Object

Representation ID: 9761

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: BDW Trading

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We consider there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the vision over the plan period is deliverable because of the proposed spatial strategy and site allocations.
The vision specifically mentions locations for new settlements and other development, but the strategy does not demonstrate deliverability of the sites proposed and it does not factor in sufficient flexibility for under-performance should the spatial strategy and site selection remain unchanged through the examination process.
We consider that to be found sound, the plan should be subject to main modifications in respect of a range of matters but for the purpose of this response to the vision and objectives we confine our comments to the need to review the evidence base and proposed spatial strategy and site allocations.
As it stands the plan in our view is not sound on the following tests under paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
a) Positively prepared – the plan does not propose a strategy which contains sites within a strategy capable of delivering the area’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum.
b) Justified – the strategy in the plan is not appropriate taking into account the reasonable alternatives which is more of a focus on Bedford Town and Kempston and sites that can be well-connected to these existing urban areas.
c) Effective – the strategy is not effective due to the uncertainty over deliverability of proposed allocations.
d) Consistent with national policy – we simply consider that the plan is not capable of being considered to deliver sustainable development as required under the NPPF because of the proposed spatial strategy and the proposed site allocations.
The objective of delivery of sustainable development will only be realised if sites are deliverable. These tests of soundness are applied to non-strategic policies within the local plan in a proportionate way, taking into account the extent to which they are consistent with relevant strategic policies for the area.
Paragraph 66 of the NPPF states that strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability.
Bedford Borough Council is the strategic policy-making authority in this instance and we accept that the Council has undertaken a call for sites and taking this into consideration in arriving at the proposed strategy and objectives but we consider there is a fundamental issue over deliverability.
The spatial strategy is reliant upon further decisions to be made by other parties in respect of East-West Rail including fundamental considerations of the route west of Bedford Town, locations of stations and timing of subsequent stages for the planning for the development and delivery. The consultation on this local plan comes ahead of refinement of the detail of these extremely important matters and yet the local plan is not scheduled for submission for examination until January 2023. With this consultation comprising the plan for submission (Regulation 19), there would ordinarily not be any further opportunity for stakeholders to comment ahead of submission of the local plan (Regulation 22). As the spatial strategy and some of the proposed site allocations rely on delivery of East-West Rail this is a real point of vulnerability which should have been avoided by first having clarity on this ahead of consultation under Regulation 19.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which is the Government’s centre of expertise for infrastructure and major projects, published its Annual Report on Major Projects 2021-22 on 20 July 2022. This has found that stages 2 and 3 of East West Rail appears to be unachievable.
In this report the East West Rail Connection Stage 2 and 3 which comprises predominantly upgrading of existing infrastructure (between Bletchley and Bedford) to allow services between Oxford and Bedford and East West Rail CS3 which involves building a new line, between Bedford and Cambridge, to extend the railway and facilitate services from Oxford to Cambridge, is identified as 'red' meaning that the successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.
A copy of the report is available via: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-and-projects-authority-annual-report-2022
Paragraph 2.4 states that remaining policies in the earlier Allocations and Designations Local Plan have been reviewed and, in the majority of cases, they remain fit for purpose and do not need to change at this time. Where is the assessment undertaken as referred to here and what is the position in respect of cases (seemingly being in the minority) which might not have been judged fit for purpose and so might need to be changed?
Paragraph 2.5 states that the development strategy to 2030 is already set, it is important that it is allowed to be delivered and for that reason the policies in this emerging local plan build on it, and in doing so, put in place a robust strategy for growth to 2040.
We do not agree with this statement because we consider the strategy proposed in this emerging local plan 2040 does not just ‘build upon’ the local plan 2030. The proposed strategy unlike the existing one identifies new settlements and new strategic-scale development based on East-West Rail over a period of some 15 years. The local plan 2030 adopted in January 2020 only covers the period to 2030 and has a focus on Bedford and Kempston, completing the then already started settlement at Wixams and village extensions including at Wootton, Stewartby and Shortstown.
There is not much, if any, scope for the local plan not already covered within the points at paragraph 2.6 and hence struggle to see why the new local plan seems to be proposed as a partial rather than a full review? In view of the proposed scope for the new local plan it seems appropriate to consider this replacing all existing development plan policy of relevance (acknowledging this will not include neighbourhood plans) and for the local plan to state what the development plan for Bedford Borough currently comprises.
There is an over reliance on larger sites within the plan and we question whether it is realistic to expect the quantum of potential delivery within the plan period.