Object

Representation ID: 10348

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted in respect of the earlier iteration of the Plan. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. The Council has failed to assess in detail either the suitability of individual site options against existing and emerging policy or the relationship of site options to the characteristics and services of individual settlements in order to inform this view.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722. The Council simply states that it has not looked at amendments to the settlement hierarchy or a more flexible approach to the distribution of growth because no new allocations or expansions were planned at Rural Key Service Centres under the selected strategy (see Supporting Document ID: 24 Addendum paras 5 and 4).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

The Council's proposed trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, demonstrating an over reliance on strategic scale development, will exacerbate existing problems with delayed and slow delivery
We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted in respect of the earlier iteration of the Plan. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. The Council has failed to assess in detail either the suitability of individual site options against existing and emerging policy or the relationship of site options to the characteristics and services of individual settlements in order to inform this view.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722. The Council simply states that it has not looked at amendments to the settlement hierarchy or a more flexible approach to the distribution of growth because no new allocations or expansions were planned at Rural Key Service Centres under the selected strategy (see Supporting Document ID: 24 Addendum paras 5 and 4).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

The Council's proposed trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, demonstrating an over reliance on strategic scale development, will exacerbate existing problems with delayed and slow delivery of allocated sites, rendering ineffective even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirements.

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to show that rail-based growth in the A421 corridor is developable before years 11 through 15 of the plan period significantly undermines the Council's stance. This has the effect of creating an almost immediate supply problem, which can only be rationally resolved by distributing small- to medium-sized sustainable sites across Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres. Offering many options for expansion will help avoid market saturation and enhance rural vitality in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Oakley.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.