Object

Representation ID: 10220

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Anwyl Land

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2. Representations
The Tests of Soundness
2.1 As this consultation stage concerns a Local Plan 2040 Draft for Submission (Regulation 19), the consultation seeks views on the legal tests of soundness and legal compliance. Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) states:
“Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are ‘sound’ if they are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with National Policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national policy, where relevant.”
2.2 It is our view, for the reasons set out below, that the Local Plan is not sufficiently justified, is not effective and is not consistent with National Policy. It therefore fails to meet the legal tests of soundness.
Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy
2.3 The overarching aims and ambitions of the Spatial Hierarchy are generally supported. However, we have concerns that the approach adopted underutilises the role of existing sustainable settlements, including Sharnbrook, and places a significant overreliance on the delivery of new settlements and is not therefore sound because it has not taken full account of all the reasonable alternatives or is likely to be deliverable as discussed within these representations.
2.4 Reasonable alternatives are discussed within the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (May 2022). It notes that the Oxford to Cambridge Arc impacts are not yet known and so the growth strategy focuses only on Bedford’s own growth requirements.
2.5 Through previous consultations, the following growth options were put forward:
- Option 1a – development in and around the urban area only
- Option 1b – sites within the urban area at enhanced density
- Option 2a: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south.
- Option 2b: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south, plus one new settlement.
- Option 2c: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 2d: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south and east, plus one new settlement:
- Option 3a: Development in and around the urban area, plus four new settlements.
- Option 3b: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres.
- Option 3c: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 4: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 5: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 6: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 7: Development in two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
2.6 Within the topic paper, the Council consider that a reasonable alternative for the purposes of the NPPF test was an alternative that could provide dwelling growth within 10% of the required need.
2.7 As detailed in response to Policy DS3 and DS5, there seems a reluctance by the Council to allocate further growth to either the Key or Rural Services Centres despite the acknowledged available capacity and the benefit being that proportionate growth would be delivered earlier in the Plan period, rather than almost solely relying on the delivery of strategic sites. In the context of immediate housing need and the current cost of living crisis, failure to deliver housing in the Borough will impact affordability levels and may continue to suppress natural household formation. All settlements, but particularly sustainable settlements with a service offer, need proportionate and commensurate growth throughout the Plan period, to ensure they do not age and stagnate. In respect of Sharnbrook, as discussed later in the representations, no growth is directed there as of yet as the Neighbourhood Plan directs all growth away from the settlement and thus capacity clearly remains for commensurate growth adjacent to the settlement.
2.8 Land west of Kennel Hill, Sharnbrook has already demonstrated through historic assessment and as a option site, that there would not be any unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape and settlement character as a result of the site coming forward for development. In terms of the reduced ability for rural sites to be accessible to rail by active travel, it is important to note that some sites would be accessible by active travel, but more broadly they would be accessible by green travel through the ongoing transition to hybrid and electric cars and public transport. Moreover, due to an increased prevalence in home working and online deliveries, people are able living more sustainably in what was traditionally considered to be a less sustainable location. Regardless, as recognised through the designation as Sharnbrook as a Key Service Centre, it already benefits from a good level of connectivity and service offer.
2.9 The Plan and Strategy also has a deliberate disregard of the role that Neighbourhood Plans should be playing in accommodating growth beyond their current period to 2030. Neighbourhood Plans should be policy bound to allocate an amount of growth up to 2040, as they were obliged to within the 2030 plan (see current policy 4S). NPPF Paragraph 66 sets out that Strategic Policies should “set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations”. Clearly to reflect the overall strategy as required by the NPPF, this must extend requirements up to 2040. Currently, according to the Council’s published trajectory, the delivery of housing will cease in the year 2030/31 in “Sharnbrook” (albeit that reflects Sharnbrook Parish, not Sharnbrook itself).