Object

Representation ID: 10435

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments 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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, as it is currently envisioned, will exacerbate current problems with the slow and delayed delivery of allocated sites, rendering even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirement ineffective. This is due to an overreliance on strategic scale development. The Council's position is seriously undermined by the lack of sufficient data to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible, deliverable, or developable before years 11 through 15, if not sooner (and at the delivery rates indicated).

This creates a problem with supply that arises very immediately and can only be sensibly managed by dispersing development via small- to medium-sized sustainable sites throughout both urban and rural settlements. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth strategy, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist prevent market saturation and improve settlement vitality.
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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, as it is currently envisioned, will exacerbate current problems with the slow and delayed delivery of allocated sites, rendering even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirement ineffective. This is due to an overreliance on strategic scale development. The Council's position is seriously undermined by the lack of sufficient data to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible, deliverable, or developable before years 11 through 15, if not sooner (and at the delivery rates indicated).

This creates a problem with supply that arises very immediately and can only be sensibly managed by dispersing development via small- to medium-sized sustainable sites throughout both urban and rural settlements. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth strategy, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist prevent market saturation and improve settlement vitality.

We believe that greater levels of small to medium sized growth such as that at Green End, Kempston, must be encouraged from the start of the 2020–2040 plan period in order to accomplish the goals of the forthcoming Local Plan 2040. The sustainability of locations well-related to the urban area, as the Council recognises, and in particular the determination that our client's land interests are suitable, available and achievable to support expansion that would provide contributions to sustainable development as favourably assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (including new green infrastructure).

The Council's suggestion to adopt a stepped trajectory is a response to prior planning mistakes as well as general worries about the suggested spatial strategy and reliance on large strategic areas for expansion. In order to continue with the annual requirement in the adopted Local Plan 2030 for the purposes of ostensibly demonstrating a Five-Year Supply upon adoption (at least under the Council's figures), the proposed approach represents a mathematical sleight of hand. It does not make a fundamentally unsound plan "sound." The stepped trajectory represents an admission that the Council’s current planned strategy (and identified provision) cannot achieve a boost in housing supply and does nothing to overcome the legitimate concerns that constraints to the deliverability and developability of sites identified beyond 2030 will substantially preclude achievement of the housing requirement in the plan period.

Because the Council have not given enough thought 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, the Council is unable to adequately defend its reliance on a stepped trajectory. This is because the strategy is based on the use of a stepped trajectory, and the Council has not given enough thought to reasonable alternatives.

It is evident that there is a lack of a meaningful evaluation and reasoning at paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report relating to the stepped trajectory, the assessment of non-stepped options and without any recognition of the dis-benefits of deferring meeting housing need. This aspect of the Sustainability Appraisal is severely confined in its content and has blank space where evidence to support the approach would be anticipated.

A revised Deliverability Assessment produced on behalf of our client challenges the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing throughout multiple 5-year intervals of the overall plan period is submitted alongside these representations. If computed in accordance with national policy, as is demonstrated in the accompanying Assessment, we do not consider that the Council will be able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites upon adoption. We also assume that the Council will remain in its current status from 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2035. This is directly related to the Council's trajectory and its extreme overdependence on strategic size awards, which are known to produce results at a far slower rate than small and medium scale growth.

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