3.26

Object

Representation ID: 3487

Received: 25/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Gell

Though I except the council have to follow the NPPF, I believe the council should be mindful when identifying small sites that they still protect heritage, and don't just decide to take the land as its available. Church End in Kempston Rural is one good example, where the negative impact if development were to happen greatly exceeds any benefit in adding to the housing numbers. The council have a responsibility to protect such sites for generations to come.

Object

Representation ID: 3558

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Brown & Co Barfords

Housing development on small sites:
Paragraph 3.26 on page 25 sets out in relation to housing development on small sites which is required by the National Planning Policy Framework to deliver 10% of its housing requirement on small sites (sites no
larger than one hectare) it is agreed this will create diversity in the type of site that will be developed across
the borough and maintain the Council’s 5-year housing land supply. It is acknowledged by the Council that
larger sites can have a significant lead in time before development commences.

Support

Representation ID: 3657

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Turner

Easier to deliver small clusters and less impact on the environment.

Support

Representation ID: 3716

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Zwetsloot

Smaller sites are preferable to large new developments on green filed sites, eg. Dennybrook

Object

Representation ID: 3816

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

RPC suggests the requirement to deliver 10% of new housing on smaller site should be reduced to 5%.

Support

Representation ID: 4069

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Ann Mills

Small sites will encourage self-builders and small builders to provide homes that are closely aligned with both local and individual requirements.

Support

Representation ID: 4569

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Andrea Witham

Jolly good idea. Spreads the pain. Also spreads the 'economic gain' from land and house sales more widely within the county, with the result that more money is likely to stay locally. Large scale development such as Wyboston (aka Dennybrook) will benefit a large housing developer (not based in Beds) and a couple of local landowners who will make a pile of cash and take it all elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 5554

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: EF Wootton and Son

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

NPPF Paragraph 69 states that Development Plans and Brownfield Registers should identify land to accommodate 10% of a Local Authorities housing requirement on small and medium sites no larger than one hectare (1ha).

However, the Small Sites Topic Paper states that this requirement can be achieved without making site allocations beyond the urban area due to completions on windfall sites. We do not agree with this assertion.

We would argue that the Council are not addressing this requirement in the way envisaged by the NPPF, i.e. through Development Plans and Brownfield Registers. The Council should not be relying upon windfall development to deliver on a national policy requirement. In order to be positively prepared the Plan needs to take a proactive approach by allocating land through the Local Plan process.

As recognised by the NPPF, “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly.” (Paragraph 69)

The Council should therefore be actively encouraging small and medium sites to come forward, whether that be by allocating site sin the Local Plan, or delegating such allocations to local communities, to be delivered by Neighbourhood Plans. They should not simply attempt to reach the minimum requirement. Housing on small and medium size sites that are delivered through windfall development should be seen as a bonus.

We appreciate that the strategy consultation is not detailed and does not identify specific sites or proposals, but it is inferred that development is likely to be allocated on larger sites. Therefore, we would contend that there is an opportunity to achieve the objective of housing delivery on small and medium sized sites by directing some growth to the villages where a greater proportion of small sites are being promoted. This will facilitate some proportionate growth in these settlements which will contribute towards their vitality, and the viability of existing services and facilities.

There is also an opportunity to achieve the requirements of housing delivery on small and medium sites in conjunction with the Council’s obligation to deliver Custom and Self-Build opportunities by making some of these allocations for self-build plots. Small sites in sustainable villages are ideal for delivering Custom and Self-Build housing plots. Many people interested in Custom and Self-Build want bespoke plots in villages rather than plots which are delivered as part of wider developments.

The Plan going forward needs to plan for a significant increase in housing numbers up to 2040, and small and medium sites can make a meaningful contribution towards this. The Council should therefore make provision for this in the Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 5664

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: David Lock Associates

Paragraphs 3.26 – 3.28
Housing on small sites, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and requirement for the Council to deliver 10% of the housing requirement on small sites no larger than one hectare, is linked by the Borough Council in 3.26 to windfall housing development.

The Borough Council’s proposed windfall allowance is based on monitoring of past windfall delivery rates during 2015-2020 which found that the number of dwellings built on small sites was consistently above 10% of the annual housing requirement. Whilst this is a logical approach for planning for development on small sites, Hallam Land Management has concerns about how the trend in windfall will continue spatially across the borough.

Whilst windfall development is likely to continue, Hallam is concerned that opportunities for development in smaller settlements will become more constrained as existing opportunities on brownfield and infill sites are developed which leads to concerns on how smaller settlements can continue to accommodate modest levels of growth to support existing community facilities.

In Hallam’s view, whilst windfall will continue to contribute to housing supply, the overall amount is likely to be increasingly composed of changes of use allowed under permitted development rights and be more focused in Bedford. Increasingly limited opportunities outside the Bedford Urban Area supports a rational for allowing for planned provision, certainly in the Key Service Villages if they are to fully support the adequate provision of education, wider services and sustainable transport.

Object

Representation ID: 6299

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client objects to paragraph’s 3.26 – 3.28 on the basis of soundness concerns with the proposed approach (not consistent with national policy; and, not justified).
The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders and measures to address affordability.
The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.

Object

Representation ID: 6647

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Bedford Borough Councillor

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON SMALL SITES
3.26 – 3.28:
We believe that this section is a missed opportunity. While there is a good correlation between windfall and an adequate small sites delivery there is no good reason not to increase the target for small sites for the reasons set out in para 3.26. It would fit with the clear support in many villages for organic growth to meet local needs. We believe not merely that there should be a greater emphasis on small sites as defined but there should be positive encouragement for smaller sites that while exceeding one hectare still meet the criteria in para 3.26.

Support

Representation ID: 7158

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Hull

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

NPPF Paragraph 69 states that Development Plans and Brownfield Registers should identify land to accommodate 10% of a Local Authorities housing requirement on small and medium sites no larger than one hectare (1ha).

However, the Small Sites Topic Paper states that this requirement can be achieved without making site allocations beyond the urban area due to completions on windfall sites. We do not agree with this assertion.

We would argue that the Council are not addressing this requirement in the way envisaged by the NPPF, i.e. through Development Plans and Brownfield Registers. The Council should not be relying upon windfall development to deliver on a national policy requirement. In order to be positively prepared the Plan needs to take a proactive approach by allocating land through the Local Plan process.

As recognised by the NPPF, “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly.” (Paragraph 69)

The Council should therefore be actively encouraging small and medium sites to come forward, whether that be by allocating site sin the Local Plan, or delegating such allocations to local communities, to be delivered by Neighbourhood Plans. They should not simply attempt to reach the minimum requirement. Housing on small and medium size sites that are delivered through windfall development should be seen as a bonus.

We appreciate that the strategy consultation is not detailed and does not identify specific sites or proposals, but it is inferred that development is likely to be allocated on larger sites. Therefore, we would contend that there is an opportunity to achieve the objective of housing delivery on small and medium sized sites by directing some growth to the villages where a greater proportion of small sites are being promoted. This will facilitate some proportionate growth in these settlements which will contribute towards their vitality, and the viability of existing services and facilities.

There is also an opportunity to achieve the requirements of housing delivery on small and medium sites in conjunction with the Council’s obligation to deliver Custom and Self-Build opportunities by making some of these allocations for self-build plots. Small sites in sustainable villages are ideal for delivering Custom and Self-Build housing plots. Many people interested in Custom and Self-Build want bespoke plots in villages rather than plots which are delivered as part of wider developments.
The Plan going forward needs to plan for a significant increase in housing numbers up to 2040, and small and medium sites can make a meaningful contribution towards this. The Council should therefore make provision for this in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7317

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Pegler

As I said above, I believe that large sites are easy for BBC but the small sites have to considered if BBC is to deliver on its duties to provide sustainable development that does not default to large scale easy options that are contrary to the Government and electorate’s agenda to minimise pollution and climate change. BBC should be transparent and do a proper small sites study.

Support

Representation ID: 7946

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Pavenham Parish council

In the context of this issue, the Parish Council agrees with the Borough Council’s conclusions as to the need for a specific policy but would also add that as well allocating two small sites for residential development within the Parish, its Neighbourhood Plan proposes a policy to permit windfall development – subject to a number of local policy conditions.

Object

Representation ID: 8390

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: 1 Grosvenor Holdings Ltd

Agent: WSP

The Draft Plan correctly recognises the importance of delivering development on small sites and notes the NPPF requirement for 10% of housing delivery coming forward on small sites (per Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.
This is positive and supported, as it will increase the diversity of sites that are developed across the Borough and recognises that larger sites are often difficult to develop and deliver houses much slower than smaller sites.
While it is positive that smaller sites are supported by the plan, it not justified to simply use windfall sites to meet the quota outlined in NPPF Paragraph 69. This is as the nature of windfall sites is uncertain and Paragraph 69 explicitly states that development plans should identify small sites to accommodate the 10% target and as such the current policy approach is not in accordance with the NPPF.
The Draft Plan should be amended to allow for smaller sites to be allocated and enable it to be considered sound in relation to Paragraphs 69 of the NPPF. This is due to Paragraph 35, which outlines that plans need to be consistent with national policy and justified if they are to be considered sound.

Object

Representation ID: 8393

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

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

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

The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the Development Plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.

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

The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply of small sites from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.

Remedy
The Local Plan 2040 should offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the Borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support suitable growth of those sites which are considered appropriate.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to Framework paragraph 69.

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

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

While our client’s land at Felmersham notionally exceeds the 1 hectare referred to in national policy the details summarised in Section 3 of these representations demonstrate suitable and deliverable opportunities to make provision for development that would satisfy the policy criteria for growth on small sites.

Support

Representation ID: 8404

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: WSP

Agent: WSP

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON SMALL SITES
The Draft Plan correctly recognises the importance of delivering development on small sites and notes the NPPF requirement for 10% of housing delivery coming forward on small sites (per Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.
This is positive and supported, as it will increase the diversity of sites that are developed across the Borough and recognises that larger sites are often difficult to develop and deliver houses much slower than smaller sites.
While it is positive that smaller sites are supported by the plan, it not justified to simply use windfall sites to meet the quota outlined in NPPF Paragraph 69. This is as the nature of windfall sites is uncertain and Paragraph 69 explicitly states that development plans should identify small sites to accommodate the 10% target and as such the current policy approach is not in accordance with the NPPF.
The Draft Plan should be amended to allow for smaller sites to be allocated and enable it to be considered sound in relation to Paragraphs 69 of the NPPF. This is due to Paragraph 35, which outlines that plans need to be consistent with national policy and justified if they are to be considered sound.

Object

Representation ID: 8442

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs G Hunt

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived and inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities and measures to address affordability.
Reasoning
The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.
The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.
The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.

Remedy
There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas. In reality we consider that this total should be increased and that in order to achieve the Council’s Preferred Options to include allocation of a further 1,500 units within the urban area it will be necessary to maximise the potential contribution from small sites. The Council’s total of 1,500 is over-and-above extant development plan allocations within the Town Centre that are and will remain significantly constrained. Failure to diversify urban supply without support through the development plan will result in this component of the spatial strategy being unsound.
The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth.
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to NPPF2021 paragraph 69.
The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle. For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.

Object

Representation ID: 8644

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.26 – 3.28 (Small Sites) –Object
2.14 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived and inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the Government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.
Reasoning
2.15 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
2.16 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.
2.17 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.
2.18 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.
Remedy
2.19 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the Borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support the re-use and redevelopment of sites with built form in the wider rural area, such as our client’s land at Town Farm, Souldrop.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to NPPF2021 paragraph 69
2.20 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle. Our client’s land at Souldrop would comfortably satisfy the 1 hectare threshold and assist in addressing the requirements of national policy to support small sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8659

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs N/A Box

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.70 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities and measures to address affordability.
Reasoning
3.71 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
3.72 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.
3.73 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.
3.74 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing
development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.
Remedy
3.75 There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas. In reality we consider that this total should be increased and that in order to achieve the Council’s Preferred Options to include allocation of a further 1,500 units within the urban area it will be necessary to maximise the potential contribution from small sites. The Council’s total of 1,500 is over-andabove extant development plan allocations within the Town Centre that are and will remain significantly constrained. Failure to diversify urban supply without support through the development plan will result in this component of the spatial strategy being unsound.
3.76 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres
ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to NPPF2021 paragraph 69
3.77 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle. For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to
treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.

Object

Representation ID: 8739

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 8905

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.26 – 3.28 (Small Sites) –Object
2.17 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived and inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.
Reasoning
2.18 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
2.19 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.
2.20 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within
Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.
2.21 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.
Remedy
2.22 There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas. In reality we consider that this total should be increased and that in order to achieve the Council’s Preferred Options to include allocation of a further 1,500 units within the urban area it will be necessary to maximise the potential contribution from small sites. The Council’s total of 1,500 is over-and-above extant development plan allocations within the Town Centre that are and will remain significantly constrained. Failure to diversify urban supply without support through the development plan will result in this component of the spatial strategy being unsound.
2.23 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the Borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support the re-use and redevelopment of sites in the wider rural area, such as our client’s land at Manor Farm, Knotting
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and
distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to NPPF2021 paragraph 69
2.24 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle.
2.25 For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.