leisure and community facilities.

We are consulting the public on the first draft of our Local Plan which sets outthe options for growth.

Why the Local Plan is important?

Our prime location and excellent connectivity means that we have high growthpressures and this is the reason we need to plan for it. We need more homesand in particular, homes that you and your families can afford to buy and torent. It means that we need to continue to create more jobs to grow the localeconomy and keep improving our transport networks. It also means that weneed to protect and enhance what you love about where you live.

Producing a Local Plan is a priority for the Council for a number of reasons.The Government is clear that local authorities are expected to have up to dateplans in place to guide development within their area to plan for theinfrastructure, homes and jobs that our residents need.

Failure to have an up to date plan would risk government intervention and aresulting loss of control of the process. Having an up to date plan in place alsomeans that the Council retains control over where development should belocated rather than it being delivered in an scattered way as a result ofspeculative development, sometimes without sufficient benefit to localcommunities.

How we’ve been developing our Plan

The Plan has been informed by around 15 new evidence studies andmodelling. These look at issues such as population, housing, employment,retail and flooding.

We’ve also considered existing, potential and new transport infrastructure e.g.roads and railways, so that growth and transport infrastructure go hand inhand.

We’ve developed this Draft Plan with residents’ input – through CommunityPlanning events and our Shaping Central Bedfordshire Consultation and wewill continue this engagement with you because we want to make sure we getthis right.

Listening to the community

From the consultations and community engagement events, we know thatlocal communities want us to:

- keep the character of Central Bedfordshire

- limit the impact on the countryside

- plan for homes for the older generation and affordable homes

- plan for local jobs and services

- make sure our roads can cope

- build near to existing roads and infrastructure

- use brownfield sites

What the Draft Plan proposes

1. Homes - 20,000-30,000

The number of homes we need to plan for is calculated using a standardnational approach. However, we need to be flexible and therefore we’replanning for a range of between 20,000-30,000 new homes. Further work willbe undertaken to establish an exact amount when we produce the nextversion of the Plan in 2018. This is in addition to the 23,000 homes that arealready planned for.

The options put forward in the draft plan to deliver this housing growth arethrough:

- creating new attractive villages

- creating a new market town

- expanding existing towns; and

- growth in existing villages, but only where services can support it.

Some of this development will be dependent on improvements to ourtransport networks, plus the development of critical new infrastructure, like theproposed East-West Railway.

The plan includes a range of different homes to rent and buy with a mixture ofsizes including family homes, two bedroom homes, apartments andbungalows. To help people get on the housing ladder, this will include 30%affordable housing which will be provided as lower cost options includingshared ownership.

The options for growth are shown on the map and more detail on each growthlocation is provided in the growth summaries document.

2. Jobs - 24,000-30,000

A range of new jobs would be delivered through existing sites and theproposed growth locations. Additionally, the plan proposes the following keyemployment sites at strategic locations close to the M1 and A1:

- J11a of M1 motorway

- J13 of M1 motorway

- Biggleswade South, West of the A1.

- RAF Henlow

These are also shown on the map.

3. Transport & Services

We are planning for new infrastructure such as roads, schools, shops, leisure,community facilities and open space.

Sometimes infrastructure is put in place before housing is developed (forexample, major link roads and schools have been developed to support futuregrowth). At other times infrastructure follows development, but they supporteach other, so we need to plan for both.

4. Transport

Existing and potential new roads and rail have already informed the draft plan,such as the A6-M1 link road and the Ridgmont Station upgrade.

Others are key to development in the areas we have proposed, such as theproposed East-West Railway and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. Weare also lobbying Government for improvements to the A1 and A421 tosupport this growth too.

5. Services

Small developments in and around villages will only happen where this can besupported by existing services or where the development will enhance theseservices and there is good accessibility.

Larger developments include requirements for road improvements, newshops, community facilities, leisure facilities, schools and health and carehubs.

Some of the larger developments are dependant on critical road and/or railimprovements to support them.

6. Countryside

We know how important the countryside and rural character of CentralBedfordshire is. Whilst we recognise that the number of homes we’re requiredto build is significant, in total these homes, together with those that alreadyhave planning permission, would equate to new development on only 4% ofCentral Bedfordshire land.

88% of Central Bedfordshire is countryside and 84% of it still would becountryside if the maximum number of homes that are proposed and plannedare delivered.

Two of the options proposed in the plan use brownfield land (land that haspreviously been developed) and we’re seeking to use as much of this as wecan. Unfortunately supply of brownfield land in Central Bedfordshire is verylimited and there isn’t enough to deliver all of the growth that we require.

The draft plan proposes to increase public access to the countryside bycreating more rights of way and country parks as well as play parks and openspaces within the proposed developments.

The plan includes protecting the Greensand Ridge, the Forest of MarstonVale, the Ivel Valley and the Chilterns ANOB, enhancing where possible andincreasing access.

Planting, landscaping and creating green space between developments andexisting areas of natural beauty will limit the impact of development on theseimportant areas.

We will use green open space to prevent existing settlements merging,keeping their identity and the rural character of the area.

Have your say

The consultation will be open for feedback from 4th July to 29th August 2017.

We want public feedback on these options. Whilst we need to plan for growth,we are asking for views on how we deliver it.

You can read more detail about the individual growth locations, the full DraftLocal Plan document as well as the supporting evidence and studies on ourwebsite at www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplan or by visiting your locallibrary or our Council office’s where copies are available to view from 4th July.

Priory House, Monks Walk , Chicksands, Shefford, Bedforshire SG17 5TQ

Watling House, High Street North, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, LU6 1LF , Duringthe consultation we will be holding a drop in session for Town and ParishCouncils; this will be on 18 July at Priory House from 2pm-8pm.

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplan

We will also hold a number of drop-in-sessions for members of the public totalk to us and ask questions, there’s no need to book just come along.

Public drop in sessions (2pm – 8pm):

11 July, Marston Sports Pavilion20 July, Biggleswade Town Council Office26 July, Arlesey Village Hall7 August, Sandy Village Hall9 August, Caddington Village Hall

Feedback can be submitted online or in writing to us at Local Plan, CentralBedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford,SG17 5TQ.

We will consider all of the comments we receive and publish the next versionof the Local Plan (pre-submission plan) for comment in spring 2018.

From late 2017 to early 2018 we will be running another series of Community

Planning events across Central Bedfordshire. Details will be published nearer

the time.

To keep up to date with news residents can sign up for our email updates

about the Local Plan and Community Planning at

www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplanupdates

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplanupdates

Update on Community Planning

What has happened so far?

Between November 2016 and April 2017 we held 15 community planningevents across Central Bedfordshire.

Each event was designed, using interactive techniques, to draw out relevantissues and opportunities to support future growth. More specifically, weexplored six themes; local character; growth and infrastructure; transport; jobsand business; environment and homes.

What the public said

Reports detailing all of the feedback for each event are being published on thecouncil website for those who attended the event to review before the reportsare finalised.

Below are the headline results from each of the six themes:

1. Local Character – Protect natural open space2. Transport – Plan for vehicles and buses3. Jobs & Business – Improve High Streets and support small start-up

units4. Environment – Retain and enhance open space for wildlife5. Growth & Infrastructure – Provide healthcare6. Homes – Provide affordable and older generation homes

A report which pulls all of the comments made across all of the eventstogether in one place and also indicates how they could be delivered will bepublished on the council website on 4th July 2017.

How this feedback will be used?

The information from the community plans has helped to inform the DraftLocal Plan and more specifically the policies within it. The Local Plan will setout how our area will develop in the future, up to 2035, and how we will makesure this growth happens in a structured and sustainable way.

Developers have a duty to make financial contributions which are used to helpprovide schools, roads and other community facilities in the area where newhomes are to be built. The community plans can be used to inform where thatmoney could be best spent in the local area.

Some information from community planning may be used to help us makedecisions about planning applications and what conditions we might put inplace around certain developments.

What happens next?

Our vision is that these events are the start of an ongoing dialogue with thelocal community about development and local needs.

The information collected will be updated as some areas develop and growand therefore their needs and issues change.

A further round of community planning (all 15 areas) will take place betweenlate 2017 and early 2018. This will enable communities to update theinformation in the context of the growth options proposed in the Draft LocalPlan.

The exact dates and venues will be published on the council website nearerthe time.

Residents can sign up for email updates about the Local Plan and CommunityPlanning at www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplanupates

You can find all of the information about community planning online atwww.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/communityplanning

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/localplanupates

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/communityplanning

Update on sites for the Draft Local Plan

Call for sites

The Central Bedfordshire Local Plan was launched in February 2016. TheCall for Sites was one of the first steps in this process, running from February2016 until April 2016. It provided an opportunity for agents, landowners anddevelopers to submit land which they believed could be developed to meetfuture demand for homes and jobs.

A total of 847 sites were submitted across Central Bedfordshire. The majorityof these were promoted for housing, however 43 sites were promotedspecifically for employment and seven were promoted for Gypsy & Travellerpitches. We published the full list of sites that were submitted on the councilwebsite in May 2016.

Assessing the sites

Separate Site Assessment Criteria were produced for assessing housing,employment and gypsy and traveller sites, all of which were subject toconsultation in 2016, with the housing site assessment criteria consulted ontwice.

The housing site assessment criteria assesses whether sites are “suitable”,“available” and “achievable” in line with national guidance. It considers anumber of factors including: how well sites are related to other settlements;the proximity of sites to services like schools, doctors, shops and publictransport; accessibility from the existing road network; flood risk; andopportunities and constraints identified by internal experts from environment,heritage and archaeology teams for example.

At this stage, sites are assessed on their individual merits and do not takeaccount of other sites submitted nearby. However, although a site on its ownmight not be deemed worthy of further assessment, it may still be consideredin combination with another site or group of sites to understand if the identifiedissues can be mitigated as part of a wider site at a later stage.

Crucially, the sites that come through this process will not automaticallybecome the draft housing allocations in the Local Plan. The results of the siteassessment process are just one of a number of technical evidencedocuments which will be used to determine the most sustainable locations forgrowth.

The initial assessment work undertaken to date has identified approximately200 sites which are deemed worthy of further review; however in reality this isnearer to150 individual sites as a number of these sites overlap or areduplicate submissions.

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/planning/policy/local-plan/call-for-sites/overview.aspx

Review the assessment outcomes

The outcomes of the assessments will be published on the council website atwww.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/callforsites on 4 July 2017 so thateveryone can review the assessments and make comments.

What happens next?

The Draft Local Plan, which sets out the strategy for growth and options forwhere the growth could go, is being consulted on between 4 July and 29August 2017. The feedback from this consultation will be considered and thenext iteration of the Local Plan which will set out more specific locations andthe relevant sites for growth will be published for comment in Spring 2018.

You can find all of the information about the sites on our website atwww.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/callforsites

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/callforsites

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/callforsites

Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan

2016-2026

A report to Central Bedfordshire Council

David Kaiserman BA DipTP MRTPI

Independent Examiner

28 June 2017

Executive Summary

I was appointed by Central Bedfordshire Council on 5 May 2017, with the agreement of Fairfield Parish

Council, to carry out the independent examination of the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2026.

The examination was completed solely on the basis of the written representations received, no public

hearing appearing to me to have been necessary. I made an unaccompanied visit to the area covered

by the Plan on 17 May 2017.

The Parish Council state that their basic aim in the short term is to ensure that the unique character of

Fairfield is maintained, and the Plan contains detailed policies which are designed to achieve that

objective. It makes clear, however, that land use issues are not being considered at this time, so it

contains no proposals for new allocations, adding that a review may be considered in five years’ time

to address the matter. I am satisfied that this approach accords in principle with relevant national and

local planning policies, while at the same time reflecting the result of the comprehensive local

consultation exercises which the group carried out before settling on the final draft of the Plan.

Subject to the inclusion of one additional policy and some minor modifications to Policies 2 and 3, I

have concluded that the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan meets all the necessary legal requirements at

this stage of its preparation, and consequently am pleased to recommend that it should proceed to

referendum.

Contents

• Introduction

• Procedural matters

• The Parish of Fairfield and the Plan’s objectives

• The basic conditions

• Other statutory requirements

• National policy

• The existing Development Plan for the area

• The consultation exercise (Regulation 14)

• Representations received (Regulation 16)

• General observations about the Plan

• Policy 1: Design and Character

• Policy 2: Improving Green Infrastructure

• Policy 3: Designating Local Green Spaces

• Conclusions on the basic conditions

• Formal recommendation.

Introduction

1. This report sets out the findings of my examination of the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2026

(the FNP). The Plan was submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) by Fairfield Parish Council

(FPC), which is an “appropriate qualifying body” (Localism Act 2011) for these purposes. The

Neighbourhood Area is the same as the Parish boundary.

2. Neighbourhood plans were introduced into the planning process by the Localism Act 2011. They

aim to help local communities shape the development and growth of their area, and the intention

was given added weight in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, which

continues to be the principal element of national planning policy. Detailed advice is provided by

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on neighbourhood planning, first published in March

2014.

3. The main purpose of the independent examination is to assess whether or not the Plan satisfies

certain “basic conditions” which must be met before it can proceed to a local referendum, and

also whether it is generally legally compliant. In considering the content of the Plan,

recommendations may be made concerning changes both to policies and any supporting text.

4. In the present case, my examination concludes with a recommendation that, subject to four

detailed modifications, the Plan should proceed to referendum. If this results in a positive

outcome, the FNP would ultimately become a part of the statutory development plan, and thus a

key consideration in the determining of planning applications relating to land lying within the NP

area.

5. I am independent of the Parish Council and do not have any interest in any land that may be

affected by the Plan. I have the necessary qualifications and experience to carry out the

examination, having had 30 years’ experience as a local authority planner (including as Acting

Director of Planning and Environmental Health for the City of Manchester), followed by more than

20 years’ experience providing training in planning to both elected representatives and officers,

for most of that time also working as a Planning Inspector. My appointment has been facilitated by

the Independent Examination Service provided by Trevor Roberts Associates.

Procedural matters

6. I am required to recommend that the FNP either

• be submitted to a local referendum; or

• that it should proceed to referendum, but as modified in the light of my recommendations;

or

• that it not be permitted to proceed to referendum, on the grounds that it does not meet the

requirements referred to in paragraph 3 above.

7. In carrying out my assessment, I have had regard to the following principal documents:

• the submitted FNP

• the FNP Basic Conditions Statement (the BCS)

• the FNP Consultation Statement

• the FNP Design Statement

• the FNP Green Infrastructure Plan

• the Fairfield Parish Plan 2015-2020

• the representations made to the FNP under Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning

(General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)

• selected policies of the North Local Development Framework, where they have been brought

to my attention

• relevant paragraphs of the NPPF (March 2012)

• relevant paragraphs of the PPG (March 2014 and updates).

8. I carried out an unaccompanied visit to the Plan area on 17 May 2017, when I looked at the overall

character and appearance of the village (together with its wider context) and at those areas

affected by specific policies in the Plan. I refer to my visit in more detail elsewhere in this report.

9. There is a general assumption that neighbourhood plan examinations should be carried out on the

basis of written representations only. Having considered all the information before me, including

the representations made to the submitted plan, I have been satisfied that the FNP could be

examined without the need for a public hearing (and it should be noted that there were no

representations to the contrary).

The parish of Fairfield and the Plan’s objectives

10. Fairfield is a small rural parish in Bedfordshire, close to the northern edge of Letchworth Garden

City, with an unusual (if not unique) history. This is helpfully summarised in the FNP, but the key

characteristics of the settlement owe their origin to the restoration and conversion of a large

Victorian asylum (later designated simply a “hospital”, and with the building now being referred

to as Fairfield Hall), following its closure in 1999. The building is Grade II listed and has been

converted into apartments and a health club. Some outbuildings, including a former farmhouse,

have also been converted to residential use. Significantly, the project was underpinned by the

grant of planning permission for a number of new housing schemes set within the fine (and

protected) landscaped setting of the original building. The immediately striking aspect of these

projects is their detailed respect for what the Plan calls “the unique look and feel” of Fairfield,

“achieved by the strict adherence of the Planning Authority and all developers to the Urban

Design Strategy adopted in 2002”.

11. The Parish Council was formed in 2013, and the parish now contains a population of around 3000

people. The Council has made assessing the needs and aspirations of this “young community” a

top priority and have prepared both a Parish Plan (“a plan of actions to be taken to address the

identified issues over the next five years”) and a Neighbourhood Plan (“to set out the planning

policies to guide the development of Fairfield over a 10-year period”).

12. The stated vision and objectives of the FNP are to ensure that:

• all new development is of a high quality of design that complements and enhances the

unique local character of Fairfield;

• all extensions to existing dwellings maintain the unique design and use of materials that

currently exist;

• the existing green spaces within Fairfield are retained in perpetuity and maintained to a high

standard; and that

• the development of the priorities itemised in the Green Infrastructure Plan are given full

consideration when future development is proposed.

13. These intentions are given simple effect by three policies, each of which is referred to in detail

below.

The basic conditions

14. I am not required to come to a view about the ‘soundness’ of the plan (in the way which applies to

the examination of local plans); instead I must principally address whether or not it is appropriate

to make the plan, having regard to certain “basic conditions”, as listed at paragraph 8(2) of

Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The requirements are also

set out in paragraph 065 of the Planning Practice Guidance1. I deal with each of these conditions in

turn below but, in brief, all neighbourhood plans must:

1 Reference ID: 41-065-20140306

• have regard to national policy and guidance;

• contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

• be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for the local

area;

• not breach, and otherwise be compatible with, EU obligations, including human rights

requirements;

• not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site (as defined in the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) or a European offshore marine site, either alone or in

combination with other plans or projects; and

• comply with any other prescribed matters.

Other statutory requirements

15. A number of other statutory requirements apply to the preparation of neighbourhood plans, all of

which I consider have been met in this case. These are:

• that the FPC is the appropriate qualifying body (Localism Act 2011) able to lead preparation

of a neighbourhood plan;

• that what has been prepared is a Neighbourhood Development Plan, as formally defined by

the Localism Act 2011; that the plan area does not relate to more than one Neighbourhood

Area; and that there are no other neighbourhood plans in place within the area covered by

the plan;

• that the Plan period must be stated (which in the case of Fairfield is confirmed as being the

period 2016 to 2026); and

• that no “excluded development” is involved (this primarily relates to development involving

minerals and waste and nationally significant infrastructure projects).

16. A screening report is required in order to determine whether the Plan needs to be accompanied

by a Strategic Environmental Assessment, under the terms of the Environmental Assessment of

Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. It is the qualifying body’s responsibility to undertake

any necessary environmental assessments, but it is the Local Planning Authority’s responsibility to

engage with the statutory consultees. By letter dated 4 May 2016, CBC notified the Parish Council

that, having consulted the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England, they had

concluded that the FNP is unlikely to have significant impact on European sites and therefore that

a full SEA need not be undertaken.

17. It is a requirement under the Planning Acts that policies in neighbourhood plans must relate to

“the development and use of land”, whether within the Plan area as a whole or in some specified

part(s) of it. I am satisfied that this test has been met in the case of the FNP.

National policy

18. National policy is set out primarily in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), a key theme

being the need to achieve sustainable development. The NPPF is supported by Planning Practice

Guidance (PPG), an online resource which is continually updated by Government. I have borne

particularly in mind the advice in the PPG that a policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear

and unambiguous, concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence.

The existing Development Plan for the area

19. The current development plan for the area including Fairfield is the North Local Development

Framework (formerly the area covered by Mid Bedfordshire District Council). It consists of the

Core Strategy and Development Plan Policies DPD (2009) and the Site Allocations DPD (2011),

together with some “saved” policies from the Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan. These policies provide

the strategic context with which the neighbourhood plan must be in “general conformity”, and

the FNP Basic Conditions Statement (required by Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning

(General) Regulations 2012 [as amended]) is the principal vehicle for setting out the relevant

evidence to demonstrate that this requirement (along with the others involved) has been met.

20. From the documents which accompanied the submission, it is clear that the only site-specific

policy of direct relevance to Fairfield is the Site Allocations DPD policy DM5a, which designates a

number of green areas within the settlement as “Important Open Spaces”; all of these (and

additional ones) are proposed to be designated “Local Green Spaces” in the Neighbourhood Plan,

which I refer to again below when dealing with Policy 3.

21. The current development plan framework is in the course of being replaced by the Central

Bedfordshire Local Plan, which I am told is due to be published at the end of June 2017. CBC have

explained that when the Submission Version of the Local Plan appears in early 2018, it will contain

a number of specific proposals for development of sites designed to accommodate growth needs

up to 2035. CBC add that parishes will not be given a “growth quota” as an input to

neighbourhood planning throughout the District. They conclude2:

“Accordinoly, as Local Plannino Authority, we fully support Fairfield Parish Council’s decision not to

allocate sites for development in their Neiohbourhood Plan, oiven that the Local Plan will be

allocatino sites for development in the near future. We will continue to work with all our Parish

and Town Councils ensure that local community views are considered durino the Local Plan

process”.

The consultation exercise (Regulation 14)

22. This regulation required the FNP to publicise details of their proposals “in a way that is likely to

bring [them] to the attention of people who live work or carry on business in the area”, and to

provide details of how representations about them could be made. An extremely comprehensive

series of exercises was carried out by a Steering Group (made up of members of the Parish

Council, the Fairfield Hall Management Company, the Fairfield Hall Residents’ Association and the

wider community) in order to satisfy this requirement, the details of which are set out in the

submitted Consultation Statement. From March 2014 the Steering Group began an energetic

process of seeking to involve as many interested parties as possible in the preparation of the FNP.

This included open days, surveys to establish key issues of concern, the formation of working

groups to assess the responses and the preparation of a draft Plan, before the final version was

distributed to all households in October 2015. Work on the Parish Plan proceeded in tandem with

that on the Neighbourhood Plan.

23. I am more than satisfied, having read the Consultation Statement, that the requirements of

Regulation 14 have been fully met by FPC’s activities. As an indication of their success in bringing

the community on board, the two open days attracted over 100 people and the initial

questionnaire elicited a response from around 52% of all Fairfield’s households.

2 Covering letter accompanying submission documents to TRA dated 3 May 2017

Representations received (Regulation 16)

24. Formal consultation on the submitted plan was undertaken by CBC for a six-week period which

ended on 3 March 2017. The representations received may be summarised as follows (with any

necessary comments on them appearing later in my report):

• Anglian Water – no comments on the FNP policies

• Historic England – are pleased to note that “the unique character of Fairfield derived from

the historic hospital buildings and landscape is not only celebrated but forms the basis of the

Neighbourhood Plan”. Specific support is offered to Policies 2 and 3. However, HE also

suggest the need for an additional policy designed to “protect the fabric and setting of these

designated heritage assets”.

• Natural England – no specific comments

• Department of Health and the Homes and Communities Agency – this response in relation to

Policy 2 relates solely to a site owned by DoH off Hitchin Road, to the north of East Lodge. It

amounts to an objection to an aspiration in the Green Infrastructure Plan (GIP) for the

designation of the site as a wildflower meadow.

• CBC Assets – this is the estate management arm of the Council. They make similar

observations about the effect of Plan Policy 2 on the Council’s land.

• CBC Local Pollution Team – make two observations about a site suggested in the GIP as being

suitable for sports facilities, and also make a detailed comment about street lighting (a

reference to advice in the Fairfield Design Guide)

• Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership – offer general support, but especially in relation to

policy 2, and the strong link with the GIP that this sets out. However (and without this being

characterised as an objection), the BLNP consider that the FNP “should have a much stronger

spatial aspect”, since “without this steer the area is vulnerable to a greater degree of

development pressure than is sustainable, especially on any land that is not formally

protected through designation”. In addition, there are reservations about the precise

relationship between the GIP and the FNP.

• Bedford Borough – no comments

• others - one member of the public (Mr Geoff Smith) has offered strong support for the Plan

• (it should be noted that no general response to the FNP was made by Central Bedfordshire

Council under Regulation 16, since their views at Regulation 14 stage about the Plan period

have been taken on board by the Parish Council, resulting in a change from the original five

years to the present 10).

General observations about the Plan

25. The following comments may be helpful in understanding the way I have approached the

preparation of my report on the Plan and the observations and recommendations which I make

upon it:

• the Parish Council and their partners have spent considerable time and energy, in full

consultation with the local community at large, in identifying the issues and objectives that

they wish to be included in their Plan, and this entirely reflects the aims of the “localism”

agenda. They also appear to me to have developed their ideas with commendable speed;

• the Plan properly focuses on land use policies, reflecting Planning Practice Guidance. I have

addressed them in the order that they appear in the submitted plan and have set out my

views about each, irrespective of whether or not any modification is thought necessary;

• generally, I have considered it relevant to my role as independent examiner to apply a “light

touch” to the process wherever appropriate.

26. The introductory elements of the Plan set the scene by explaining the (short) history of Fairfield as

a residential community and the steps taken by the Parish Council and their partners to prepare

both the Parish Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. There is a helpful summary of the purpose and

value of neighbourhood plans, and a clear statement that the FNP itself is looking principally to

the next five years, but with the prospect of a review at that time in order to consider any

necessary land-use allocations deriving from further work on the Local Plan which may emerge in

the interim. There is a summary of the national and local planning contexts; a short account of

the community’s involvement in the preparation of the plan; and a brief account of the interesting

history of Fairfield Hall.

27. The Plan’s vision and objectives are set out at paragraph 12 of my report. The document itself is

simply and attractively laid out, with each policy referring back clearly to the priorities as firmly

established during the consultation process. A clear distinction is made between the policies

themselves (helpfully highlighted in shaded boxes) and the concisely-expressed contextual

material. Photographs and plans add appropriate interest.

The policies

28. I will now turn to an examination of the policies themselves in the light, where relevant, of

representations received.

Policy 1: Design and Character

29. This policy is guided by the objective of retaining the “look and feel” of Fairfield. The Parish

Council had been informed that CBC’s Urban Design Strategy, adopted in 2002, was no longer of

relevance as a development management tool, since it had been drawn up to govern the way the

original project, now completed, was to be developed.

30. It was clear to me on my visit that it is strict adherence to a strong design code which has led to

the particular character of the settlement which the FNP wishes to protect. The new policy seeks

to maintain that approach. It has four components. Between them, these require

• new developments to be in keeping with the “design language” of the Fairfield Design

Statement. This document has been prepared at the same time as the FNP itself and contains

a great deal of detailed guidance which serves to supplement the FNP policies themselves.

The requirement that new development should be “in keeping” with this guidance sensibly

allows a degree of interpretation in particular cases. It also applies to the way schemes

impact on the public realm;

• extensions and infill schemes to respect their physical context, including the materials used

in their construction.

31. Policy 1 is strongly supported by NPPF paragraphs 58 and 59. I am also satisfied that it conforms

with Local Plan policies CS14, CS15 and DM3. It therefore meets the basic conditions.

32. Historic England ask for an additional policy designed to protect the fabric and setting of the

historic hospital buildings and any related non-designated heritage assets. Bearing in mind, in

particular, paragraphs 126 and 129 of the NPPF, I consider that this would be a sensible addition

to Policy 1 as it stands, since no explicit reference is made to the matter. It seems to me that

protection of the fabric of the listed buildings is something which would be addressed through the

normal listed building procedures; issues involving the settino of the asset will often be less

certain in their outcome.

33. I therefore recommend the addition of a new subcsection to Policy 1 to read: “1e) – Particular

regard will be had to the effect of any new development on the setting of the historic former

hospital buildings and those within its curtilage which are closely related to them”.

Policy 2: Improving Green Infrastructure

34. The guiding priority for residents here is “retaining the green spaces”. The Parish Council have

overseen the preparation by the Beds Rural Communities Charity of a Green Infrastructure Plan

(GIP) in parallel with the FNP: this seeks to protect and enhance the landscape and improve

access to it, but also to provide “a multi-functional green infrastructure network”. The FNP

acknowledges the existence of the GIP, which I am satisfied has the status primarily of an

advocacy document designed to inform the neighbourhood planning process. Policy 2 reflects this

in its two components:

• a requirement for development proposals to demonstrate how any affected “green” assets

would be protected and enhanced; and

• a requirement that proposals for enhancements should accord with the priorities set out in

the GIP. These are identified as protection from development, and the enhancement of,

West and East Orchards; the creation of a range of “community green-spaces”, such as a

football pitch and skate-park; and the creation of a new right of way.

35. As noted above, there have been several representations about Policy 2, but none of them, in my

view, has any impact on the policy as it is worded. In particular:

• the Department of Health and the Homes and Communities Agency objection acknowledges

that there is nothing in the Plan itself which affects the Hitchin Road site, most of which is, in

any event, allocated for housing development in the Local Plan. They rightly describe the

suggestion in the GIP for a wildflower meadow on part of the site as an “aspiration” – indeed

it is referenced as “aspiration 17” in that document;

• I would make a similar comment in relation to the representations by CBC Assets. They refer

to GIP aspirations numbered 1, 2, 4, 4a, 10, 13, 14, and 17, all of which affect land in CBC’s

ownership. I fully understand the issues they have raised about the possible effect of some

of the GIP’s ideas on land management (especially in relation to farm tenancies), but it is

more appropriate for them to be addressed if and when detailed proposals come forward;

• the same is true of the comments made by CBC’s Local Pollution Team about the need to

look at the detailed environmental effects (such as noise impact, street-lighting issues etc) of

proposals – these are matters which would more appropriately be addressed as part of the

development management process;

• I have already recorded the support for this policy from the Local Nature Partnership, and

commented on the reason for the limited spatial component in the current version of the

FNP. I see no reason, based on the requirements of the basic conditions, to recommend any

change to the Plan in that respect. The methodological issues to which the Partnership have

drawn attention may well be legitimate, but again are beyond the scope of this examination.

36. NPPF paragraphs 73, 74 and 75 give explicit support to the objectives of policy 2, as do Local Plan

policies CS17 and CS18. The policy does not seek to allocate land for any purposes, but to provide

a framework against which any proposals which do emerge are assessed – which is to say simply

that that they should be “in accordance with the priorities” of the GIP. Subject to the following

recommended modification to the detailed wording, therefore, I am satisfied that it meets the

basic conditions.

37. The wording to which I draw attention is the expectation that development proposals will not

only protect valuable green assets, but enhance them. There may well be sensible opportunities

for doing this from time to time, but a blanket requirement (or what at least might be seen as

such) may not always be appropriate or reasonable. I recommend, therefore, that the phrase

“where appropriate” be added to the wording of policy 2a before the word “enhance”.

Policy 3: Designating Local Green Spaces

38. This policy reflects the opportunity provided by paragraphs 76 and 77 of the NPPF for local

communities “to identify for special protection oreen areas of particular importance to them. By

desionatino land as Local Green Space, local communities will be able to rule out new development

other than in very special circumstances”. A neighbourhood plan is clearly the most appropriate

vehicle for undertaking such an exercise, although it goes without saying that the relevant

proposals need to take full account of all other national and local planning policies which might be

relevant.

39. The NPPF says that the Local Green Space designation should only be used where the land in

question is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; is demonstrably special to a

local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty,

historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its

wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of

land.

40. As it is worded, Policy 3 does not explicitly state that development of a designated Local Green

Space (or part of it) should ruled out other than in very special circumstances. Nor is there

anything within the supporting material to the policy itself which suggests that that is the

intention, even though that is clearly an option envisaged in the NPP. However, it should be noted

that Objective 3 (see paragraph 12 above) seeks to ensure that “the existing green spaces within

Fairfield are retained in perpetuity…...”. There is therefore some scope for ambiguity here which it

would be preferable to remove.

41. As it stands, the wording of Policy 3 does not present any problems in terms of satisfying the basic

conditions; and the evidence from the work done by the Parish Council with local residents is that

full regard has been had to the criteria for designation set out in NPPF paragraph 77. However, in

the interests of clarity, I would recommend that any uncertainty about the intended impact of

designation be removed, either by a comment in the supporting material explaining the

relationship of the policy to Objective 3, or by an appropriate alteration to the policy itself.

42. The policy requires any development close to the named sites to avoid compromising their value;

improved access and recreational use is encouraged (subject to the same proviso); and support is

offered to proposals which could be beneficial in terms of biodiversity. Having inspected the 13

sites to be designated under Policy 3 on my visit to Fairfield, I am satisfied that these criteria are

met in relation to all of them. The policy also complies with relevant Local Plan policies. The basic

conditions are therefore met.

43. Policy 3a states: “The sites that are identified on the map as sites 1 to 12 are desionated Local

Green Spaces”. The map itself and the supporting material identify 13 sites in total. I therefore

recommend that this small discrepancy be removed (in whichever way is thought most

appropriate).

Conclusions on the basic conditions

44. I am satisfied that the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan makes appropriate provision for sustainable

development. I conclude that in this and in all other material respects it has appropriate regard to

national policy. Similarly, I conclude that the Plan is in general conformity with the strategic

policies in the development plan for the local area. There is no evidence before me to suggest that

it is not compatible with EU obligations, including human rights requirements.

Formal recommendation

45. I have concluded that, subject to the four recommendations noted above, the Fairfield

Neighbourhood Plan would meet the basic conditions, and I therefore recommend that, as

modified, it should proceed to a referendum. Finally, I am required to consider whether the

referendum area should be extended beyond the Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan Area, but I have

been given no reason to think this is necessary.

David Kaiserman

David Kaiserman BA DipTP MRTPI

Independent Examiner

28 June 2017

APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Examiner’s

report

paragraph

FNP reference Recommendation

33

Policy 1 Additional policy to protect the setting of Fairfield Hall, as

requested by Historic England

37 Policy 2 Small addition to the wording

41

Policy 3 Clarification about the impact of the designation as a Local

Green Space.

43 Policy 3 / related map Remove discrepancy in referring to the number of sites to

be designated

MBS Grounds Maintenance Ltd 16, Boars Tye Road, Silver End

Witham, Essex, CM8 3QA

T: 01376 583967

M: 07850 756362

[email protected]

www.mbsgm.com

MBS Grounds Maintenance Ltd

Registered in England No. 04638253 VAT Reg. No. 623 1224 87

65824

28th June 2017

Maintenance of areas of land with the Parish of Fairfield. Fairfield Parish Council would like to request a quotation to maintain the following areas between 1st July 2017 and 30th June 2019:- Costs below are for 2017/18. 2018/19 would be an increase of 2% on the net price. Fairfield Park – Areas being handed over to Parish Council

– 32 visits March to October

£ 7,059.96 plus VAT. PER YEAR. JULY TO JUNE.

Cutting the grass to the rear of Community Hall

Max of 20 visits per year £ 650.00 plus VAT. PER YEAR. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2 Roundabouts in Fleming Drive

Max 16 visits per year 14 visits one per fortnight March to September 2 visits during the winter months (October to February) £ 506.72 plus VAT. PER YEAR. ______________________________________________________________________________ Dickens Boulevard Roundabout

mulch once a year (September) £ 220.00 plus VAT. PER YEAR. ______________________________________________________________________________ Cutting the grass by the entrance to Salisbury Close

eds Max of 20 visits per year £ 324.96 plus VAT. PER YEAR. ______________________________________________________________________________



T: 01376 583967

M: 07850 756362

[email protected]

www.mbsgm.com



65824

2… 2 Dog bins at either end of the Cricket Ground adjacent to Kingsley Avenue

empty 2 dog bins at either end of the cricket ground adjacent to Kingsley Avenue. Twice weekly £ 384.00 plus VAT. PER YEAR. Salting on page 3.



T: 01376 583967

M: 07850 756362

[email protected]

www.mbsgm.com



65824

Gritting adopted roads 1. A retainer for staff to be on call during Christmas New Year holiday period in case of bad weather. (This will need paying whether the weather changes or not).

2. The cost of each individual salting operation. Plus the extra if it is a bank holiday or weekend.

3. An agreement for salt to be stored at their depot with the Community Hall being a temporary measure.

4. An agreement on the roads to be done and how FPRA and FPC will be invoiced.

5. An agreement on salt bins and topping up.

1 & 2.Please see SE 2737[attached] sent to Scanlans with a breakdown of costs for the dates shown. This

is 2019 would be similar costs.

3. No charge for storage.

4. Agree a plan between FPRA and FPC and MBS.

5. To be done within site visit time. Site staff to check when necessary.

MBS would pick up salt supply from BDC yard.[This to be taken to MBS yard as directed].charged at £

80.00 per load required.

Further Supply of salt would be an extra cost, but cannot be priced at this time. This additional salt would

only be needed if there is a severe amount of bad weather

.

��

��

��

�� !"#

�$�%�!&��' !(�&

�)�*�+�,�-��

��

�� !��

�"�� #�!��

#�$#��

��%��

��#!��&�%��'��

()*��

�� #�!��

#�$#��

��%��

��#!��&�%��'��

()*��

�++�� ,��

��

��

�� *�

��

��

��

��-�.�/0,��1 �� !!

��2��+�

.��/ �� " � 0� �1�� #��

"#�$%�&"%#�'()�*+�,�-%�$+-%#�.+#�,#�**�(,�#+��(��.++*"*/��.+#�0!1 �$/#��*'��(%2��%#��%-%�(��(%2��%#��#%��*+�3%�,#�**%��,#%%��(%2�'"�2�44�3%��5""4�%��2�*/�+5#�+"%#*�-%��*2+�'%(�2�44�3%�(%%�%��*+�$##��+5*�*/%�%�2+#6��*/%�%�"#�$%��($45�%�44�43+5#�-%/�$4%�(��'$/�(%#��*+�$##��+5*��4*�(,�

�7!�!!7!�!!10�81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�07!�!!07!�!!10�81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

� ;�<! ;�<!10781080!1 �9��*(�3�

��7<�!!�7<�!!10781080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

�11<�!!11<�!!10<81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�7=!�!!7=!�!!10<81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

� ;�<! ;�<!10;81080!1 �9��*(�3�

��7<�!!�7<�!!10;81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

��!�!!�!�!!10 81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�0�!�!!0�!�!!10 81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

��!�!!�!�!!10=81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�0�!�!!0�!�!!10=81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

��!�!!�!�!!10>81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�0�!�!!0�!�!!10>81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

�7!�!!7!�!!1�!81080!1 �9��*(�3�

�07!�!!07!�!!1�!81080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

�11<�!!11<�!!1�181080!1 �9��*(�3�

�7=!�!!7=!�!!1�181080!1 �9��*(�3��:�$44�+5*

Appendix F

Foot/cycle path along Hitchin Road

Could you please bring to the parish councillors’ attention my concerns regarding the foot/cycle path along the Hitchin Road? I cycle along this path regularly and am very concerned about the overhanging tree hedge branches and under growth overhanging the path in both direction Stotfold and Letchworth.

You may think I could use the road, this road is very busy and cycling could again be quite dangerous, I think children also use this path on their way to Etonbury School, the road is obviously going to get busier with the new houses and school. I have lived in this area all my life and do believe it my duty to raise my concerns not just for me but to create a better environment for future generations. We did receive a letter from Anglian Water regarding the unpleasant sewer smells we have had to endure, they have apologise and suggested ‘quote we are looking at making a community donation as a gesture of good will’. Personally I can’t think of a better way of spending any moneys received than to improve the cycle/footpath into Letchworth and Stotfold.

I do believe the present state of the cycle/footpath into Letchworth and Stotfold is dangerous!! Mainly due to the amount of traffic passing through, I believe it is an accident waiting to happen.Would hate something to happen and I had not done nothing in trying to bring this matter to the local authority's attention.

Appendix G

Receipts and Payments

Receipts

None received

Payments To whom Description Total

Katrina Henshaw May wages £515.48

HMRC May Tax £129.00

EE Mobile phone £46.09

Lexis Nexis Local Council Administration book £75.60Total £766.17

Pre-Paid credit Card No transfers made

Appendix H

Summary of Q1 expenditure

Budget

2016/17 bf

Budget

2017/18

Additional

Income

Money

Spend

Money

Remaining

Administration £ 3,897.89 20,000.00£ -£ 7,849.45£ 16,048.44£

Recreation &

Public Lands

inc Artefacts

£ 56,609.15 17,904.00£ -£ 7,272.22£ 67,240.93£

Orchards £ 11,591.30 18,000.00£ -£ 285.00£ 29,306.30£

Apple Day £ 350.04 500.00£ -£ -£ 850.04£

PP / NHP £ 25,703.02 -£ -£ -£ 25,703.02£

Cemetery £ 10,000.00 10,000.00£ -£ -£ 20,000.00£

Parking £ 49,902.50 16,000.00£ -£ -£ 65,902.50£

Grants £ 15,850.63 7,000.00£ -£ -£ 22,850.63£

Reserves £ 30,000.00 -£ -£ -£ 30,000.00£

Interest £ 855.75 -£ -£ -£ 855.75£

Vat -£ 1,005.48 -£ 1,005.48£ 1,567.82£ 1,567.82-£

Total £ 203,754.80 £ 89,404.00 £ 1,005.48 £ 16,974.49 £ 277,189.79

BBAATTPPCC Bedfordshire Association

of Town & Parish Councils

The Clerk to the Council 5th June 2017

Dear Colleague BATPC Annual General Meeting We have already published in the May edition of Bedfordshire Bugle the date and location of our AGM as Thursday 19th October 2017 in Henlow Park Pavilion. I am writing now with some further details. 2017 will be the Association’s 70th AGM and the County Committee intends to mark the occasion in a modest way. All member councils are entitled to send two or three voting delegates to the AGM; two delegates for a council with an electorate up 1500; three delegates for those with an electorate of 1500 or more. For the first time this year we will be asking all councils to register their delegates in advance of the meeting. This will help us with catering and will also enable us to email meeting papers direct to each delegate. We will continue to send a set of papers to the Clerk for the council’s records. The two guest speakers for the AGM will on the theme of transport. Alan Kirkdale from Highways England will give an overview of all the road projects in progress and being planned for Bedfordshire, majoring on the A1 and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. Patrick O’Sullivan from East West Rail will speak about the progress to date and the next steps for the rail link. Another important feature of our AGM is the opportunity when councils meet together to debate subjects of county-wide relevance. If your Council would like to put forward a motion for debate please let me have details by noon on Wednesday 13th September. Motions will first be considered by the County Committee, and if so resolved will go forward to the AGM. Motions that do go forward to the AGM will need a speaker from the proposing council, and a seconder from another council. I look forward to receiving any motions for debate by latest 13th September, and we will be publicising the AGM and the new booking arrangements over the coming months. Yours sincerely

Louise Ashmore County Officer

Bedfordshire Association of Town & Parish Councils Suite 11, Baystrait House, 15 Station Road, Biggleswade Beds SG18 8AL Tel: 01767 312669 email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix K

Arlesey Summer Fete

I am writing on behalf of the Arlesey Town Council Archive Group. On the 2nd September this year we are collaborating with local groups to put on an exhibition of archive material at the Arlesey Summer Fête.

The group understands that Fairfield Parish Council has acquired a collection from Three Counties Hospital and wondered if the council would be able to bring along some or all of the collection as part of the day.

The Archive Group organised an exhibition on 22nd October last year which proved extremely popular and so far interest has been very favourable for the Fête too. We will be looking to organise another standalone exhibition again sometime next year.

Please let me know if this is something that the council would be interested in.

Appendix L

Bedfordshire Day

I am writing to you on behalf of the Friends of Bedfordshire Society. You may be familiar with us and what we do. Our aim is to promote the county of Bedfordshire from within. One of our main projects, as you may be aware, is Bedfordshire Day, which is our annual celebration of the county. It happens every year on the 28th November.

Bedfordshire Flag hanging from a windowWe are again urging as many village and town councils across the county to take part. We would very much like to hear what plans you might have for this year’s Bedfordshire Day. Also if we can help in any way, please do let us know. Last year we had many councils flying the Bedfordshire county flag and if you were one of them we truly thank you and hope that you will fly your flag again this year. We would very much appreciate it if you could also spread the word about Bedfordshire Day however possible. If you have any social media or village newsletters we would very much appreciate it if you could encourage your residents to take part also. Examples of involvement include celebrations in local pubs, fun days at local churches and community centres, special guided tours by local historians, special offers in shops, Bedfordshire Clangers as a special in Cafés and restaurants, flying the county flag, sporting tournaments, producing souvenirs for the day, etc. etc.

The above list are just a few examples of previous ideas which have taken place across the county and is by no means a limit. We want Bedfordshire Day to be a force to help bring the community together and so different and unique ideas are encouraged. I hope you are encouraged by this message and would like to take your own Bedfordshire day event further. Please feel free to get back to me whenever you like if you have any questions or, as mentioned, think that we can help further. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards Luke Blackstaffe

Fairfield Parish Council

Documents

Transcript of Fairfield Parish Council