Object

Representation ID: 8739

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

2.18 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived, inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the Framework and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.

Reasoning
2.19 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.

2.20 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry


in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.

2.21 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.

2.22 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:

• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one- off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.

Remedy
2.23 There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas.

2.24 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:

• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support suitable growth of those sites which are considered appropriate.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres


ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to Framework paragraph 69

2.25 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle.

2.26 For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.

2.27 In the case of our client’s land at Marsh Lane, Milton Ernest a further contribution towards the additional housing needs in the period to 2030 and beyond could be achieved through realising additional capacity within the site as already selected as part of the process of Neighbourhood Plan preparation. The additional developable area required to achieve this is unlikely to materially exceed the 1 hectare threshold in national policy and guidance, thus satisfying the requirements of national policy in relation to small sites.