Object

Representation ID: 10436

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 Representations 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.

In theory, it is positive that the Council's Preferred Option includes development at the urban edge within Kempston Rural Parish, which also forms part of the ‘transport corridor’ south parishes within the selected strategy.

It is particularly encouraging to see this location recognised as being sustainably located to existing services and facilities. This is thought to illustrate the seamless connections between the parish's growth pattern—particularly at Green End—and the services and amenities found in the urban area. The sustainability of this location is presumed to be acknowledged when the Council specifies a number of 1,500 for sustainable locations adjacent to the urban area without mentioning any settlement- or site-specific distribution within the policy.
Aligned to identified concerns in respect of the stepped trajectory and approach to site assessments, set out in further Regulation 19 representations, we consider it necessary that the Council, through a Main Modification, recognise the benefits associated with our client’s land at Green End, and the ability of the site to contribute to delivering the housing requirement in the early part of the Plan period. Accordingly, we propose a modification set out below.

It is also pertinent to note in respect of the site assessment process that there appears to be considerable inconsistencies in the way sites within the same component of the spatial strategy have been tested from the very first assessment in the SHLAA. This is true of the way in which the proposed allocation at Gibraltar Corner (636) and our client’s land at Green End (1247) have been considered in the SHLAA, despite the fact that they are adjacent to each other, as demonstrated on in the appended Site Analysis Document.

In particular we refer to the fact that against three scoring criteria, namely 5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities, 11a. At risk of flooding and 15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school, the Green End site scores better than the Gibraltar corridor site, with the scores for all other categories the same for both. It is therefore surprising to see that the Green End site did not progress for further assessment on the basis of conflict with the preferred spatial strategy alone, whilst no such outcome was referenced in respect of Gibraltar Corner.

Accordingly, we consider that the site assessment process has failed to apply a consistent approach and in line with our outlined concerns in respect of the SA, we object to the policy as drafted. Modifications to recognise our clients land, which performs better than the Gibraltar Corner site, are necessary to ensure that the Plan and proposed approach to site selection adjacent the urban edge is capable of being found sound.

Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.