Object

Representation ID: 10350

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.

Aligned to our representation of the spatial strategy (Policy DS2(S)), the 'village-related' growth component relating to settlements both inside and outside the 'east' and 'south' corridors would only be thoroughly tested if a 'hybrid' approach were applied to the spatial strategy informing the distribution of growth and used to inform site assessment and site selection under Policy DS5(S). This has not been undertaken, meaning that the distribution of growth identified in Policy DS5(S) is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

The Sustainability Appraisal process has examined village-related growth only with the assumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages). No testing of individual site options has been undertaken before determining that the village-related component of growth should be rejected altogether as inconsistent with the selected strategy.
This overlooks that both the Council’s own SA and 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper anticipate scope for further refinement in the testing of site options.

The planned growth distribution does not create new demands or opportunities for rural areas; it only allows for the fulfilment of existing rural allocations. Despite this, the SA at paragraph 7.23 asserts that housing development in rural areas may significantly contribute to meeting housing needs and goes on to list specific locations that should be taken into account. Particularly emphasis is placed upon locations within or adjacent existing settlements i.e., criterion which capture our client’s Land at Sharnbrook. This appears to directly conflict with the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the chosen strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, various rural areas are suggested as possible options without more in-depth assessment or expansion allocation.

According to paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021, strategic policies should stipulate a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas that reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of growth and any related allocations. From the 2012 iteration of the Framework, this is a significant change. However, the Council's testing of options for the Local Plan 2040 neglects to consider any identification of housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas beyond the distribution of growth within the Local Plan 2030.

The potential benefits of village extensions across the borough should be considered within this context as specifically complementing the distribution of growth within the selected strategy rather than restricting any opportunities outright. Despite this, options in these locations have not been subject to any further iterative testing prior to completion of the Plan for Submission.

The Council has not adequately addressed issues raised by our client during earlier consultation rounds, particularly the need to consider "hybrid" options for degrees of expansion within the settlement hierarchy. To further elaborate, a new "Option 8" that substitutes village-related development for Little Barford's "new settlement" growth has been evaluated and "rejected" in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal for the Submission version Plan. However, this result was reached without fully analysing the possibility for growth in particular settlements or site options.
The SA confirms that Oakley and specific site options within village locations have only been the subject of early testing against a number of SA indicators. There has been no attempt to apply the identified combination of effects to any revised strategy option or against conclusions of the potential suitability (including provision of specific benefits) from individual site options.

These issues particularly affect Oakley due to its existing classification as a Rural Service Centre and the associated distribution of growth under the Local Plan 2030. As such, the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans was a fundamentally inadequate mechanism to address strategic priorities related to school place provision at Lincroft Academy or to safeguard the longer-term requirements of this facility and opportunities for sustainable development east of Station Road. These are priorities that can only be addressed as part of site assessment and site selection for the current plan-making process.

We also have a number of concerns about the site assessment procedure, as is detailed in our Regulation 18 representations. In particular, we have previously raised serious concerns about the Council's assessment of our client’s land at Oakley after submission as part of the Summer 2020 Call for Sites exercise. The site assessment pro-forma neglects to document or acknowledge the advantages connected with site development, specifically the enhancement of services and facilities at Lincroft Academy. Concerns about the site's assessment in connection to ecology, BMV, and heritage assets have also been raised.
Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.