Object

Representation ID: 10351

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

The approach to preparation of the Plan for Submission Local Plan 2040 is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

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.

Our main submissions concern the proposed Plan and the methodology and conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations of 2004 (SEA Regulations) are not satisfied. These concerns were first identified in a ‘Review of Draft [2021] Sustainability Appraisal Findings’ included at Appendix 6 of our client’s previous representations.

The Council has not adequately accommodated the requirements mandated by Policy 1 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the need for an immediate review in terms of assessing a full range of reasonable alternatives to the same level of detail as the selected option, namely fully assessing the potential effects of detailed site options for allocations across the settlement hierarchy.

Circularity in the site evaluation and Sustainability Appraisal processes highlights the basic faults in the Council's strategy. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process was used to determine the suitability of sites, according to paragraph 9.13 of the 2022 Sustainability Appraisal, whereas Table 2.2 of the SHLAA document justifies the exclusion of sites at Stage 1 of the assessment where they ruled inconsistent with the Council's chosen strategy.

This might be taken as confirmation that the Council has already decided on its preferred strategy before conducting further testing. It has also chosen not to consider all other growth options out of pure conflict with the unjustified decision to reject all village-related growth and limit any potential contribution from this component to the spatial strategy.

Not one of the proposed site options at Key Service Centre or Rural Service Centre locations is deemed suitable, available, or feasible under the SHELAA process, therefore further testing is prohibited on this basis even if the SA partially recognises the option and sustainability of village-related expansion (i.e., a "reasonable alternative") (see paragraph 7.13). The sites have merely been rejected due to what seems to be a contradiction with the spatial approach; they have not been evaluated for suitability under Stage 2 of the SHLAA process or subjected to any other thorough examination. Accordingly, the assessments do not provide a robust justification for the approach taken to site selection and supporting growth.

All village sites in all settlements are judged similarly as being in conflict with the spatial strategy. The SHLAA determines that any village sites are "inconsistent" with the plan. This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that the suitability of site options should not be further evaluated, nor should strategy options for levels of growth in rural areas (or at specific settlements) be tested in greater detail or through more iterations than were undertaken prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage.

When village-related growth has been tested under the Sustainability Appraisal process, it remains the case that testing has only been done with the presumption 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). This is the same approach to the Local Plan 2030, which deferred allocations to Neighbourhood Plans as part of a foreshortened plan period and prior to substantial changes to national policy in the NPPF2021. It is fundamentally unjustified, having already received on ‘reprieve’ on the requirements for sound strategic plan-making and noting failures in the delivery of the current strategy and the explicit requirements for immediate review, not to update this aspect of the methodology.

The Council’s current position is also further contradicted by the conclusions of previous SA exercises (January 2018 and September 2018) exploring options for either an increased housing requirement or extended plan period (i.e., the same as the requirements now necessitated by Policy 1) that demonstrated that higher levels of growth (4,000 or 5,100 dwellings) at Key Service Centres could be just as sustainable as new settlement options. There is therefore no justification why levels of additional growth broadly in-line with these parameters is now viewed as ‘inconsistent’ with the strategy and not capable of complementing a hybrid approach.

Whether or not the Council will unjustifiably claim it has ‘run out of time’ to look at matters in the greater detail, the Council’s position is directly at odds with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper informing the Regulation 18 Draft Plan:

“For the purpose of defining the options, assumptions need to be made about the potential capacity of each broad location for housing and employment growth. It is very important to note at this stage that these assumptions are for the purpose of testing only. They are informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process but they are not based on specific site appraisals (which will form the basis of further testing following this consultation).” Therefore, as drafted we consider that the SA is not legally compliant and contributes towards the wider soundness failings of the selected strategy.