Object

Representation ID: 9986

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

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.

Old Road Securities (ORS) has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. Details of our client’s land interests are registered under Site IDs 604 (Land off Roxton Road (c.100 units) and 645 (500 units known and ‘Willoughby Park’). Indicative Masterplans for both options are provided as Appendix 1 and 2 to this form. These interests were the subject of detailed representations and comments on the proposed strategy as part of the Council’s Summer 2021 Preferred Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation. Issues identified with the proposed approach have not been addressed as part of the Council’s Plan for Submission nor have our client’s site interests been subject to any further detailed or iterative testing, as required. As such, these representations should in conjunction with our client’s previous submissions, full details of which are contained at Appendix 3.

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 the rural area. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth plan, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist in preventing market saturation and improve rural vitality.

We believe that greater levels of village-related growth, such as that at Great Barford, 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 settlement of Great Barford as an example, and in particular the determination that our client's land holding is suitable, available and achievable to support expansion, would provide contributions to sustainable development as favourably assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (including new green infrastructure, community facilities and opportunities for recreation).

The Council's suggestion to adopt a stepped trajectory is a response to prior failures to accurately estimate the deliverability and developability of sites within the adopted development plan 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.

Without prejudice to the opportunity for our client to submit a further detailed review of the Council’s assumptions for deliverability and developability of sites as part of the information it intends to rely upon at Examination, we submit that the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing throughout multiple 5-year intervals in accordance with NPPF2021 paragraphs 73 (large-scale sites) and 74 (housing land supply) is fundamentally compromised. It is considered that the Council will be unable to present a 5-year supply from adoption in 2023, taking account the non-deliverability of currently allocated sites. We also assume that the Council will remain in deficit against minimum five-year requirements from 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2040.

This is directly related to the Council's trajectory and its extreme overdependence on large-scale strategic locations for growth, which are known to produce results at a far slower rate than small and medium scale growth. The assumption that new-settlement scale proposals at Little Barford and Kempston will exceed 300 units per annum from 2035/36 (and 600 units per annum from 2037/38) is wholly unprecedented particularly in terms of two locations delivering in combination at this rate.

Taking this background into account, the Council’s proposed reliance on a stepped trajectory directly contravenes national planning practice guidance where any such approach should not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs and where stepped requirements will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period (ID: 68-021-20190722). The starting point for this information must be provided from the Council’s assessment of deliverability and developability in the SHELAA, where PPG recognises that there is a requirement to provide a reasonable prospect that large-scale sites can be delivered within the timescales envisaged, taking account of known constraints (ID: 68-019-20190722). Evidence should also be presented on the timescales and rates of development to be assessed (ID: 3-022-20190722).

The Council’s evidence base is fundamentally deficient in this regard, with no evidence of engagement with agents or developers. This particularly affects the Council’s assumptions for large-scale growth but is also evident where in the absence of any detailed information and noting delays to the Local Plan 2030 trajectory the Council identifies a vast number of existing or proposed allocations in the urban area commencing in the same year in 2030/31 (generating an unjustified increase in forecast completions from 1,128 in 2029/30 to 1,641 the following year) which would be unprecedented.

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 or the related concerns in terms of dis-benefits of a strategy where growth is deferred until later in the plan period.

At paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report is severely constrained in its content and assessment of the proposed stepped trajectory. The cross-references within this paragraph appear to be incorrect, with paragraph 8.29 specifically relating only to assessment of the Kempston-Hardwick new settlement. Elsewhere the SA only sets out the reasons that a stepped approach has been considered at para 7.24 and paragraph 8.33 specifically deals with the selection and testing of a ‘stepped’ option (with details provided at Appendix 8 of the report, incorrectly referenced in this paragraph as Appendix 9). Although paragraph 8.33 indicates both options have been tested and identifies no negative effects from a stepped approach this does not appear to be justified by the scenarios assessed. Appendix 8 contains only a ‘stepped’ scenario, which would imply all other strategy options have been considered on the basis of being ‘un-stepped’. This is plainly incorrect and contrary to the Council’s generation of strategy options, where it has been clear throughout that Options 2a-2d (rail-based growth and A421 corridor) are only feasible using a stepped trajectory. These options would not otherwise comprise reasonable alternatives for meeting requirements within the plan period (although may do so under a hybrid strategy if complemented by further growth in the rural areas).

On this basis, paragraph 9.14 only looks to reinforce the Council’s previously identified justification for a stepped trajectory. The expanse of blank space following this conclusion indicates that the Council has provided no specific justification to reject an un-stepped approach, which is what is required to justify the selected option and comparing the benefits and dis-benefits of the alternative approaches. Specifically in relation to Appendix 8 it is, for example, not justified or correct to identify that the stepped approach does not potentially give rise to negative effects in terms of failure to meet the housing requirement in full and because the selected strategy negatively effects opportunities under SA Objectives 12, 13 and 14 in terms of delivering a wider mix of housing needs and enhancing services and facilities elsewhere.

Likewise, there is no recognition that these dis-benefits can only be countered by looking at reasonable alternatives that Council has identified but excluded because it considers them ‘inconsistent’ with the selected strategy option. This would act against the Council’s reasons to reject these options and it is clear that there is a lack of meaningful assessment and rationale in relation to impacts upon the housing trajectory. It may be argued that this illustrates a strategy that the Council itself isn't totally satisfied with.
Therefore, as drafted, we consider that Policy DS3(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.