Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Update

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10351

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The approach to preparation of the Plan for Submission Local Plan 2040 is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted previously. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Statement – Land at Station Road, Oakley and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

Our main submissions concern the proposed Plan and the methodology and conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations of 2004 (SEA Regulations) are not satisfied. These concerns were first identified in a ‘Review of Draft [2021] Sustainability Appraisal Findings’ included at Appendix 6 of our client’s previous representations.

The Council has not adequately accommodated the requirements mandated by Policy 1 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the need for an immediate review in terms of assessing a full range of reasonable alternatives to the same level of detail as the selected option, namely fully assessing the potential effects of detailed site options for allocations across the settlement hierarchy.

Circularity in the site evaluation and Sustainability Appraisal processes highlights the basic faults in the Council's strategy. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process was used to determine the suitability of sites, according to paragraph 9.13 of the 2022 Sustainability Appraisal, whereas Table 2.2 of the SHLAA document justifies the exclusion of sites at Stage 1 of the assessment where they ruled inconsistent with the Council's chosen strategy.

This might be taken as confirmation that the Council has already decided on its preferred strategy before conducting further testing. It has also chosen not to consider all other growth options out of pure conflict with the unjustified decision to reject all village-related growth and limit any potential contribution from this component to the spatial strategy.

Not one of the proposed site options at Key Service Centre or Rural Service Centre locations is deemed suitable, available, or feasible under the SHELAA process, therefore further testing is prohibited on this basis even if the SA partially recognises the option and sustainability of village-related expansion (i.e., a "reasonable alternative") (see paragraph 7.13). The sites have merely been rejected due to what seems to be a contradiction with the spatial approach; they have not been evaluated for suitability under Stage 2 of the SHLAA process or subjected to any other thorough examination. Accordingly, the assessments do not provide a robust justification for the approach taken to site selection and supporting growth.

All village sites in all settlements are judged similarly as being in conflict with the spatial strategy. The SHLAA determines that any village sites are "inconsistent" with the plan. This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that the suitability of site options should not be further evaluated, nor should strategy options for levels of growth in rural areas (or at specific settlements) be tested in greater detail or through more iterations than were undertaken prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage.

When village-related growth has been tested under the Sustainability Appraisal process, it remains the case that testing has only been done with the presumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages). This is the same approach to the Local Plan 2030, which deferred allocations to Neighbourhood Plans as part of a foreshortened plan period and prior to substantial changes to national policy in the NPPF2021. It is fundamentally unjustified, having already received on ‘reprieve’ on the requirements for sound strategic plan-making and noting failures in the delivery of the current strategy and the explicit requirements for immediate review, not to update this aspect of the methodology.

The Council’s current position is also further contradicted by the conclusions of previous SA exercises (January 2018 and September 2018) exploring options for either an increased housing requirement or extended plan period (i.e., the same as the requirements now necessitated by Policy 1) that demonstrated that higher levels of growth (4,000 or 5,100 dwellings) at Key Service Centres could be just as sustainable as new settlement options. There is therefore no justification why levels of additional growth broadly in-line with these parameters is now viewed as ‘inconsistent’ with the strategy and not capable of complementing a hybrid approach.

Whether or not the Council will unjustifiably claim it has ‘run out of time’ to look at matters in the greater detail, the Council’s position is directly at odds with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper informing the Regulation 18 Draft Plan:

“For the purpose of defining the options, assumptions need to be made about the potential capacity of each broad location for housing and employment growth. It is very important to note at this stage that these assumptions are for the purpose of testing only. They are informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process but they are not based on specific site appraisals (which will form the basis of further testing following this consultation).” Therefore, as drafted we consider that the SA is not legally compliant and contributes towards the wider soundness failings of the selected strategy.

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10437

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

We object to the SA process and outcomes; The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and fails all four soundness tests.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Representations Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document, showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

Our main submissions concern the proposed Plan and the methodology and conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations of 2004 (SEA Regulations) are not satisfied. The Council has not adequately accommodated the requirements mandated by Policy 1 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the need for an immediate review in terms of assessing a full range of reasonable alternatives to the same level of detail as the selected option, namely fully assessing the potential effects of detailed site options for allocations across the settlement hierarchy and at the urban edge.

Circularity in the site evaluation and Sustainability Appraisal processes highlight the basic faults in the Council’s strategy. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process was used to determine the suitability of sites, according to paragraph 9.13 of the 2022 Sustainability Appraisal, whereas Table 2.2 of the SHLAA document justifies the exclusion of sites at Stage 1 of the assessment where they are not thought to fit the Council’s chosen strategy.

This might be taken as confirmation that the Council has already decided on its preferred strategy before conducting further testing. It has also chosen not to consider all other growth options out of a perceived pure conflict and has thus severely limited the potential contribution from the urban edge component of the spatial strategy.

The SA confirms that our clients land at Green End, Kempston has been considered within the context of a site adjacent to the urban area. Paragraph 9.9 of the SA confirms that the majority of sites within the definition have been considered inconsistent with the Council’s preferred strategy, despite two sites being selected for allocation from this component including land adjoining our client’s site (HOU13).

The Council’s own evidence base does not justify this conclusion following an objective assessment of site options to the same degree of detail. Appendix 4 of the SHELAA, which shows that at Stage 2 almost no sites have really been rejected based on the Council's definition as "suitability" (e.g., inability to secure suitable mitigation for matters such as coalescence). Appropriate sites at the urban edge, and specifically our client’s land Green End (ID: 1247), have been arbitrarily rejected at Stage 1 without any assessment of their relationship with the urban edge or impact on separation and irrespective of the conclusions against the Stage 3 Sustainability Appraisal Indicators (which were in fact established prior to the Council ruling out sites using its Stage 1 criteria).

Just two sites adjacent to the urban area have been deemed suitable, available, or feasible under the SHELAA process, therefore further testing of the other sites is prohibited on this basis even if the SA partially recognises the option of additional urban edge growth (i.e., it is not only a "reasonable alternative" but a component of the selected strategy). The sites have merely been rejected due to what seems to be a contradiction with the spatial approach; they have not been evaluated for suitability under Stage 2 or subjected to any other thorough examination of their relative benefits, dis-benefits and scope for mitigation of any adverse effects. Accordingly, the assessments do not provide a robust justification for the approach taken to site selection and supporting growth.

It should be noted, as described in the Regulation 18 representations and the supporting Site Analysis Document, that development of this site would provide for sustainably located development at the urban edge whilst also maintaining separation and the townscape and landscape character of Bedford and Kempston Rural parish. The Council has already acknowledged on several occasions that the A428 bypass does not provide a significant obstacle to the expansion of development west of Bedford. Numerous construction projects have penetrated the bypass, including new employment west of the A428 that has encroached into the Green Infrastructure corridor. Our client's land would continue to be a suitable place for expansion that is reachable from the major urban area while avoiding any further detrimental effects in this respect.

All but two sites adjacent to the urban area are judged similarly as being in conflict with the spatial approach and hence undesirable, according to the SA's position, which appears to be the advocated position of the Council. This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that the suitability of site options should not be further evaluated, nor should strategy options for levels of growth in these areas be tested in greater detail or through more iterations than were done prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage.

Whether or not the Council will unjustifiably claim it has ‘run out of time’ to look at matters in the greater detail, the Council’s position is directly at odds with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper informing the Regulation 18 Draft Plan:
“For the purpose of defining the options, assumptions need to be made about the potential capacity of each broad location for housing and employment growth. It is very important to note at this stage that these assumptions are for the purpose of testing only. They are informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process but they are not based on specific site appraisals (which will form the basis of further testing following this consultation).”

The distinction between the proposed allocation at Gibraltar Corner (HOU13) and our client’s land arises where the draft allocation is subject to separate Sustainability Appraisal in Appendix 9 assessing the policies within the Plan for Submission. However, the findings of this part of the assessment do not indicate why the site should not be considered alongside other reasonable alternatives to the same degree of detail. Specifically:
• For Objective 8 the HOU13 assessment only identifies uncertain effects regarding protecting and enhancing landscape character
• For Objective 7 (encouraging and supporting physical activity) minor positive effects arise only because the location is ‘close to open space’.

The conclusions against these objectives, which are essentially critical for site selection, therefore do not distinguish the site from other reasonable alternatives. In relation to Objective 8 the SHELAA Stage 3 assessment for our client’s land ID: 1247 records the same ‘uncertain’ position for landscape and townscape. For objective 7 the assessment conclusions for our client’s ID: 1247 (potential negative effects for open space) are disputed where the submitted Site Analysis Document clearly shows scope for provision of open space within the site boundary including specifically opportunities for new planting along its eastern edge to maintain separation with the main urban area.

Other parcels within the HOU13 location (e.g., Site ID: 636) record potential negative effects for objective 7. The HOU13 Appendix 9 assessment cites “development of this site together with others will have positive cumulative and synergistic effects on the provision of green infrastructure”. While this may indeed be the case to support the Council’s position for site selection, the same position is also true in relation to our client’s Land at Green End where had the land been assessed in the same degree of detail as other options it would make a valuable contribution towards wider Green Infrastructure objectives.

As demonstrated by our client’s updated Site Analysis Document we fundamentally object to the Council’ proposed changes to the Policies Map no longer indicating the boundaries of Policy AD24 regarding the Marston Vale GI Opportunity Zone. Our client’s land has ostensibly the same relationship with this area as parts of the area identified for allocation at Gibraltar Corner (see Analysis Document (pp.11). It is relevant to note that this is an element assessed favourably in the Council’s SA conclusions for Site ID: 1333 and the assessment of draft allocation HOU13 and which the Council utilises to justify further consideration of the specific urban edge location at Gibraltar Corner. It cannot, therefore, be justified to exclude our client’s land as inconsistent with the selected strategy when it achieves ostensibly the same assessment conclusions and provides the same potential benefits, set out under Objective 2d of the Stage 3 SHELAA SA Indicators as: “adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network”.

We therefore have some significant concerns relating to the legal compliance of the SA sitting behind the submission version of the Local Plan. We do not consider that there has been sufficient testing of reasonable alternatives and even within the preferred approach, there appears to be a significant number of sites adjacent to the urban areas that have been dismissed without justification or sufficient evidence.

Therefore, as draft we consider that the SA is not legally compliant or meets any of the four tests of soundness.

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10444

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gallagher Developments Group Limited

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A review of the Bedford Borough Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report (April 2022) supporting the Bedford Borough Local Plan has been undertaken. The SA Report builds upon the SA Scoping Report published in July 2020 as part of the Issues and Options consultation for the 2040 Local Plan. The SA Report is currently undergoing consultation alongside the draft 2040 Local Plan. A review has been undertaken with the aim of influencing the next stages of the SA process as the 2040 Local Plan progresses.
The SA Report has been read in conjunction with its supporting appendices and an April 2022 update of the SA Scoping Report. These documents have been reviewed against the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the “SEA Regulations”) and Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the “Act”), which sets out requirements for SA. SA is a complex and legalistic process and should be undertaken iteratively, alongside the preparation of the Plan. A Local Plan must be prepared in accordance with Section 39 of the Act “with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”. It should therefore be informed by the SA process, which itself must comply with the SEA Regulations.
This SA Review has focused upon the objectives used within the SA Framework, their application within the SA Scoring process and any notable deficiencies identified within the SA Report.
The objectives utilised within the SA Framework are provided at Paragraph 3.73 and within Appendix 1 of the SA Report Appendices. The objectives cover a multitude of different technical considerations, however can be narrow in their scope of application. For example, climate change is primarily categorised under Objective 3 ‘Reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and improve energy efficiency’, with the indicators including carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption and road transport energy consumption. Whilst this covers climate change mitigation and the effect of minimising carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to the atmosphere, the SA should recognise the importance of climate change resilience and adaptation. Climate resilience should be embedded within the core of the Local Plan 2040 to ensure that the relevant plans, policies and allocations are able to adapt over the same time period that is covered by the Plan. This is particularly acute with new developments and the ability to adapt to extreme weather events, increased temperatures, decreased summer precipitation and increased winter precipitation – to name but a few critical climatic changes forecast in the medium to long term and over the Plan period. It is recognised that there is a strong link with Objective 2, particularly with the delivery of biodiversity net gain and provision for ecosystem services, however these links and intersections should be explicitly recognised and appraised in order to provide a holistic assessment of climate change.
Other SA Objectives are also narrow in their scope, such as Objective 7 (Health and Wellbeing) focusing on a number of ‘traditional’ metrics such as life expectancy at birth, social deprivation and young people not in education, employment or training. Key facets of health and wellbeing are missed and it is not clear that they have been considered. Given the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, matters such as social isolation should be prioritised for existing and future residents. Whilst the objective is grounded in the spatial context of the health and wellbeing priorities of the local area through the Bedford Borough Health and Wellbeing Strategy, it could be updated to reflect advances in the consideration of place-based health and wellbeing enhancement. Furthermore, social infrastructure underpins the ability of a plan area to maintain health and wellbeing standards and therefore these types of interventions should also be included within the scoring framework, where possible. In times of inflation and rapidly rising living costs, focus should also be given to those at risk of poverty, including children, and the links that this can have with mental, psychological and community wellbeing as well as physical health.
With regards to the application of the SA Framework, the SA needs more clarity regarding the temporality of the likely significant effects. It is clear that the Plan will have varying impacts over different time periods (whether that be short, medium or long term impacts). This is covered at a high level at Paragraph 3.77. Yet, time periods are not provided to distinguish what might be a short term or temporary effect to a likely significant effect that may be long term and permanent. Without the detail of how the types of likely significant effect will be categorised, as well as any potential differential weighting of the temporality of effect, the assessment methodology of the SA is not robust. This should be addressed at the next stage of the SA.
This is also the case when considering the likelihood of a significant effect on the environment (High, Medium, Low – or whatever scale is to be chosen). The uncertainty of effects occurring could influence decision-making within the SA and needs to be clearly outlined from the outset for consistency. This is particularly critical for the consideration of SA objectives for which there might be known future time limits to certain technologies – such as the ban of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 – which might directly impact scorings for transport-centric objectives (Objective 2, Objective 15), but also have indirect effects on other objectives such as air quality (Objective 1).
The SA Report provides an assessment of the cumulative and synergistic effects of the Local Plan 2040, with detail provided at Paragraph 11.9 and Appendix 10 of the SA Report Appendices. However, this detail focuses primarily upon the potential cumulative and synergistic effects of individual policies on the SA Framework in-combination and does not detail the approach to cumulative assessment. Indeed, the assessment of proposed Local Plan 2040 Site Allocations are categorised into those which ‘are likely to have positive cumulative effects on the use of sustainable transport modes [our emphasis]’ or ‘will have positive umulative and synergistic effects on the provision of green infrastructure [our emphasis].’ Clearly there are opportunities for cumulative and synergistic effects to exist amongst topics broader than purely sustainable travel and green infrastructure provision, despite how important that they are. For example, climate change, biodiversity and water availability and quality all have the potential for cumulative effects when sites are considered cumulatively. The SA Report should provide context for the methodology utilised to the assessment of these cumulative effects and an explanation as to how these effects may occur as the detail currently provided is limited. This context is also key with regards to fulfilment of the requirements under the Habitats Directive and the potential for in combination impacts.
The SA does not provide sufficient clarity as to how mitigation is applied across the sites taken forward and does not differentiate between the types of mitigation likely to be employed. The 2040 Local Plan preferred strategy highlights the need for growth across the urban area (particularly around Bedford) in tandem with strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and growth locations on the A421. To minimise the risk of challenge, it should be made clear if transport mitigation (Objective 1) is considered within the SA framework and if so, the underpinning assumptions, as it currently reads as though only existing public transport links and existing amenities are utilised within the scoring framework and does not account for any additional enhancements and improvements that a development might bring.
It is noted within Appendix 1 that Natural England provided a consultation response on a previous version of the SA Report (2020) that the SA ‘is not currently informed by the findings and recommendations of a HRA…’ with the need for evidence based assessments and mitigation measures, if required, for specific site allocations. The SA Report states that requirements of the SA Regulations relating to the Habitats Directive as covered in Paragraphs 2.10-2.11 and 3.3-3.71.
It is then stated at Paragraph 2.11 of the SA Report that a HRA Screening exercise has since been undertaken with Natural England: ‘the screening shows that significant adverse impacts may be anticipated and therefore an assessment to consider potential impacts in more detail and determine appropriate mitigation to ensure that the Plan would have no adverse effect on any relevant site has been undertaken in agreement with Natural England. The results of that work has been included where appropriate in this Sustainability Report.’
It is not clear that the consultation comments made by Natural England for the need for the SA to be informed by the findings and recommendations of a HRA have been considered. Indeed, there is no explicit mention of the HRA process throughout the SA Report. This is clearly a potential point of challenge and should be addressed. Whilst it might be the case that the HRA is ongoing and has not yet been able to iteratively inform the SA, this must be stated and explained clearly, rather than citing paragraph references for which there is no material discussion of the necessary matters.

Attachments: