Comment

Representation ID: 10082

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

By way of background the council will be aware that our client firstly provided significant input towards the now adopted Bedford local plan 2030 which included full participation at the hearing sessions relating to housing and delivery comprising its examination in public in September 2019. Since this time, they have thoroughly tested the council's housing land supply position, including an assessment of the deliverability of some of its key strategic sites, as part of a Section 78 appeal in respect of their site at Salph End. Otherwise, on their behalf we have closely monitored the Council’s situation around it's increased local housing need figure and the adequacy of the adopted local plan to meet current needs.

In summary we consider that the council's current approach to housing delivery (that is the strategy set out in the current adopted Local Plan 2030) is entirely inadequate and one which significantly fails to meet the actual housing needs off the plan area. We made this position clear at the previous examination. However, through quirk of the transitional arrangements in place at the time of the examination the council was able to use its required compliance with the NPPF 2012 as a means to side-step any obligation to meet an escalating annual requirement which even upon the plans adoption in December 2019 was approximately 1,300 dwellings per annum (dpa).

We accept that a plan which sought to meet a locally derived housing figure as opposed to its LHN technically represented a sound strategy at the time. Accordingly, we similarly accept that a plan which only seeks to provide 970dpa as opposed to its ‘real time’ need of 1,280dpa followed national policy. However, what the plan did not, and does not, provide was a strategy which tackled head on the significant housing needs faced by current and future residents of the Borough alike.

Proposed ‘Stepped Trajectory’
Now with the council placed in a position where it has no option but to proceed with its LHN figure as the basis of the emerging plan’s housing target it is once again employing every mechanism possible to avoid having to meet the immediate and compelling housing requirements of the Borough, which now stand at 1,355dpa. Principally, and embodied by Policy DS3(S) ‘Amount and timing of housing growth’ the council is now seeking to argue the use of a stepped trajectory to avoid having to adequately address this issue during the first ten years of the plan, an approach which would result in a deficit in provision of between 300-400dpa prior to 2030. This represents a cumulative figure of 3,450 dwellings fewer than should be planned for prior to 2030.

In its paper entitled ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ (April 2022) the council seeks to justify its approach to delivery. At paragraph 2.2 of the paper, it states that the key factors that have influenced the decision to backload the majority of delivery to the final 10 years of the plan period are as follows:

• The recent adoption of the Local Plan 2030 and the process of preparing Neighbourhood Plans which flowed from this;
• The quantum of development required and the infrastructure needed to deliver that growth;
• The opportunities and constraints in relation to the delivery of infrastructure in the period to 2040, in particular East West Rail and strategic highway improvements and factors which govern their timing;
• The availability of sites and the extent to which they accord with the plan vision and spatial strategy;
• The potential timing of the delivery of identified sites having regard to infrastructure dependencies and viability issues and the need for the preparation of development briefs and design codes;
• Prospects for the local economy and the necessary economic drivers needed to deliver growth at the level required; and
• The availability of support and assistance to unlock growth from government agencies.

In our view none of these reasons justify the council’s approach which essentially seeks to defer most of the housing delivery to the 2030 to 2040 period. One of the central themes raised by the council in the paper and one which encompasses several of the bullet points set out above is that the LHN figure represents a “significant change” in the housing requirement across the Borough and one that apparently has caught the council off-guard. However, it only represents a significant change in the level of new homes to be provided by the emerging Local Plan 2040 compared with the council’s adopted strategy.

It was known from the very outset of the plan-making process that the step up in the housing requirement would be significant. Indeed, it was known at the point of the examination of the current Local Plan 2030 that the real housing need across the Borough is approximately 1,300dpa and that any replacement plan would need to grapple with this. Paragraph 40 of the Inspectors’ report into the Local Plan 2030, published on 20th December 2019 confirmed that:

“The standard method identifies an annual minimum housing need figure for Bedford of around 1,280dpa, more than 30% higher than the plan’s objectively-assessed need of 970dpa. The two housing need figures are formulated using different approaches and, thus, at the present time and given the transitional arrangements for the examination of local plans, the 1,280dpa figure does not undermine the robustness of the 970dpa objectively-assessed need figure for new housing in Bedford.”

Paragraph 1.8 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 itself then states that “due to the changes to national planning policy, in particular the need for the borough to plan for higher housing numbers beyond this local plan, the Council will undertake an early review of the local plan”. Indeed, it was known to the council as early as the adoption of the first NPPF to introduce the concept of LHN in July 2018 that eventually it would have to seek to accommodate a housing target some way in advance of the adopted position identified in its original SHMA dated October 2016. In short: the council saw this coming.

In which case it seems deeply irresponsible of the council, and an abdication of its duties under paragraph 68 of the NPPF – that is to “identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites” and to “identify a supply of specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period” which can adequately meet needs – that it has failed to do this despite full knowledge of the scale of task ahead since 2018. The council has gone through almost two full iterations of the plan-making process since first being able to appreciate the actual borough-wide need of approximately 1,300dpa and still has failed to identify a sufficient strategy capable of responding to this now urgent requirement.

It is also pertinent to consider that as required by paragraph 33 of the NPPF and the accompanying guidance set out in the PPG there is an expectation that local plans should be reviewed every 5 years to ensure they remain up-to-date. On this basis the functional reality of local plan making is that local planning authorities are mostly being asked to focus on producing a deliverable strategy that as an absolute priority meets the needs of the immediate 5-year period. The required review would then be capable of rectifying and deficiencies in the delivery of development beyond this time horizon (essentially medium to longer term needs) if the plan strategy fails in any respect.

This is now the council’s second attempt within the last 3 years to deliver a plan which is fit for purpose. Adoption of the plan as currently drafted, without any attempt to significantly step up from the delivery targets set out in the Local Plan 2030, threatens a potential 10- or 11-year period of housing need substantially outstripping supply. This is now the second plan proposed by the council which seeks to side-step meeting the actual needs of the Borough. Upon its review in 5 years time will there be a third? At some point the council has to grasp the urgent requirement to get homes built now – that point is now and it is vital that the Local Plan 2040 represents the mechanism to meet this objective.

The council clams in its bullet list set out above that it has not been able to identify sufficient deliverable sites capable of meeting needs during the first five years of the plan period. However, in one critical instance – that of our client’s land – it has overlooked an immediately deliverable site capable of accommodating up to 400 houses which is devoid of constraints, would cause limited if any demonstrable harm, and critically requires no significant off-site infrastructure. There will inevitably be others. Sufficient suitable sites exist across the Borough to meet needs – instead it is the council’s strategy which is drastically at fault.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the council’s justification for stepping the trajectory it is also critical to consider that in seeking to reduce the required level of housing delivery in the early years this will only serve to impact on those who are in acute need of a new home at the borough. The delivery of housing is not a theoretical exercise – it is not sufficient to deal with completions merely as a number on a chart. For every home fewer than the required level of supply that is delivered in each year of the plan period a household will find itself in need. Resultant of the suppression of supply against this demand house prices will escalate. In-commuting will increase and journey lengths by private car will lengthen. All these outcomes are exactly the sort of sustainability issues that the NPPF seeks to guard against.

Based on the council’s proposed trajectory, set against an agreed LHN of 1,355dpa, the shortfall in the delivery of new homes for the first decade of the plan period is startling – 3,450 dwellings in total or almost 3 entire years of supply. In fact, as demonstrated by Table 1 this shortfall will only be rectified in the final year of the plan (an outcome which is partially related to the proposed meagre 4.6% uplift on LHN – see below) with the council running a significant deficit in supply when assessed against LHN for the entirety of the plan period. There is not even an intention to step up delivery more significantly to overcome this supply more quickly in the mid-years of the plan period as you would expect from most variable or stepped trajectories. The proposed delivery rates versus need are shown overleaf:

Table 1: Local Plan 2040 Projected Delivery v LHN

20/21 to 24/25 25/26 to 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 34/35 35/36 36/37 37/38 38/39 39/40
Required (LP2040 trajectory) 4,850
(970dpa x 5) 5,250
(1,050dpa x 5) 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
LHN 6,775 6,775 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Surplus / Deficit (annual / periodic) -1,925 -1,525 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345
Surplus / Deficit (rolling) -1,925 -3,450 -3,105 -2,760 -2,415 -2,070 -1,725 -1,380 -1,035 -690 -345 0

On review of the council’s proposed trajectory there is another statistic that is perhaps as striking ass the plan’s performance against the council’s LHN – and that is the comparison with the basic ‘household projection’ figures for the same, as published by the Office of National Statistics (2014-based live tables). These are the natural household creation rates before any uplift is applied to account for affordability. Or to put it more simply – basic need. Over this period, it is anticipated that an average of 985 new households will be formed in the Borough per annum. In which case the performance of the council’s trajectory would result in the following outcomes:

Table 2: Local Plan 2040 Projected Delivery v Natural Household Formation Rates

20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 Total
Annual Requirement (LP2040) 970 970 970 970 970 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 10,100
‘Basic Need’ (ONS, before affordability uplift) 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 9,850
Surplus / Deficit (annual) -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 65 65 65 65 65 250
Surplus / Deficit (rolling) -15 -30 -45 -60 -75 -10 55 120 185 250 250

This inability to even meet basic need will not only exacerbate affordability but could realistically result an increased number of suppressed households with an appropriate level of supply only guaranteed in the seventh year of the plan period. This cannot be considered acceptable, responsible, or indeed an appropriate response to the council’s requirements set out in the NPPF to accommodate the needs of all household types whilst significantly boosting the supply of housing.

The Appropriate Uplift
The council’s housing target for the plan period, as set out as part of Policy DS3(S) includes no uplift at all to allow flexibility in respect of market fluctuations, problems encountered in delivering sites in the trajectory, and overall security of supply. The plan’s housing target is simply 27,100 homes or its LHN of 1,355 multiplied by 20 years (the plan period).

It is noted from the calculations at the foot of the council’s proposed trajectory that in respect of delivery the council may be able to achieve an uplift on housing supply over the plan period of 4.6% representative of 1,252 homes or approximately 60dpa. It is firstly important to confirm that the application of an uplift or buffer on top of the LHN figure was not consulted on at any stage during the Regulation 18 options testing process. Whilst it was tested as part of the Sustainability Appraisal it would be expected that a range of targets, including exceedances of the basic requirement, would have been tested through consultation to secure a holistic view on the pros and cons of over or under delivery. However, such options were not made available for scrutiny. It can only be assumed that the council did not ever intend to seek to meet anything other than its minimum housing requirement.

Even if the identified 4.6% uplift was incorporated into the plan’s housing target (this would rise to approximately 28,350 homes) this would remain unusually low and would fall significantly below the generally accepted industry standard approach of 10%. It would fall below the uplift agreed in respect of the recently adopted local plan of the council’s nearest neighbour and the one with which it shares the clearest functional link, Central Bedfordshire, and indeed that included in the council’s own adopted Local Plan 2030.

In examining the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan the Inspectors at paragraphs 74 and 75 of their report opined that “Examination Document EXAM 33 provides updated information for 2017-18 and shows that lower quartile house prices had risen to £246,500. This was 59% higher than the figure for England. The affordability ratio had also increased to 12.0. Average monthly rents had shown slower growth, but still increased to 9% above the national average. In response, the SHMA recommends a 10% uplift to the OAN for housing”.

The lower quartile house price in Bedford as of December 2018 was £225,000, so comparable. The affordability ratio at 9.67 is lower but still above the national average of approximately 9. Certainly, the market circumstances are sufficiently similar to those of Central Bedfordshire to question why the council’s proposed uplift is less than half that proposed by its neighbouring authority, one which has close interconnectivity with Bedford’s own housing market area.

It is then telling that the council’s own adopted Local Plan 2030 sought to include an uplift of 11% to account for flexibility of supply and choice in the market. In considering this issue the Inspectors at paragraph 113 of their report commented that “this 11% buffer is sufficient to ensure that the housing figure is likely to be met over the plan period as a whole, even if some of the sites listed in the Housing Trajectory do not deliver new dwellings as quickly as anticipated or at all. In any case, the plan will need to be reviewed and updated at least twice before 2030 and this will provide the opportunity to ensure that the allocation/supply of housing is sufficient to meet the identified need, which is, itself, likely to change over time”. The 11% uplift in this instance was considered appropriate due to the uncertainty of the delivery of some of the sites in the plan-period trajectory (we touch upon this matter again later in this submission) and acceptable due to the additional fail-safe of the early plan review. The only circumstance that has changed in the case of the emerging Local Plan 2040 is that the fail-safe will no longer be included. This, if anything, would be justification to raise the uplift rather than reduce it to 4.6%.

The inclusion an uplift becomes more imperative when the viability concerns of the council’s proposed town centre sites are taken into consideration. Even if they are deliverable there is a strong indication in the council’s accompanying viability assessment that they may not capably yield a policy compliant supply of affordable housing if indeed any affordable homes are viable at all. Much of the Carter Jonas modelling depends on assumptions that market values will be sufficiently high by 2030 to ensure some level of viability. However, these projections represent guesswork at best. If land values do not appreciate in the way anticipated then there is a real possibility that there will be a significant deficit in affordable housing delivery. In which case this makes the case for a greater uplift even more compelling.

On the basis of a plan which is seeking to introduce a stepped trajectory due to concerns over early years supply, includes a range of sites which have struggled or failed to deliver housing over a significant period of time due to their constrained nature, and is seeking to affect a significant step-change in delivery above and beyond the 970dpa figure of the adopted Local Plan 2030 it is clear that an uplift on the plan’s housing target should be included which should be 10% as an absolute minimum.

Conclusions on soundness

Policy DS3(S): Both the plan’s housing target and the proposal to deliver housing based on a stepped trajectory result in approach to the delivery of new homes which significantly conflicts with the requirements of the NPPF. It fails to address the challenge of the acute need for new homes across the Borough and as alighted on above will further exacerbate local issues in respect of affordability in the market. The combined approaches of stepping the trajectory and avoiding any sufficient uplift in the housing target simply prolongs the deficient approach taken by the adopted Local Plan 2030 and fails to secure the step-change in delivery expected by the Inspectors when considering the adopted plan. Indeed, the council’s key evidence paper seeking to justify the stepping of the trajectory does nothing more than identify the weaknesses in the plan’s overall development strategy. On this basis the plan should be considered unsound in that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.