Policy DM5 Self-build and custom housebuilding

Support

Representation ID: 9382

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gareth Adam, Homes England

Agent: Stantec

Homes England is responding in its capacity as the Government’s housing accelerator and as landowner of the former Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) site, Shortstown, Bedford.

Homes England is generally supportive of Policy DM5. For clarity, Homes England recommends that the wording be changed from ‘Self-build and custom housebuilding...’ to ‘Self-build or custom housebuilding…’ throughout the policy as detailed in bullet points i. to viii.

Object

Representation ID: 9425

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Council does not have robust evidence that justifies the inclusion of this policy in the plan. There is concern that as currently proposed this policy will not assist in boosting housing supply and may limit the deliverability of some sites. There is no evidence to confirm that large scale developments are a preferred location for self-build plots. Any evidence must be supported by thorough viability and impact assessments. There is always a danger of gaps in the street scene, or unfinished properties, by including self-build plots into development proposals. This needs to be avoided to ensure consistent developments.

Object

Representation ID: 9522

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.44 Emerging policy DM5 requires an element of self-build plots to be provided on all sites other than developments of 1 – 4 dwellings. Land at Barford Road, Willington has the potential to deliver up to 33 dwellings and theoretically, using the current draft policy, would be expected to provide 3 self-build plots.
2.45 There are issues with providing self-build plots within standard open market sites in terms of achieving a comprehensive design and issues with who is responsible for installing utilities (and to what point). There is also the risk that plots will sit undeveloped for long periods of time if they are not sold, whilst the required marketing and viability evidence is gathered in the result that demand is low or non-existent in a location.
2.46 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) identifies that through the current allocations and self-build projections, there is capacity to deliver 644 self-build plots. The Topic Paper also notes that there are currently 90 people on the self-build register. The provision of 644 self-build plots through the Local Plan 2040 is significantly above the current demand.
2.47 The policy should be re-worded to encourage the inclusion of self-build plots rather than require them. In its current form it is too prescriptive and will lead to issues with overall site completion. It will also lead to a significant surplus in the provision of self-build plots for which there is unlikely to be what would need to a 7-fold increase in demand over the plan-period (from 90 to 644). This surplus of self-build plots will lead to the Council using more of their valuable time assessing numerous marketing and viability reports in order to meet the requirements of Policy DM5 to seek to change them to standard market housing plots when it transpires that demand is low.

Object

Representation ID: 9601

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Andrew and Robert Tusting

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Emerging policy DM5 requires an element of self-build plots to be provided on all sites other than developments of 1 – 4 dwellings. Land west of Odell Road, Harrold has the potential to deliver up to 60 dwellings and theoretically, using the current draft policy, would be expected to provide 5 self-build plots.
2.42 There are issues with providing self-build plots within standard open market sites in terms of achieving a comprehensive design and issues with who is responsible for installing utilities (and to what point). There is also the risk that plots will sit undeveloped for long periods of time if they are not sold, whilst the required marketing and viability evidence is gathered in the result that demand is low or non-existent in a location.
2.43 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) identifies that through the current allocations and self-build projections, there is capacity to deliver 644 self-build plots. The Topic Paper also notes that there are currently 90 people on the self-build register. The provision of 644 self-build plots through the Local Plan 2040 is significantly above the current demand.
2.44 The policy should be re-worded to encourage the inclusion of self-build plots rather than require them. In its current form it is too prescriptive and will lead to issues with overall site completion. It will also lead to a significant surplus in the provision of self-build plots for which there is unlikely to be what would need to a 7-fold increase in demand over the plan-period (from 90 to 644). This surplus of self-build plots will lead to the Council using more of their valuable time assessing numerous marketing and viability reports in order to meet the requirements of Policy DM5 to seek to change them to standard market housing plots when it transpires that demand is low.

Comment

Representation ID: 9647

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Thakeham

Thakeham supports the Council’s policy to include self-build, and acknowledges the number of units provided in development over 100+ is by negotiation. However, as is the case across the country, any specific amount of self-build should be evidenced by demand in the area, rather than an arbitrary number based on the scale of development proposed.
Thakeham supports the Council’s inclusion of a deadline for marketing plots for self-build after which they would be released from the self-build policy requirement. However, we believe that 12 months is too long, as land would remain fallow for the entire marketing period, plus the time then taken to obtain planning permission for conversion to alternative housing or uses.

Comment

Representation ID: 9818

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Pertenhall & Swineshead Parish Council

Policy DM5 Self-build and custom housebuilding – Unlikely to apply here.

Comment

Representation ID: 9879

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Red Eagle Estates Ltd

Agent: Aragon Land and Planning

The land is adjacent to the settlement of (sic) Wilstead (site plan attached but no information provided and the site is adjacent to Wilden).

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.


National Planning Guidance Comments:


Most local planning authorities (including all district councils and National Park Authorities) are now required to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in their area in order to build their own home. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016 set out these requirements.
For further details, see guidance on self-build and custom housebuilding registers.
To obtain a robust assessment of demand for this type of housing in their area, local planning authorities should assess and review the data held on registers. This assessment can be supplemented with the use of existing secondary data sources such as building plot search websites, ‘Need-a-Plot’ information available from the Self Build Portal and enquiries for building plots from local estate agents.

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups


The current policies in the Bedford Local plan 2030 comment on self-build and it has a number of polices of relevance. Policy 7s states;
7s supports a community need and with Parish support the proposal will be in accordance with 7s. The mantle also is taken up in the new Policy 59s comments:

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups.

i. All developments of 500 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include self-contained older persons housing, and/or supported living accommodation in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need on older person’s accommodation.

ii. All developments of 100 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include specialist housing including the needs of those with a learning disability or mental health need in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need.

iii. On sites of 3 or more dwellings 49% of all new residential development should meet Category 2 (Accessible and Adaptable dwellings) of approved Document M; Volume 1, and on sites of 20 or more dwellings a minimum of 5% of all market housing and 7% of affordable housing should meet Category 3 requirements.

iv. All specialist housing for older people should meet Category 3 requirements.

v. The Council will support Self Build and Custom Build housing developments.


The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor comments between October 2018 and October 2019 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 27 planning applications were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. Four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. This does not demonstrate a clear pathway for deliverability of sufficient self-build dwellings and the council are obliged to grant sufficient self-build dwellings. It does not look like the council are meeting their duty under Section 2A.

The support in the current polices needs to be updated following on from new guidance and new evidence. As part of the evidence base the Council Local Needs Housing Assessment and Self Build Custom House buildings report of findings April 2021 has updated the self-build provision.
The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor April 2021 comments between October 2016 -2020 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 192 single dwellings were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. For example, four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. In February 2021 the Government updated the Planning Practice Guidance to update the definition of self-build and custom housing. Any single dwellings granted planning permission where the initial owner has no primary input into final design and layout will not be a self-build. These single plots need to be discounted from the self-build and custom housebuilding. This revised advice needs to be reflected in the methodology for counting self build in Bedford Brough. The monitoring does not fully identify the issue and the policy does not address the production of single self build and custom plots.


The council basis for considering they have self-build dwellings is in the grant of single plots. They are not controlled by any mechanism which would secure delivery of self-build or custom housing. These single plot permissions should be removed from the calculations. The revised policy DM5 makes reference to s106 obligations to help delivery, and this supports the view that the current method of calculation is not correct. The evidence therefore does not provide a correct position on the supply of self-build and custom housing. A number of these single plots will be self-build, but not all.

The proposed policy DM5 provides for a requirement for self-build dwellings as part of larger housing sites but it needs to recognise that sites could deliver 10 self build units. The policy needs to consider sites may be 100% self build.

Comment

Representation ID: 9891

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: FP Tinsley Estate

Agent: Aragon Land and Planning

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.

National Planning Guidance Comments:

Most local planning authorities (including all district councils and National Park Authorities) are now required to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in their area in order to build their own home. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016 set out these requirements.

For further details, see guidance on self-build and custom housebuilding registers.

To obtain a robust assessment of demand for this type of housing in their area, local planning authorities should assess and review the data held on registers. This assessment can be supplemented with the use of existing secondary data sources such as building plot search websites, ‘Need-a-Plot’ information available from the Self Build Portal and enquiries for building plots from local estate agents.

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups

The current policies in the Bedford Local plan 2030 comment on self-build and it has a number of polices of relevance. Policy 7s states;

7s supports a community need and with Parish support the proposal will be in accordance with 7s. The mantle also is taken up in the new Policy 59s comments:

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups.

i. All developments of 500 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include self-contained older persons housing, and/or supported living accommodation in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need on older person’s accommodation.

ii. All developments of 100 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include specialist housing including the needs of those with a learning disability or mental health need in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need.

iii. On sites of 3 or more dwellings 49% of all new residential development should meet Category 2 (Accessible and Adaptable dwellings) of approved Document M; Volume 1, and on sites of 20 or more dwellings a minimum of 5% of all market housing and 7% of affordable housing should meet Category 3 requirements.

iv. All specialist housing for older people should meet Category 3 requirements.

v. The Council will support Self Build and Custom Build housing developments.

The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor comments between October 2018 and October 2019 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 27 planning applications were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. Four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. This does not demonstrate a clear pathway for deliverability of sufficient self-build dwellings and the council are obliged to grant sufficient self-build dwellings. It does not look like the council are meeting their duty under Section 2A.

The support in the current polices needs to be updated following on from new guidance and new evidence. As part of the evidence base the Council Local Needs Housing Assessment and Self Build Custom House buildings report of findings April 2021 has updated the self-build provision.

The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor April 2021 comments between October 2016 -2020 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 192 single dwellings were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. For example, four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. In February 2021 the Government updated the Planning Practice Guidance to update the definition of self-build and custom housing. Any single dwellings granted planning permission where the initial owner has no primary input into final design and layout will not be a self-build. These single plots need to be discounted from the self-build and custom housebuilding. This revised advice needs to be reflected in the methodology for counting self build in Bedford Brough and the Self build topic paper 6.3 needs to be revised. Single plots can be self build, but they need to exercise a discount because not all these granted single plots are self build. The monitoring does not fully identify the issue and the policy does not address the production of single self build and custom plots.

The council basis for considering they have self-build dwellings is in the grant of single plots. They are not controlled by any mechanism which would secure delivery of self-build or custom housing. These single plot permissions should be removed from the calculations. The revised policy DM5 makes reference to s106 obligations to help delivery, and this supports the view that the current method of calculation is not correct. The evidence therefore does not provide a correct position on the supply of self-build and custom housing. A number of these single plots will be self-build, but not all.

The proposed policy DM5 provides for a requirement for self-build dwellings as part of larger housing sites but it needs to recognise that single plots can contribute to the supply for self and custom build.

The policy details a very prescriptive marketing campaign where houses are part of larger sites, however the policy should have some commentary for single plots where single plots do not need such marketing when the applicant is a self-builder.

A lot of these smaller sites may not be identified in neighbourhood plans and para 6.46 accepts the point, however it could be made clearer. The main focus of delivery for self-building is as part of larger sites; however, the policy needs to be revised to make a stronger reference to single plots providing delivery. These smaller and single plots have a significant impact on delivery, and they are not properly addressed in the evidence and the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9892

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Pinfold

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our clients Mr & Mrs Pinfold, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”
We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9894

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr A Sarro

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mr Ami Sarro, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9895

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: EF Wootton and Son

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mr. E F Wootton, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9903

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Messrs G & J Morroll & Wright

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our clients Mr G Morroll and Mr J Wright, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9906

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Glen Moore

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mr Glen Moore, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9907

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr J Wright

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mr J Wright, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9908

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Richard Hull

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mr Richard Hull, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9909

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Sandy Wade Geary

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our Mr Sandy Wade-Gery and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9911

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Clare Szczepanski

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The following contains general representations regarding proposed Policy DM5 of the Local Plan 2040 that are relevant to our client base who are promoting their sites as available for Self-build and Custom Housebuilding. A separate representation has been submitted on behalf of each client, with specific commentary provided regarding the merits of their site.

We are writing on behalf of our client Mrs Clare Szczepanski, and wish to make representations on proposed Policy DM5 (Self-build and Custom Housebuilding), as well as the methodology used by the Council to calculate its provision of Self-build plots.

Firstly, in respect of defining what can constitute a serviced plot, the Council’s Self-Build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) states that:

“The council has therefore taken a straightforward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.”

We strongly contend that the Council’s methodology of calculating all planning permissions for single dwellings as Self-build plots is inherently flawed. Single dwellings cannot realistically be considered as contributing to the supply of Self-build housing unless they are specifically granted for that purpose, and controlled by measures such as a legal agreement. Otherwise, these dwellings are effectively available on the open market and will more than likely be secured by small and medium-sized housebuilders.

One of the driving forces behind Self-build housing is a desire to improve affordability in this part of the marketplace, but it is very difficult for genuine Self-builders to compete with small and medium-sized housebuilders. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of single plots and small sites which means the market is very competitive. In our experience, there are very few if any plots currently coming forward within Bedford Borough for single dwellings, with very few coming forward in the rural north or in or adjacent to small settlements.

The Council’s Self-build And Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) further states “that there is no clear guidance on what type of dwelling should be considered in counting the supply of self-build and custom housebuilding plots” (Paragraph 6.1), and that “Further clarity has not been forthcoming in guidance or in case law on the definition of “suitable” ”(Paragraph 6.2).

However, this is not the case, and this matter has been addressed in several Appeal Decisions where the matter has been the subject of debate. One of the most defining Appeal Decisions is in respect of a site in West Leicestershire in June 2019 (APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 - Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville). The key parts of the Appeal Decision in relation to this point are paragraphs 22 and 23 which state:

22. “The Council confirms that as at April 2019, there are 54 individuals on the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register and that as of April 2019, it has permitted 4 plots in the period since 31 October 2016. Since 31 October 2016 the Council has permitted an additional 133 single plot dwellings which have been distributed across the District. However, the Council has not provided any information to suggest that there are provisions in place to ensure that any of the 133 single dwelling permissions would be developed in a manner that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding 2015 (as amended).

23. To my mind this raises considerable doubts as to whether any of the single dwelling permissions would count towards the number of planning permissions the Council has granted for serviced plots and thus whether these consents would actually contribute towards the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding in the District. Importantly, the S.106 Agreement submitted with the appeal proposal contains provisions to ensure that the proposed dwellings on the appeal site would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. There is no evidence before me of a similar mechanism which would secure the delivery of self-build and custom housebuilding on the plots referred to in Appendix 3 of the Council’s Statement. I consider it would be unreasonable to include any of the single dwelling permissions within the calculation of self-build and custom housebuilding permissions granted in the District.”

The Inspector’s opinion is both clear and concise in identifying the need for control and how this comes to define provision in respect of the legal duty. The Council’s methodology is not accurately addressing the provision of Self-build housing in the Borough, and the true figure of genuine Self-build plots is likely to be much lower. As such, the Council should utilise a much more accurate method of calculating the number of Self-build plots available in order to meet its obligations under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council need to provide genuine Self-build plots in areas of identified need through the granting of a sufficient number of planning permissions/allocations which are adequately controlled to ensure they are genuine Self-build plots, and not available to the wider market. It is proposed that Self-build plots delivered under Policy DM5 will be controlled through S106 Agreements. The same should therefore be done for all plots considered to be for Self-build to ensure they are utilised for this purpose.

In respect of the policy, the scope of proposed Policy DM5 is far too narrow as it is only focused on delivering Self-build plots as part of wider development schemes in and around the urban area, and not on delivering them in the locations where they are needed.

The Self-build community - the part of the market that the Government wishes to stimulate and support through the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act - have very particular requirements. Whether it is to be located somewhere specific, where they have a local connection such as family or work; whether it is affordability and to build their home to a specification that is cheaper than they can buy within the general market; or indeed whether it is to find a unique plot to express themselves and design and build a home that meets their needs in a manner that is not served by the mass market, the self-builder is not looking for homogeneity, or to be a plot in amongst a sea of other plots – they are looking for individual, low-density rural areas where there are no, or very few, general housing development sites.

Conversely, people wanting to purchase a standard house type on an estate may be put off buying next to a Self-build plot that is undefined at the point of sale, as they will not know what exactly their property will be adjoining, and this could ultimately cause issues for the volume housebuilder in how the two relate.

Furthermore, the policy does not provide any guidance on the spatial approach to identifying self-build pots within a larger housing estate. Will they be dispersed throughout the development, or located in an area of their own? Are the Self-builders supposed to follow the design and material selection of the volume housebuilders, or are they able to utilise the more innovative designs that Self-build is supposed to offer? There are likely to be conflicts in the design and character of the houses built on the Self-build plots and the standard house types on the rest of the estate. Will this not result in a constraint on innovation?

We are also concerned that the legal duty within The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is not being adequately addressed by this restrictive policy. The Act requires Local Authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own Self-build and custom house building and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet this identified demand.

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2021-2026 confirmed that there was a total of 115 individuals on the Self-build Register as of 31st December 2019. Table 12 of this document sets out the locational preferences of individuals on the Self-build And Custom Housebuilding register at the point of publication. Only 25 people registered a locational interest in Bedford Town and only 9 in Kempston Town. The overwhelming majority of people expressed interest in the villages in the north of the Borough, but the Spatial Strategy (Policy DS2(S)) only directs development to the urban area, at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. It does not direct any new development to the villages in the north of the Borough, and there are no strategic allocations in these locations that will come forward under the new Local Plan 2040. Those sites identified and being delivered through Neighborhood Plans will come forward under the current development plan policies and as such will not deliver custom and self-build housing plots, as these are only encouraged and not required by the current policy, as is proposed in Policy DM5.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the objectives of Policy DM5 and the locational requirements of the Self-builders who have confirmed their interest in building within Bedford Borough. As the Council’s strategic planning policy does not allocate any new sites in the north, we ask how is the Plan supposed to deliver Self-build opportunities in this area which has a significant identified need? Policy DM5 is blunt and unable to deliver Self-build in the rural north of Bedford and therefore does not meet the large part of the need identified in the Council’s own evidence base.

Some provision is needed within the policy for Self-build opportunities to be considered as exceptions to the normal rural restraint policies. We, therefore, advocate the use of exception site policies for Self-build as set out in the National Custom & Self-build Association’s manifesto which sets out ten areas where Government Support can help the custom and Self-build sector fix the broken housing market. Point 3 of the Manifesto states that there should be the introduction of “….a custom and self-build exception site policy for small sites akin to the rural exception site scheme to ensure local demand for serviced plots can be met.”

We, therefore, contend that Policy DM5 either needs refining further to offer opportunities for Self-build and custom housebuilding as an exception to normal restraint policies, or, alternatively, the Council could identify a range of small sites identified in and around the villages in the northern part of the Borough which could deliver Self-build opportunities and the Council could allocate those sites specifically for this purpose.

Without modification, we would conclude that the plan is UNSOUND. It has not been positively prepared as the strategy does not meet the need for self-build and custom housebuilding sites in the locations where they are required. It is not justified with locational needs excluded from the policy framework. It is not effective as there is no evidence that the self-build and custom housebuilding communities have been adequately consulted. It is also not consistent with national policy and does not address the requirements of paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, we question whether the legal duty under Section 2(1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which places a duty on relevant bodies to have regard to each self-build and custom housebuilding register, that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions. For planning this means that the registers that relate to the area of a local planning authority – and the duty to have regard to them – needs to be taken into account in preparing planning policies and are also likely to be a material consideration in decisions involving proposals for self and custom housebuilding. Based on the identified failures to pay due regard to the Self-build Register, we, therefore, contend that the plan is not legally compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 9925

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Red Eagle Estates Ltd

Agent: Aragon Land and Planning

The land is residential curtilage located on the edge of Clapham and it is used in association with the dwelling, it is residential land. Furthermore the character of this area is distinct from the character of the open countryside to the north. The land is enclosed to the east and west. To the south are further residential curtilages and to the north it is likely the land will be a cemetery. The boundary to the rear of the property will provide a recognisable physical feature as the boundary as per the red land on the enclosed plan. The SPA needs to be extended to the access road to Twinwoods Road.

The current SPA boundary does not extend considerably beyond the main built up area and tis would be seen as a regular and permanent line for the settlement.

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A The land is residential curtilage located on the edge of Clapham and it is used in association with the dwelling, it is residential land. Furthermore the character of this area is distinct from the character of the open countryside to the north. The land is enclosed to the east and west. To the south are further residential curtilages and to the north it is likely the land will be a cemetery. The boundary to the rear of the property will provide a recognisable physical feature as the boundary as per the red land on the enclosed plan. The SPA needs to be extended to the access road to Twinwoods Road.

The current SPA boundary does not extend considerably beyond the main built up area and tis would be seen as a regular and permanent line for the settlement.

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A The land is residential curtilage located on the edge of Clapham and it is used in association with the dwelling, it is residential land. Furthermore the character of this area is distinct from the character of the open countryside to the north. The land is enclosed to the east and west. To the south are further residential curtilages and to the north it is likely the land will be a cemetery. The boundary to the rear of the property will provide a recognisable physical feature as the boundary as per the red land on the enclosed plan. The SPA needs to be extended to the access road to Twinwoods Road.

The current SPA boundary does not extend considerably beyond the main built up area and tis would be seen as a regular and permanent line for the settlement.

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A The land is residential curtilage located on the edge of Clapham and it is used in association with the dwelling, it is residential land. Furthermore the character of this area is distinct from the character of the open countryside to the north. The land is enclosed to the east and west. To the south are further residential curtilages and to the north it is likely the land will be a cemetery. The boundary to the rear of the property will provide a recognisable physical feature as the boundary as per the red land on the enclosed plan. The SPA needs to be extended to the access road to Twinwoods Road.

The current SPA boundary does not extend considerably beyond the main built up area and tis would be seen as a regular and permanent line for the settlement.

Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.

National Planning Guidance Comments:

Most local planning authorities (including all district councils and National Park Authorities) are now required to keep a register of individuals and associations of individuals who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in their area in order to build their own home. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Register) Regulations 2016 set out these requirements.

For further details, see guidance on self-build and custom housebuilding registers.

To obtain a robust assessment of demand for this type of housing in their area, local planning authorities should assess and review the data held on registers. This assessment can be supplemented with the use of existing secondary data sources such as building plot search websites, ‘Need-a-Plot’ information available from the Self Build Portal and enquiries for building plots from local estate agents.

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups

The current policies in the Bedford Local plan 2030 comment on self-build and it has a number of polices of relevance. Policy 7s states;
7s supports a community need and with Parish support the proposal will be in accordance with 7s. The mantle also is taken up in the new Policy 59s comments:

New housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and type to meet the identified needs of the community including families with children, older people, people wishing to build their own homes and people with disabilities and special needs in accordance with the Council’s current Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups.

i. All developments of 500 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include self-contained older persons housing, and/or supported living accommodation in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need on older person’s accommodation.

ii. All developments of 100 dwellings or more in suitable locations, will be required to include specialist housing including the needs of those with a learning disability or mental health need in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need.

iii. On sites of 3 or more dwellings 49% of all new residential development should meet Category 2 (Accessible and Adaptable dwellings) of approved Document M; Volume 1, and on sites of 20 or more dwellings a minimum of 5% of all market housing and 7% of affordable housing should meet Category 3 requirements.

iv. All specialist housing for older people should meet Category 3 requirements.

v. The Council will support Self Build and Custom Build housing developments.

The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor comments between October 2018 and October 2019 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 27 planning applications were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. Four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. This does not demonstrate a clear pathway for deliverability of sufficient self-build dwellings and the council are obliged to grant sufficient self-build dwellings. It does not look like the council are meeting their duty under Section 2A.

The support in the current polices needs to be updated following on from new guidance and new evidence. As part of the evidence base the Council Local Needs Housing Assessment and Self Build Custom House buildings report of findings April 2021 has updated the self-build provision.

The Bedford Borough Housing Monitor April 2021 comments between October 2016 -2020 (the self-build register’s monitoring period) 192 single dwellings were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough, which although not explicitly submitted as self-build applications, provide potential opportunities for self-build and custom build housing due to the size of development. For example, four of these permissions were for change of use from another use. In February 2021 the Government updated the Planning Practice Guidance to update the definition of self-build and custom housing. Any single dwellings granted planning permission where the initial owner has no primary input into final design and layout will not be a self-build. These single plots need to be discounted from the self-build and custom housebuilding. This revised advice needs to be reflected in the methodology for counting self build in Bedford Brough and the Self build topic paper 6.3 needs to be revised. Single plots can be self build, but they need to exercise a discount because not all these granted single plots are self build. The monitoring does not fully identify the issue and the policy does not address the production of single self build and custom plots.

The council basis for considering they have self-build dwellings is in the grant of single plots. They are not controlled by any mechanism which would secure delivery of self-build or custom housing. These single plot permissions should be removed from the calculations. The revised policy DM5 makes reference to s106 obligations to help delivery, and this supports the view that the current method of calculation is not correct. The evidence therefore does not provide a correct position on the supply of self-build and custom housing. A number of these single plots will be self-build, but not all.

The proposed policy DM5 provides for a requirement for self-build dwellings as part of larger housing sites but it needs to recognise that single plots can contribute to the supply for self and custom build.

The policy details a very prescriptive marketing campaign where houses are part of larger sites, however the policy should have some commentary for sites where they provide 100% housing and are 5-10 units.

Comment

Representation ID: 9950

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM5 (Self-Build and Custom-Build Housing) requires applications for new housing development to include plots for self-build and custom house builders, based on the overall number of net- additional dwellings proposed as below:
• 1-4 dwellings = no requirement
• 5-9 dwellings = 1 plot
• 10-29 dwellings = 2 plots
• 30-49 dwellings = 3 plots
• 50-69 dwellings = 5 plots
• 70-89 dwellings = 6 plots
• 90-100 dwellings = 7 plots
• 100+ dwellings = by negotiation
Draft Policy DM5 requires that for sites of 50 or more dwellings:
• “Plots will be marketed solely to individuals and associations on Part 1 of the Council’s Register in the first instance for an initial period of two months (minimum) from the commencement of the site being marketed. Following the initial marketing period, the offer of any unreserved plots will be extended to those on Part 2 of the Council’s Register and any new registrants to Part 1 having joined during the initial period. If the developer can provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Council that suitable purchasers from the Register have not been forthcoming within 6 months (minimum) of commencement of marketing the plots, they may be offered for unrestricted market sale to self-build and custom homebuilders including industry sector specialist companies,
• Any plots not reserved within a further 6 months (minimum) will be released from this specific policy requirement, following a total of 12 months of marketing.”
A self-build and custom housebuilding topic paper has been published as part of the evidence base to the BBLP 2040, which seeks to explain the background information about local demand for self-build and custom housebuilding, and therefore the reasoning for the policy. It sets out that whilst the self-build and custom housebuilding policy in the draft Local Plan 2030 was removed because the local plan Inspectors were concerned about the robustness of the Council’s register information on which it was based, a considerable amount of work has been done to ensure better quality local information is available for the BBLP 2040.
The rationale for such a policy is now considered to be the Council’s Self-build and Custom housebuilding Register (which is divided into two parts), and evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrating the level of demand for self-build and custom housebuilding plots in the Borough. In terms of the register, this has been split so that part 1 denotes a defined local connection, whilst part 2 are those eligible at the national level. As of October 2021, there were 90 individuals on the register, 46 with a local connection on part 1 and 44 on part 2. This has reduced considerably since March 2021, when there were 178 applicants were on the register, of whom 47 were on part 1 and the remaining 131 of part 2.
In addition, the evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrates that Bedford Borough Council is currently providing sufficient single dwelling plots to comply with its requirement to meet the needs of those on Part 1 of its own self-build and custom housebuilding register. This has been achieved without any designated policy requirement and is also based purely on the number of planning applications that were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough. The report therefore considers that it is likely that at least some properties on sites with more than one dwelling will also fall within the definition of being self-build and custom housebuilding and as such a greater number of plots will realistically have been provided.
Based on the above, it is unclear why specific requirements are included within the draft policy, and why these are so high. There is not a necessity within National policy to include self and custom build thresholds, with the PPG (Paragraph 025 Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) setting out a number of ways in which Local Authorities can support self and custom build. As such the currently proposed BBLP40 approach is unnecessary in the context of the tests of soundness set out within paragraph 35 of the NPPF which require plans to be consistent with national policy.
In addition, the evidence provided indicates that a draft Policy which continues to encourage self-build and custom build developments, where appropriate (in line with the NPPF paragraph 62) would be sufficient. We would welcome a policy which allows consideration of the level of demand for self-build and custom housing and a requirement for a proportionate level of self-build and custom plots at the time a planning application is submitted.
Whilst we welcome a clause in the Section 106 Agreement, for the release of a plot from the requirement of Policy DM5 after a period of marketing, we consider a 12-month minimum marketing period to be unreasonable and unjustified. It is also considered that the wording of the policy should be revised in order to specify that the requirements will not apply to flatted developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 9958

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and L & Q Estates Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

The promoters continue to support the
premise of the policy and welcome the ‘by negotiation’ position on larger sites. However,
as raised in our Regulation 18 Consultation representations, the policy still does not
provide guidance on how these should be dealt with, when larger sites require the
submission of a Design Code. A clearer mechanism should be inserted into the policy
which outlines how this may be dealt with i.e. a self-build ‘passport’ scheme. There is
always a danger of gaps in the streetscene, or unfinished properties, by including selfbuild
plots into development proposals and this needs to be avoided to ensure cohesive
and consistent developments.
We would request further explanation of how specific percentages required by different
scales of development have been arrived at. For example, a requirement of 2no. self and
custom build plots on a 10-dwelling site equates to 20% provision, and a requirement of
7no. self and custom build plots on a 90-dwelling site equates to approximately 8%
provision. Typically, many local plans require roughly 5% provision or are negotiated on
a case-by-case basis according to evidence of need. This also represents an imbalance in
how much provision is sought based on the scale of a site, when there is no evidence to
support such an approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 9978

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Policy DM5 Self-build and Custom Housebuilding
Policy DM5 requires all sites of 5 or more dwellings to include provision of plots for self-build and custom housing as part of an appropriate mix of housing.
Gladman broadly support the inclusion of a policy in respect of self-build and custom-build housing in line with current government thinking and objectives. We consider it essential, however, that the policy wording rather than the supporting text should state that once a self-build and/or custom-build plot has been marketed for 12 months but failed to sell, it will revert to consideration by the Council to be built out as conventional market housing.

Object

Representation ID: 9994

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy is unsound as the requirement for sites of less than 50 units to provide self-build plots it is not effective
29. Whilst the HBF support the encouragement of self-build housing through the local plan, we do not consider the requirement to provide self-build pots on sites below 50 units to be effective. A 40-unit threshold is relatively low for such a policy which in general tend to be applied to much larger sites in other areas. One key concern with having such a low threshold is that it is impossible to sperate the self-build plots from the rest of the site which creates difficulties with regard to health and safety on a site with self-builders working alongside the main contractors delivering the rest of the development. There are also concerns that the self-build sites will take much longer to complete or could be left undeveloped to the detriment on the other residents.
30. The Council should also state that this policy will not apply to flatted developments where it would not be feasible or practical to deliver self-build plots.

Comment

Representation ID: 10034

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

olicy DM5(S) requires developments of +100 dwellings to include plots for self and custom build housing, with the amount subject to negotiation. It is agreed that the amount of self and custom build plots provided should be subject to negotiation and assessed on a site by site basis. The Southill Estate owns land for two draft allocation, one for residential development (Policy HOU 5) and the other for a science and innovation park (Policy EMP 5). There is an inter-relationship between the two developments, with the delivery of the economic benefits associated with the science and innovation park supported by the delivery of residential development. There may need to be some flexibility about the delivery of self and custom build plots in this case. These issues would be addressed at masterplan and planning application stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 10071

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Emerging policy DM5 requires an element of self-build plots to be provided on all sites other than developments of 1 – 4 dwellings. Land east of Newton Lane, Turvey has the potential to deliver up to 80 dwellings and theoretically, using the current draft policy, would be expected to provide 6 self-build plots.
2.43 There are issues with providing self-build plots within standard open market sites in terms of achieving a comprehensive design and issues with who is responsible for installing utilities (and to what point). There is also the risk that plots will sit undeveloped for long periods of time if they are not sold, whilst the required marketing and viability evidence is gathered in the result that demand is low or non-existent in a location.
2.44 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) identifies that through the current allocations and self-build projections, there is capacity to deliver 644 self-build plots. The Topic Paper also notes that there are currently 90 people on the self-build register. The provision of 644 self-build plots through the Local Plan 2040 is significantly above the current demand.
2.45 The policy should be re-worded to encourage the inclusion of self-build plots rather than require them. In its current form it is too prescriptive and will lead to issues with overall site completion. It will also lead to a significant surplus in the provision of self-build plots for which there is unlikely to be what would need to a 7-fold increase in demand over the plan-period (from 90 to 644). This surplus of self-build plots will lead to the Council using more of their valuable time assessing numerous marketing and viability reports in order to meet the requirements of Policy DM5 to seek to change them to standard market housing plots when it transpires that demand is low.

Object

Representation ID: 10454

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Kulwinder Rai

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DM5 Self-build and custom housebuilding - OBJECTION

There is a tension in the Council’s approach to Self-Build Custom Housebuilding in that most of those wishing to self-build dwellings want to do so in rural locations, areas that it wishes to restrict new housebuilding.

In the the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper, Para 4.1 it is stated that:

‘When asked for more detail, rural locations are the most popular choice for those on the register. Only 5% of registrants (all on Part 1) would prefer a plot in Bedford or Kempston over other locations.’

It expands on this in Para 7.6.3 saying:

7.6.3. The Council’s evidence shows that greatest demand is for plots on sites in or around villages. Such sites tend to be smaller in size than those in and around the urban area, so a percentage policy that applied to sites over a threshold of 50 or 100 units would not yield the kind of self-build opportunity that the evidence shows is most in demand.

So what has the Council done in response to those findings? It has come up with a policy that secures a percentage of self-build plots on proposed, large estate-type developments, none of which are villages. In other words, exactly the sort of places where most self-builders have said they DO NOT want to be.

That is a wholly unsatisfactory solution to meeting the expressed needs of those interested in building their own dwellings and goes wholly against the spirit of the government’s support and encouragement for self-building in general.

Policy DM5 in the topic paper essentially says that large housebuilders will be released from their obligations to offer self-build plots if they have not been taken up after 12 months of marketing. Given that outcome, in my view, most large house builders will simply overprice such self-build sites in order to make them unattractive.

I would suggest changing the policy so that it makes clear that if the self-build sites remain unsold after 12 months of marketing that they be used for social and affordable housing, instead.

The other issue is how the Council is counting the number of self-builds that it is granted permission for in the past, and currently.

According to the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper, paragraph 6.3 [Counting self-build] states:

‘The council has therefore taken a straight forward approach to what it considers suitable planning permissions and counts planning permissions for developments of a single dwelling in the borough towards its self-build and custom housebuilding requirement. Whilst these types of permissions are not explicitly submitted as self-build and custom housebuilding applications they provide potential opportunities for self-build due to the size of the development.’

By counting in this absurd manner the Council has arrived at the entirely predictable conclusion that it is meeting its statutory obligations in respect of self and custom building.That is very unlikely to be the case.

A much more accurate way of determining how many self-builds are being permissioned would, instead, to be to count the number of CIL exemptions actually granted for self-build.

This data is held by the Council but it chooses not to disclose it. One has to therefore assume that the actual number of confirmed self-build permissions granted, if that were the basis for calculation, would be much, much lower.

The current way Bedford Borough Council is counting how many self-build dwellings it has, and is, permissioning is fundamentally dishonest – it needs to base its figures expressly on the CIL self-build exemptions that have been granted, if its estimates are to be taken at all seriously.

Comment

Representation ID: 10532

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM5 (Self-Build and Custom-Build Housing) requires applications for new housing development to include plots for self-build and custom house builders, based on the overall number of net- additional dwellings proposed as below:
• 1-4 dwellings = no requirement
• 5-9 dwellings = 1 plot
• 10-29 dwellings = 2 plots
• 30-49 dwellings = 3 plots
• 50-69 dwellings = 5 plots
• 70-89 dwellings = 6 plots
• 90-100 dwellings = 7 plots
• 100+ dwellings = by negotiation
Draft Policy DM5 requires that for sites of 50 or more dwellings:
• “Plots will be marketed solely to individuals and associations on Part 1 of the Council’s Register in the first instance for an initial period of two months (minimum) from the commencement of the site being marketed. Following the initial marketing period, the offer of any unreserved plots will be extended to those on Part 2 of the Council’s Register and any new registrants to Part 1 having joined during the initial period. If the developer can provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Council that suitable purchasers from the Register have not been forthcoming within 6 months (minimum) of commencement of marketing the plots, they may be offered for unrestricted market sale to self-build and custom homebuilders including industry sector specialist companies,
• Any plots not reserved within a further 6 months (minimum) will be released from this specific policy requirement, following a total of 12 months of marketing.”
A self-build and custom housebuilding topic paper has been published as part of the evidence base to the BBLP 2040, which seeks to explain the background information about local demand for self-build and custom housebuilding, and therefore the reasoning for the policy. It sets out that whilst the self-build and custom housebuilding policy in the draft Local Plan 2030 was removed because the local plan Inspectors were concerned about the robustness of the Council’s register information on which it was based, a considerable amount of work has been done to ensure better quality local information is available for the BBLP 2040.
The rationale for such a policy is now considered to be the Council’s Self-build and Custom housebuilding Register (which is divided into two parts), and evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrating the level of demand for self-build and custom housebuilding plots in the Borough. In terms of the register, this has been split so that part 1 denotes a defined local connection, whilst part 2 are those eligible at the national level. As of October 2021, there were 90 individuals on the register, 46 with a local connection on part 1 and 44 on part 2. This has reduced considerably since March 2021, when there were 178 applicants were on the register, of whom 47 were on part 1 and the remaining 131 of part 2.
In addition, the evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrates that Bedford Borough Council is currently providing sufficient single dwelling plots to comply with its requirement to meet the needs of those on Part 1 of its own self-build and custom housebuilding register. This has been achieved without any designated policy requirement and is also based purely on the number of planning applications that were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough. The report therefore considers that it is likely that at least some properties on sites with more than one dwelling will also fall within the definition of being self-build and custom housebuilding and as such a greater number of plots will realistically have been provided.
Based on the above, it is unclear why specific requirements are included within the draft policy, and why these are so high. There is not a necessity within National policy to include self and custom build thresholds, with the PPG (Paragraph 025 Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) setting out a number of ways in which Local Authorities can support self and custom build. As such the currently proposed BBLP40 approach is unnecessary in the context of the tests of soundness set out within paragraph 35 of the NPPF which require plans to be consistent with national policy.
In addition, the evidence provided indicates that a draft Policy which continues to encourage self-build and custom build developments, where appropriate (in line with the NPPF paragraph 62) would be sufficient. We would welcome a policy which allows consideration of the level of demand for self-build and custom housing and a requirement for a proportionate level of self-build and custom plots at the time a planning application is submitted.
Whilst we welcome a clause in the Section 106 Agreement, for the release of a plot from the requirement of Policy DM5 after a period of marketing, we consider a 12-month minimum marketing period to be unreasonable and unjustified. It is also considered that the wording of the policy should be revised in order to specify that the requirements will not apply to flatted developments.