Object

Representation ID: 10349

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 previously. 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 Statement – Land at Station Road, Oakley and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

We consider that in order to achieve the aims of the next Local Plan 2040, higher rates of village-related growth, such as that at Oakley, must be supported from the beginning of the 2020–2040 plan period.

The Council's proposal to use a stepped trajectory is in response to earlier mistakes in estimating the deliverability and developability of sites within the adopted development plan as well as to general concerns about the suggested spatial strategy and reliance on large strategic areas for expansion.

The suggested technique is a mathematical ruse to maintain the yearly requirement in the approved Local Plan 2030 for the sake of allegedly showing a Five-Year Supply at approval (at least according to the Council's figures). It does not render a fundamentally flawed strategy "sound." The stepped trajectory is an admission by the Council that its current planned strategy (and identified provision) cannot increase housing supply. It also does nothing to allay legitimate concerns that obstacles to the deliverability and developability of sites identified after 2030 will significantly hinder meeting the housing requirement over the plan period.

We assert that the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing over several 5-year intervals in accordance with NPPF2021 paragraphs 73 (large-scale sites) and 74 (housing land supply) is fundamentally compromised, without prejudice to our client's opportunity to submit a further in-depth review of the Council's assumptions for deliverability and developability of sites as part of the information it intends to rely upon at Examination.

In light of the non-deliverability of the sites that have already been assigned, it is believed that the Council will be unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites starting from adoption in 2023. In addition, we anticipate that the Council will continue to fall short of the minimum five-year needs from 2025 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2040 based on the ‘steps’ in its proposed housing trajectory.

This has a clear correlation to the trajectory of the Council and its severe reliance on large-scale strategic locations for growth. The expectations of proposed delivery rates from new settlement-related growth at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick from 20374/38 onwards (at a combined 1,200 units per annum) are wholly unprecedented and wholly unsupported by the evidence base.

Taking this background into account, the Council’s proposed reliance on a stepped trajectory directly contravenes national planning practice guidance where any such approach should not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs and where stepped requirements will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period (ID: 68-021-20190722). The starting point for this information must be provided from the Council’s assessment of deliverability and developability in the SHELAA, where PPG recognises that there is a requirement to provide a reasonable prospect that large-scale sites can be delivered within the timescales envisaged, taking account of known constraints (ID: 68-019-20190722). Evidence should also be presented on the timescales and rates of development to be assessed (ID: 3-022-20190722).

The Council is unable to adequately defend its reliance on a stepped trajectory because it has not given enough consideration to reasonable alternatives or the related concern of ensuring that all sites are objectively assessed in terms of their suitability rather than excluded on general grounds of inconsistency with the chosen strategy. This is due to the strategy's reliance on a stepped trajectory and the Council's inadequate consideration of reasonable alternatives or recognition of the disbenefits of a strategy that defers growth until later in the plan period.

The content and evaluation of the suggested stepped trajectory are severely circumscribed under paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report. Cross-references in this sentence seem to be in the wrong place because paragraph 8.29 clearly refers solely to the evaluation of the Kempston-Hardwick new settlement. In other places, the SA only explains the justification for using a stepped approach at paragraph 7.24, and paragraph 8.33 deals explicitly with the choice and testing of a "stepped" alternative (with details provided at Appendix 8 of the report, incorrectly referenced in this paragraph as Appendix 9). Even though paragraph 8.33 claims that both methods have been studied and finds no drawbacks to a phased approach, this does not seem to be supported by the details subject to assessment.

Appendix 8 contains only a ‘stepped’ scenario, which would imply all other strategy options have been considered on the basis of being ‘un-stepped’. This is plainly incorrect and contrary to the Council’s generation of strategy options, where it has been clear throughout that Options 2a-2d (rail-based growth and A421 corridor) are only feasible using a stepped trajectory. These options would not otherwise comprise reasonable alternatives for meeting requirements within the plan period (although may do so under a hybrid strategy if complemented by further growth in the rural areas).

In light of this, paragraph 9.14 aims to support the Council's earlier reasoning for a stepped trajectory. The fact that there is a large blank space after this conclusion shows that the Council has not given any particular reasons why an un-stepped method should be rejected, which is necessary to support the selected strategy.

For instance, claiming that the stepped approach does not have the potential to have negative effects if the housing requirement is not fully met and that the chosen strategy has a negative impact on opportunities under SA Objectives 12, 13, and 14 relating to community cohesion and social infrastructure is not justified. This is demonstrated by the fact that the selected strategy has not enabled a detailed assessment of our client’s Land East of Station Road, Oakley and the associated opportunity for the expansion and enhancement of services at Lincroft Academy.

Likewise, there is no recognition that these dis-benefits can only be countered by looking at reasonable alternatives that Council has identified but excluded because it considers them ‘inconsistent’ with the selected strategy option. This would act against the Council’s reasons to reject these options and it is clear that there is a lack of meaningful assessment and rationale in relation to effects arising from the use of a stepped trajectory.

Therefore, as drafted, we consider that Policy DS3(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.