Policy DS2(S) Spatial strategy

Object

Representation ID: 9637

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

AWG supports the principle of significant growth being directed to the south of Bedford
along the A421 Corridor and at its land at Kempston Hardwick. The area is well-located
for access to the strategic highway network, including the junction of the A421 with the
A428, approximately 2.5 miles south of Bedford town centre. The A421 is the main
thoroughfare connecting Bedford with the M1 and A1 and is the route where significant
investment is proposed. The area benefits from existing rail links, with the Kempston
Hardwick railway station located centrally in the parties’ site on the Bedford to
Bletchley line providing services into Bedford Town Centre, Bletchley, and Milton
Keynes roughly every 30 minutes in each direction. There are also regular bus services
on the B530 and in Stewartby to the south which provide public transport links into
Bedford and nearby settlements. The area’s connectivity is set to improve further as a
result of the proposed improvements to the East West rail line which would connect the
communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford, and Cambridge. These national
investments in infrastructure improvements are part of the wider growth strategy for
the Oxford-Cambridge Arc aimed at unlocking the full economic potential of the region.
2.2 On this basis, the area to the south of Bedford, around Kempston Hardwick, has huge
potential and is very clearly the right location for new development of significant scale.
2.3 As set out in detail in the representations by Cloud Wing, AWG’s’ view is that the Plan
significantly underestimates the amount of employment land required in the Borough
to meet its needs and reflect the wider economic ambitions the region. On this basis,
Policies DS2(S) and DS5(S), and the Development Strategy Options Paper and
Sustainability Appraisal (‘SA’) evidence on which they are based, only seek to deliver the
scale of employment growth identified in Policy DS4(S). The policies are not, therefore,
considered sound (i.e. are not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with
national policy). Overall, Policy DS5(S) fails to identify sufficient employment land,
including to the South of Bedford at Kempston Hardwick, to meet anticipated economic
and employment needs over the plan period in accordance with paragraph 82 of the
NPPF.
2.4 National Policy therefore provides a clear, positive context with a clear requirement to
meet identified needs in an aspirational but deliverable fashion. Importantly, the NPPF
does not state that Plans should adopt a ‘do minimum’ approach; instead it promotes
ambitious growth, where it is carried out in a sustainable fashion.
Employment Needs
2.5 The evidence underpinning these policies has failed to consider all reasonable
alternatives, including a larger amount of employment land. The SA’s assessment of the
employment land options is flawed. It considers three options: C) 90Ha (more highdensity
office development); D) 142Ha; and E) 206Ha (lower density office/ business
park dev with more warehousing). These options do not appear to be consistent with
those presented in the Employment Land Study 2022. In addition, the SA concludes that
‘Option E’ (i.e. the option delivering the most employment) is worst performing
including in terms of ‘improving air quality’, ‘reducing carbon dioxide’, ‘improving
5 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
energy efficiency’, ‘reducing the need to travel and promote sustainable modes of
travel’.
2.6 The SA appears to have reached this conclusion on the basis that this option would
result in greater increase in private car use and commercial vehicle use than other
options with less warehousing. However, this assessment is overly simplistic and fails to
consider that the Council’s strategy of relying on neighbouring authorities to meet
strategic warehousing needs could result in promotion of less sustainable commuting
patterns and freight movements than would be the case than if those needs were met
locally within close proximity to the existing and proposed population in Bedford. It also
fails to recognise the strategic importance of logistics as critical infrastructure
nationally, regionally, and locally or the Government’s ambitions to achieve a net zero
freight sector by 2050.
2.7 Option E also scores more poorly than Option D against the objective of promoting a
strong, sustainable, and balanced economic growth stimulating job creation across a
range of sectors. It is not clear why this is the case; the SA simply suggests that low
density office development with greater proportion of warehousing “uncertain whether
this will be viable locally”. The market evidence above clearly demonstrates that
warehousing is viable in this location.
2.8 The Development Strategy Options Paper (‘DSO’) and SA also consider a range of
strategy options as ‘reasonable alternatives’. The SA notes that for the purpose of
identifying ‘reasonable alternatives’ the aim is to consider options that could meet the
dwelling and employment requirement to 2040. However, it later goes on to state that
the employment requirement is not considered an overriding constraint in generating
options. Indeed, it is acknowledged in the DSO that most of the ‘reasonable
alternatives’ identified would fail to achieve the amount of employment land
contemplated in the Plan without additional sites being identified along the A421
corridor. Overall, whilst we agree with and support the identification of the area around
Kempston Hardwick as a location for significant growth, AWG is concerned that the
approach to the distribution of other employment land in the Borough is not
appropriately justified.
2.9 AWG is also concerned that the approach taken means that the opportunity presented
by a larger Business Park, incorporating a mix of employment uses, on AWG land to the
South of Bedford as part of the overall spatial strategy and distribution of employment
growth, has not been appropriately considered or assessed as a ‘reasonable alternative’
as part of the Council’s Local Plan evidence base. This approach risks missing a major
opportunity for economic growth on a transformative scale that is well-located to
benefit from improved rail connectivity.
2.10 More generally, the Council’s approach to the assessment of and selection of ‘other
employment sites’, particularly those along the A421 Corridor, is not clear or
transparent. Para 5.18 of the DSO states that other potential employment locations
“have been assessed according to their accessibility, visibility and proximity to strategic
transport routes, and their compatibility with neighbouring uses”. However, there does
not appear to be any evidence of this in the evidence provided beyond the general site
assessment proforma in the appendices to the HELAA and no explanation on how
judgements have been reached about particular sites.
2.11 AWG remains concerned that the Council’s proposed spatial strategy results in a
‘piecemeal’ approach to employment development elsewhere across Borough, and an
6 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
over-reliance on ‘innovation’ uses to deliver its economic needs. This approach would
result in a number of individual developments without the critical mass to generate the
level of investment required to facilitate the infrastructure needed and deliver
sustainable economic development. It is also unlikely that innovation uses would be
able to generate the significant uplifts in land value that major industrial and logistics
schemes generate and that are often needed to fund strategic infrastructure
requirements (e.g. new and improved junctions on the strategic road network and link
roads).
2.12 A piecemeal approach to employment development across Bedford and over-reliance
on innovation uses would result in individual developments each without the critical
mass and market conditions to generate the level of investment required to facilitate
the infrastructure needed to support the scale of development anticipated and deliver
sustainable economic development.
Housing Needs
2.13 Paragraph 15 of the NPPF (2021) requires Local Plans to, inter alia, provide a framework
for addressing housing needs and other economic, social, and environmental priorities.
2.14 Paragraph 16 states that Local Plans should be prepared with the objective of
contributing to sustainable development and be prepared positively in a manner that is
aspirational as well as deliverable.
2.15 The NPPF also requires (para 23) that the Strategic Policies of the Plan should provide a
clear strategy for bringing land forward to meet objectively assessed needs in line with
the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 11), and, in doing so,
allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area.
2.16 National Policy therefore provides a clear, positive context with a clear requirement to
meet identified needs in an aspirational but deliverable fashion. Importantly, the NPPF
does not state that Plans should adopt a ‘do minimum’ approach; instead it promotes
ambitious growth, where it is carried out in a sustainable fashion.
2.17 Bedford Borough sits in a key location within a national area of strategic importance,
being at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (‘the Arc’). Whilst the timetable for the
Local Plan does not align with that of the Arc Spatial Framework, our client supports the
approach being taken by BBC of progressing the Local Plan in advance of the Arc Spatial
Framework and consider it is crucial that the Plan is adopted in a timely fashion.
2.18 The Local Plan 2030 was adopted on the basis of an early review and was examined
against the 2012 NPPF under transitional arrangements. The Local Plan 2030, therefore,
whilst being relatively “young” in Local Plan terms, is quite outdated in terms of its
approach to housing needs. The level of growth identified and allocated in the Local
Plan was based upon historic methods for identifying housing need, and, therefore,
suppresses housing need for a recently adopted Plan.
2.19 The Local Plan 2040 must, therefore, address this issue in addition to considering
housing needs associated with the Arc.
2.20 The Standard Method requirement (para 4.7 of the Local Plan) meanwhile, finds the
Borough’s housing need to be 1,355dpa, which the Local Plan applies across the plan
period of 2020 to 2040, creating a total of 27,100 dwellings.
7 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251
2.21 The Local Plan 2030 did not, therefore, meet the housing needs as now identified based
on the Standard Method. The Inspector’s Report into the 2030 Local Plan recognised (IR
para 40) that if the Standard Method had been applied in that instance, then the
housing need figure of 1,280dpa would have applied.
2.22 The Local Plan then proposes a stepped trajectory approach to deal with housing need,
with only 970 homes per annum in 2020-2025, and 1,050 between 2025-2030. There
would then be a significant increase to 1,700dpa in the final 10 years of the Plan.
2.23 The justification for this approach is due to the over reliance upon strategic allocations
which large infrastructure requirements.
2.24 This is not considered a sound approach and is effectively putting all the Council’s ‘eggs
in one basket’. It is not justified by the evidence and the Local Plan.
2.25 In particular, the Sustainability Appraisal testing of the ‘stepped approach’ is
fundamentally flawed, with the justifications given for positive scores around items such
as previously developed land (see SA Appendix 8 p. 113) being conjecture. The
statement that the stepped approach would have a more beneficial effect on
development on previously developed land is incorrect; sites which are previously
developed land can come forward irrespective of the stepped approach and the SA does
not identify any previously developed land south of Bedford that benefits from the new
rail stations and links. Indeed, the allocations at locations such as the Wixams are not on
previously developed land but greenfield land. The SA must, therefore, be re-run with a
correct assessment of the stepped approach.
2.26 A correct assessment of the stepped approach in the SA would identify that there are
risks with being reliant upon so much growth linked to strategic infrastructure outside
of the control of developers and the Council. This would in turn mean that many of the
benefits may not be realised, or realised later in the plan period, pushing housing
delivery outside of the plan period.
2.27 This is particularly evident in this area, with the still awaited deliver of the Wixams rail
station. That station was due to be completed in 2015 and is now timetabled for
opening in 2024.
2.28 Instead, the Plan should take a more balanced approach, with a reduction in numbers
on some of the strategic sites and the delivery of smaller strategic allocations which can
come forward earlier and increase housing delivery in the period to 2030.
2.29 The Local Plan is not sound, as it is not justified or effective. To make the Plan sound the
trajectory should be amended. Reflecting the fact that the Local Plan may not be
adopted until 2023, and thus higher delivery in 2024 (compared to the Local Plan 2030),
the trajectory should be as follows:
2020/21- 2023/24: 970dpa
2024/25 – 2039/40: 1,423dpa
2.30 Aligned with this, new allocations will be required, and a reduction in the number of
dwellings on some strategic sites may be required. These matters are dealt with below.
8 Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Response ● APL–251

Object

Representation ID: 9645

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Thakeham

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Thakeham agree with the general approach to the spatial strategy for Bedford, especially the aim to deliver sustainable development and make Bedford a net zero carbon emissions borough. We also support the identification of the A421 as a growth location for new development.
However, we are concerned about the soundness of a key element of the strategy, namely the creation of a new settlement at Little Barford, which is based on delivery of new major infrastructure projects being delivered in order to bring forward this settlement.
The first of these is the A428 upgrade works, which would need to provide a new junction to provide road access into the site. However, within the DCO now in place, there is no provision for such a junction and therefore a new junction couldn’t be constructed until after the A428 upgrade works are complete in 2026.
The second is the reliance on East West Rail to reduce car travel. Whilst we understand that the East West Rail line between Oxford and Milton Keynes is already under construction, there are still consultations ongoing as to the preferred route of the line from Bedford to Cambridge, and no definitive site has been identified for a new station. Indeed, there is currently no timeframe as to when and where the East West Rail line between Bedford and Cambridge will commence, let alone be complete and in use.
Whilst there is currently no certainty about the East West Rail line here, nor any viable road access to the site, the suggested new settlement at Little Barford cannot be considered to be a sustainable location for development, making the current policy a contradiction that could result in the Plan being found unsound.
In addition to the unsustainable location, we believe that the suggested numbers of units to be delivered at Little Barford over the plan period are not feasible. The plan suggests the Little Barford site will deliver at least 4,000 new homes overall of which 3,800 will be built within the current plan period.
The promotors own representations to the Council states that only 3,085 dwellings will be built by 2040, which assumes that the site starts delivering houses in 2026. However, this timeframe will not be feasible for the following reasons:
1. The upgrade works to A428 necessary for access, are not due to be completed until 2026, and the DCO does not currently include any junction works to facilitate the site;
2. The East West Rail route and station locations have yet to be identified, let alone surveyed and DCO applications prepared; and
3. Policy HOU19 states that a supplementary planning document will need to be produced ahead of submission of the planning application. This won’t be possible until the Transport and Works Act Order is in place for East West Rail.
In light of the above, it is likely to be 2030 before planning permission were even granted, meaning the first dwellings would not be complete until 2032 at the earliest.
Accordingly, to ensure a robust land supply position can be maintained throughout the plan period, as well as delivering sustainable development, it is suggested that the alternative location of Wyboston is considered as a more sustainable alternative, given its proximity to the A421 corridor and it is not dependent on the delivery of East West Rail to ensure delivery of sustainable development.

Comment

Representation ID: 9707

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

4.1 Cloud Wing supports the principle of significant growth being directed to the south of Bedford along the A421 Corridor and at its land at Kempston Hardwick. The area is well-located for access to the strategic highway network, including the junction of the A421 with the A428, approximately 2.5 miles south of Bedford town centre. The A421 is the main thoroughfare connecting Bedford with the M1 and A1 and is the route where significant investment is proposed. The area benefits from existing rail links, with the Kempston Hardwick railway station located centrally in Cloud Wing’s site on the Bedford to Bletchley line providing services into Bedford Town Centre, Bletchley and Milton Keynes roughly every 30 minutes in each direction. There are also regular bus services on the B530 and in Stewartby to the south which provide public transport links into Bedford and nearby settlements. The area’s connectivity is set to improve further as a result of the proposed improvements to the East West rail line which would connect the communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. These national investments in infrastructure improvements are part of the wider growth strategy for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc aimed at unlocking the full economic potential of the region.
4.2 On this basis, the area to the south of Bedford, around Kempston Hardwick, has huge potential and is very clearly the right location for new development of significant scale.
4.3 As set out in detail in Section 3, Cloud Wing’s view is that the Plan significantly underestimates the amount of employment land required in the Borough to meet its needs and reflect the wider economic ambitions the region. On this basis, Policies DS2(S) and DS5(S), and the Development Strategy Options Paper and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) evidence on which they are based, only seek to deliver the scale of employment growth identified in Policy DS4(S). The policies are not, therefore, considered sound (i.e. are not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy). Overall, Policy DS5(S) fails to identify sufficient employment land, including to the South of Bedford at Kempston Hardwick, to meet anticipated economic and employment needs over the plan period in accordance with paragraph 82 of the NPPF.
4.4 Furthermore, for the reasons set out in Section 2 and 3, their view is that Policy DS2(S)’s emphasis on innovation uses, including for the South of Bedford Area at Kempston Hardwick, is unsound.

Comment

Representation ID: 9738

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Susan Westley

Agent: Bletsoes

The 2040 Local Plan is a roll forward of the adopted 2030 Local Plan and sets out the Council’s approach to delivering the additional 12,000 + houses which need to delivered by 2040 and which are not allocated in the existing Local Plan. Despite this requirement to allocate additional land for housing across the borough, the draft Local Plan makes no specific provision for development within or adjoining the villages of the Borough and instead relies on existing allocations in the 2030 Local Plan or in made Neighbourhood Plans. In order to deliver the additional housing, the draft plan relies on a number of urban extensions and new settlements to meet its needs. This over reliance on urban development opportunities and large scale new settlements, limits choice and fails to acknowledge the role that villages can play in delivering a sustainable pattern of development. The plan suggests that additional development could come forward in villages through new neighbourhood plans, but without the steer and guidance from a Local Plan to confirm that this is desirable objective there is unlikely to significant impetus in villages to encourage them to promote a growth agenda. The NPPF recognises that new development can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and it encourages local authorities to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. The draft Local Plan fails to facilitate this objective by omitting to allocate village development sites or at least offering an enabling policy which would allow development to come forward where it can be demonstrated to be sustainable and help support local services, as well as ensure a sustainable and balanced pattern of new development across the whole of the borough. In support of this case we would identify the village of Ravensden as one such rural community which supports a number of local services which may benefit from housing growth. Whilst a Neighbourhood Plan is being developed for the village, the opportunities for housing development are likely to be limited and without the steer of a guiding policy in the Local Plan, which directs development to villages which can support housing growth, delivery of new housing in the rural areas is likely to continue in an ad hoc manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 9751

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Wyboston Lakes Ltd

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

The Local Plan 2040 strategy gives significant importance to the Oxford – Cambridge Arc strategy; a proposed new east-west railway connection with a planned new rail station in the area between Sandy and St Neots where the East West Railway (EWR) route crosses the East Coast Main Line; and the 10 mile duelling of the A428 carriageway between the Black Cat Roundabout (A421/A1 junction) and the Caxton Gibbet roundabout on the A428.
Recognising the Arc strategy and the infrastructure improvements, the new plan acknowledges “The
completion of EWR will result in the creation of highly accessible locations around new rail stations. By
concentrating on accessible locations, the spatial strategy aims to minimise the need to travel by car and therefore reduce the emission of carbon dioxide in line with the objectives of the plan”.
As a consequence, the new Local Plan strategy proposes several new growth locations in the eastern area of the borough focussed on the EWR/A421 transport corridor with the potential for rail-based growth, including a new settlement at Little Barford (Policy HOU19), 3 ha of employment land at College Farm, Black Cat roundabout (Policy EMP 7) and 17 ha of employment land at Roxton, south west of the Black Cat roundabout (Policy EMP8).
These strategic locations around the A1/A428 and south of St Neots represent a significant change in the development plan strategy, where the Bedford Borough development plans have historically focussed growth in and around Bedford.
However, the adopted plan does recognise the Wyboston Lakes Complex south of St. Neots, which is a major employer in the Borough, and Policy 73 clarifies “Development at Wyboston Lakes which supports
and enhances its role as a regional centre for leisure, training and conferencing will be supported”.
The Local Plan text supporting Policy 73 also acknowledges “In policy terms Wyboston Lakes is in the
countryside but it is in close proximity to the A428 and A1 transport corridors as well as the urban area of St Neots. The site’s location provides an important opportunity for both London, Peterborough north/south connections as well Cambridge, Milton Keynes east/west connections” (paragraph 11.30).
With the new plan proposals for sustainable strategic growth at the A1/A428 corridor and south of St Neots, the Wyboston Lakes Complex will sit within the identified new strategic growth area, and in close proximity of the proposed strategic developments, as seen in the plan below.

SEE ATTACHMENT

With the Wyboston Lakes Complex situated amongst the strategic growth developments, and the acknowledgement in the adopted Local Plan that the site is appropriate for further employment growth, it is considered the Complex has potential for a wider range of sustainable new employment uses.
Reflecting this, Policy 73 should be reviewed as part of the Local Plan review to permit a broader range of new employment development, other than proposals “which supports and enhances its role as a regional centre for leisure, training and conferencing”.
Specifically, for reasons of soundness it is considered Policy 73 should be revised to express support for new employment development that will complement and contribute to the existing diverse range of uses on the Wyboston Lakes Complex.

Object

Representation ID: 9762

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: BDW Trading

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We consider there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the vision over the plan period is deliverable because of the proposed spatial strategy and site allocations.
The starting point for the spatial strategy should be development at Bedford Town and Kempston, followed by locations which are accessible to these urban areas.
The strategic locations adjacent to the urban area under this policy cannot claim to be adjacent in the ordinary sense of the word, in that they are not next to or adjoin the urban area of Bedford Town and Kempston. Figure 5: South of Bedford Area needs to identify the urban area so that the proposed allocations can be seen properly in context. The Figure also needs to identify in the Key the various proposed allocations.
We consider that Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy should be subject to change from strategic locations adjacent to the urban area to strategic locations which are accessible to the urban area. This will entail a re-assessment of the evidence base including land availability, rightly bringing into consideration land at Box End, West of Bedford, which is being promoted by BDW Trading Limited for an exemplar sustainable urban extension of some 1,150 homes that meets or even exceeds policy requirements in relation to issues such as bio-diversity net gain, renewable energy etc.
The spatial strategy does not demonstrate deliverability of the sites proposed and it does not factor in sufficiently flexibility for under-performance should the spatial strategy and site selection remain unchanged through the examination process.
BDW Trading Limited includes Barratt Developments who are a 5-star (the top level) home builder as awarded by the HBF customer satisfaction survey 2022, this is a record 13th year in a row.
Barratt Developments measure its socio-economic impact (more information can be provided) and recently won the RESI Awards large developer 2021. Barratt Developments have an enviable track-record of delivering sustainable development and high-quality place-making in Bedfordshire and beyond including at Wixams.
We consider that in order to be found sound the local plan should be subject to main modifications in respect of a range of matters. However, for the purpose of this response we confine our comments to the need to review the evidence base and proposed spatial strategy and site allocations.
As it stands the plan in our view is not sound on the following tests under paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
a) Positively prepared – the plan does not propose a strategy which contains sites within a strategy capable of delivering the area’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum.
b) Justified – the strategy in the plan is not appropriate taking into account the reasonable alternatives which is more of a focus on Bedford Town and Kempston and sites that can be well-connected to these existing urban areas.
c) Effective – the strategy is not effective due to the uncertainty over deliverability of proposed allocations.
d) Consistent with national policy – we simply consider that the plan is not capable of being considered to deliver sustainable development as required under the NPPF because of the proposed spatial strategy and the proposed site allocations.
The objective of delivery of sustainable development will only be realised if sites are deliverable. These tests of soundness are applied to non-strategic policies within the local plan in a proportionate way, taking into account the extent to which they are consistent with relevant strategic policies for the area.
The spatial strategy is reliant upon further decisions to be made by other parties in respect of East-West Rail including fundamental considerations of the route west of Bedford Town, locations of stations and timing of subsequent stages for the planning for the development and delivery. The consultation on this local plan comes ahead of refinement of the detail of these extremely important matters and yet the local plan is not scheduled for submission for examination until January 2023. With this consultation comprising the plan for submission (Regulation 19) there would ordinately not be any further opportunity for stakeholders to comment ahead of submission of the local plan (Regulation 22). As the spatial strategy and some of the proposed site allocations rely on delivery of East-West Rail this is a real point of vulnerability which should have been avoided by first having clarity on this ahead of consultation under Regulation 19.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which is the Government’s centre of expertise for infrastructure and major projects, published its Annual Report on Major Projects 2021-22 on 20 July 2022. This has found that stages 2 and 3 of East West Rail appears to be unachievable.
In this report the East West Rail Connection Stage 2 and 3 which comprises predominantly upgrading of existing infrastructure (between Bletchley and Bedford) to allow services between Oxford and Bedford and East West Rail CS3 which involves building a new line, between Bedford and Cambridge, to extend the railway and facilitate services from Oxford to Cambridge, is identified as 'red' meaning that the successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.
A copy of the report is available via: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-and-projects-authority-annual-report-2022
We question whether the number of dwellings identified for sites is achievable for example whether the potential dwelling yield at Little Barford and south of Bedford are achievable, which we summarise below.
Kempston Hardwick (HOU14)
• There is currently a pending planning application for employment on the site – Ref. 18/02940/EIA – Outline application with all matters reserved except access, for a commercial and industrial development providing up to 780,379 sqm of floorspace for B1, B2 and B8 uses and ancillary service uses (A1, A3, A4 & A5) and associated infrastructure including open space and landscaping.
• There are multiple land owners within the Kempston Hardwick allocation, meaning delivery could be delayed, complex and incoherent.
• The delivery of 3,800 units over the plan period is somewhat ambitious.
• The location of the allocation is based around the delivery of the East-West rail station, the location of which is uncertain at this moment in time.
Little Barford (HOU19)
• The delivery of 3,800 over the plan period is somewhat ambitious.
• There are potential cross-border issues to address as the Site sits on the edges of HDC and CCC.
• There are likely to be some potential capacity issues within the local highway network e.g. Black Cat roundabout.
• This site is based around the location of the East-West rail stations. At this moment in time, the locations of which are uncertain. This is a real point of vulnerability.
Land south of Wixams (HOU15)
• We would query where the projected dwelling yields are found in proposed policy terms

Comment

Representation ID: 9805

Received: 24/07/2022

Respondent: Alexandra Delger

As the owner of 6 acres of agricultural land behind 33 Top End Renhold Bedford MK41 0LR I would like to make the following comments on the proposed Local Plan 2040:
East/west rail link
Although the route has not yet been finalised it will clearly run just north of Renhold village meaning that the village will become sandwiched between the A421 road network and a new rail corridor. This will change the nature of the village and make it an ideal area for future development -para 1.26
Climate considerations
The proposed new research campus at Water End and the development of land south of Goldington Road means that new homes will be required for employees attracted to work at these locations. In order to minimise carbon emissions, these homes should be as near as possible to the proposed sites and Renhold village is ideally placed to provide some of these homes - see plan para 3.00
New housing
Renhold village is already abutting Bedford town and it would be sensible for any expansion to take place here and within this travel corridor which would be served by a good road and rail network rather than in villages outside this corridor. Indeed the current plan envisages growth within and along this corridor- see plan para 4.4
The plan quite clearly states that 27,100 new homes will be required and, in order to meet its carbon emission targets I believe that more of these should be located in Renhold which is nearer to the proposed research campus and the additional employment areas proposed along Goldington Road.

Support

Representation ID: 9813

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Pertenhall & Swineshead Parish Council

Policy DS2 (S) Spatial Strategy -
By concentrating on accessible locations, the spatial strategy aims to minimise the need to travel by car and therefore reduce the emission of carbon dioxide in line with the objectives of the plan. The growth locations proposed are not close to this parish:
There is a section of the policy dealing with the Rural Area:
“xii. The completion of strategic Key Service Centre and more limited Rural Service Centre residential development identified in Local
Plan 2030 on sites which are allocated in neighbourhood plans and the completion of Local Plan 2030 Policy 27 Land north of
School Lane, Roxton:
xiii. Safeguarding the intrinsic character of the countryside and the environment and biodiversity within it through the careful
management of development to meet local needs while supporting the rural economy.”
This seems entirely reasonable.

Comment

Representation ID: 9875

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Our main area of concern is in relation to the approach that has underpinned the development strategy set out in Policy DS(2) and the potential implications that this will have.
As part of their proposed development strategy, the Council have attempted to focus new housing within the existing urban area of Bedford and this is in keeping with the principle of sustainable development as stipulated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021). However, as evidenced by the Call for Sites process, there are a limited number of available sites within the urban area and the Council have therefore attempted to identify sustainable locations for residential growth elsewhere, in particular, through the provision of large, strategic allocations.
Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognise that large, strategic sites have a key role to play in a development strategy, we consider that the growth strategy proposed by Bedford Borough Council places an over reliance on large allocations. This is to the extent that there are four new large settlements or significant urban extensions proposed as part of the Local Plan Development Strategy: Shortstown, Kempston Hardwick, Gibraltar Corner and Little Barford and no small/medium sized sites, aside from existing commitments. This will have a significant impact on the ability of the Plan to support the delivery of homes in a timely manner.
The focus on large settlements/urban extensions will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the Council to meet housing requirements in the short to medium term, even with a stepped trajectory (discussed further below). This to the extent that, we don’t believe that the Council will be able to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply on adoption of the plan and potentially beyond.
Proposing allocations in the more sustainable villages in the 2040 Review would have gone a long way in terms of bolstering the short-medium term housing land supply position, which is currently lacking.
The methodology and evidence underpinning the decision to exclude the villages is poorly justified in both the Sustainability Appraisal and the Development Strategy and Site Selection Topic Paper.
The topic paper states that when considering development options: ‘The worst performing component is the village related growth component. It is likely to have a more negative effect than the other components, particularly in relation to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting water resources, and reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel. It is likely to have fewer positive effects than any of the other components of growth.’
However, the assessment criteria used prior to the Regulation 18 consultation process requires scrutiny. Whilst it is important to give consideration to the key areas of ‘Greener’, ‘More Accessible’, ‘More Prosperous’ and ‘Better Places’, the key practical matter of the deliverability of the strategy as a whole and issues that might result from opting for different options e.g. land assembly, viability, timescales, deliverability, previously developed land, site-specific benefits, infrastructure, etc appears to have been ignored. Had these matters been considered in more detail it is likely that additional growth in villages would have been seen as a more favourable option. Following the Regulation 18 consultation, a secondary round of work to support the development strategy was undertaken, however this also neglected the majority of these key considerations.
Linked to the above, the Council have failed to plan for 10% of their housing requirement being delivered on sites of 1ha or less as per the requirement of paragraph 69 of the NPPF. The Council, in their Small Sites Topic Paper, state that they consider that they will deliver well in excess of what is required by the NPPF through windfall development and neighbourhood plans, however the approach taken is not consistent with the NPPF which states that this provision should be identified in either the local plan or in a brownfield register. The purpose of this national policy is to provide the certainty through an allocation in a local plan.
Additionally, as is touched on further below, in our view, the anticipated delivery rates attached to the large allocations conflicts with typical rates for comparable sites. We consider that the Council have been overoptimistic in terms of the output rate of sites both in terms of average and peak delivery rates. For example, at both Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford, over the final 10 years of the plan, it is stated that these sites will deliver on average 380 dwellings a year and have a peak delivery rate of 600 homes between 2037/38-2039/40. The justification for these delivery rates is not provided and they appear high compared to evidence from similar scale schemes elsewhere (see Lichfields’ Start to Finish report 2nd edition Feb 2020 for a comparison). The housing trajectory should be amended to reflect evidence on delivery rates. When this adjustment is made, the Council will find that forecast housing delivery will fall short of that which is required to meet the housing requirement., meaning the development strategy set out in policy DS2 is unsound.
Ultimately, it is clear that no real consideration was given as to whether the villages in Bedford Borough can or should form part of the development strategy. Given the issues associated with the development strategy identified above we consider that, as proposed, it cannot be relied upon to deliver the identified housing requirement and is therefore unsound in its current form. This can only be remedied through the consideration of a more dispersed pattern of growth an allocations in sustainable rural settlements, such as Wilstead and Willington.

Comment

Representation ID: 9882

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Odell Parish Council

Odell Parish Council welcomes the general approach to future development in the Borough which would be focused on the existing urban areas or in specific new settlements that will be served by major roads and railway stations that have the capacity to carry additional traffic. Our principal concern is that the rural nature of the River Great Ouse Valley and its surrounding areas north of Bedford is not eroded by excessive residential or industrial development.

We appreciate that much of this additional development will be back-end weighted and phased so that it can only take place as and when new infrastructure is in place - specifically the Black Cat roundabout towards Cambridge and the new East-West Rail line. We also recognise that there is no extensive new housing allocated to the north of Bedford which would make the existing major issues of congestion and inadequate road capacity during peak hours even worse.

We are also pleased that the key policies referenced in Odell’s recently completed Neighbourhood Plan will be carried forward into the new Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040.

Object

Representation ID: 9896

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

5. Policy DS2(S) Spatial strategy and Policy DS5(S) Distribution of growth
5.1 Policy DS2(S) and Policy DS5(S) sets out the proposed distribution of growth. The key locations are:
• Within the urban area – 1,200
• Strategic locations adjacent to the urban area which contribute to delivering the
Forest of Marston Vale incorporating the Bedford Milton Keynes Waterway Park and
the Bedford River Valley Park – 1,500
• South of Bedford including new settlement 7,050
• Little Barford new settlement 3,800
• Some development will take place beyond the plan period – 400
• Remaining rural area / villages - Completion of sites previously allocated in local plans and neighbourhood plans
5.2 Paragraph 4.31 states:
“Policy DS5S sets out where growth will be located. It takes into account existing commitments together with the additional growth required to meet needs to 2040. There will continue to be growth in villages as a result of policies in the Local Plan 2030 which allocate growth to some Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres. No new allocations are made in these villages in the Local Plan 2040, although some Parish Councils may choose to allocate further sites for development in their neighbourhood plans to meet particular local needs”.
5.3 We have a number of concerns with the strategy.
5.4 Our first concern is that the total supply from these sites in the plan period is 13,550. When added to the 14,824 dwellings committed, the total is 28,374 dwellings. At 4.7% this does not provide the necessary level of flexibility required in the SA of 10% to meet the requirement. Indeed, it is even lower than the 11% flexibility found acceptable by the examining Inspector in the LP2030.
5.5 Our second concern is that new settlements form part of the strategy. However, paragraph 2.5 of the Development Strategy Topic Paper states:
“The results are summarised in the Issues & Options Consultation - summary and responses document. The (brown) urban, (yellow) A421 and (pink) rail-based growth development locations were the most strongly supported and were twice as likely to be selected as suitable locations for growth as dispersed and new settlement based growth options..
5.6 Therefore, the results of the Issues and Options showed that the options for new settlements and dispersed growth were most unpopular. Despite this, new settlements form the bulk of the strategy in the Plan. We questioned the merit in undertaking consultation at the Issues and Options when at that early stage in LP2040 no meaningful account has been given to the public responses and this has been carried forward in the Plan. Our overarching objection is that land adjacent to urban area and higher order sustainable large villages has been dismissed in favour of new settlements and unsustainable allocations (HOU13 and HOU16 for example).
5.7 Some of the proposed allocations have viability issues. For example, the Viability Study states:
“The two largest strategic sites (Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick) are identified as having challenging viability at current costs and values.”
5.8 As to the Development Strategy meeting affordable needs, the Viability Study states:
“Further, the Council’s policies build in an appropriate level of flexibility i.e. Policy DM1 (S) (Affordable Housing) is applied subject to viability and allowing for future reviews of viability as the development progresses.”
5.9 This shows that the Plan is predicated on viability issues being raised and less affordable housing delivered. As we set out under DS3 there is a significant and worsening affordability crisis in Bedford. If the Council are committed to meeting affordable housing needs, and the current strategy is adopted, there will need to be clear monitoring policies to ensure action can be taken as soon as possible to meet affordable needs if allocated sites do not deliver the required on-site affordable homes.
5.10 In the case of extensions to urban areas, paragraph 3.5 states:
“In relation to the broad components of growth, the sustainability appraisal found that the first component - within the urban area - performed best. It was likely to have a more positive effect than the other components, particularly in relation to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, promoting town centres, encouraging physical activity, providing for residents’ needs and access to community services, and reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel. It was likely to have fewer negative effects than any of the other components of growth, although the limited availability of land within the urban area could act as a constraint on business growth. The adjoining the urban area component performed almost as well as the within the urban area component and was better in relation to economic growth. However, the adjoining the urban area component performed worse than the urban component in relation to maximising development on previously developed land. The risk of coalescence of rural settlements was also noted.”
5.11 In that context we consider that sites adjoining the urban area and which do not result in coalescence should have been allocated. In Section 7 we set out the merits of the land at Bromham Road, Biddenham (Site ID7432) which should have been allocated on that basis.
5.12 With regard to villages, paragraph 3.6 states:
“3.6 The worst performing component was the village related growth component. It was likely to have a more negative effect than the other components, particularly in relation to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting water resources, and reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel. It was likely to have fewer positive effects than any of the other components of growth.”
5.13 As we set out at the Issues and Options stage, this conclusion must be read in the context that the Development Strategy Topic Paper6 which has a Village Related Growth Option were all based on over 4,000 new homes ranging from 28% to 41% of the total requirement. We do not advocate such a dispersal strategy but clearly recommend that there should be growth at Key Service Villages and Rural Service Centres.
5.14 We consider that the SA has not assessed reasonable alternatives and the options should have assessed a lower total percentage of the total requirement for the Village Related Growth Option and also distinguished between more sustainable Key Service Centres and less sustainable smaller villages, particularly for Wootton which is highly sustainable and lies close to Bedford town and close to Milton Keynes. Whilst other villages may be more remote with fewer facilities, more realistic options for growth at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres should have been considered.
5.15 The fourth is that we note that of the 4 preferred options; 3 of which include growth in certain parishes. These are Options 2a (2,000 dwellings), 2b (1,500 dwellings), 2d (750 dwellings). We note that these options state within the ‘parish area’ rather than within or adjacent to parish settlement. Paragraph 3.11 of the Development Strategy states that “development in parishes within the ‘Transport corridor”…. “will not necessarily adjoin existing villages but could be at new locations between a parish”. Development on the edge of existing settlements, and closer to services, are important factors and we consider that new homes would be better located adjacent to settlement boundaries of existing settlements as that is the most sustainable option. Land at Hall End Road, Wootton, which was recommended approval by officers for 81 dwellings, and was considered sustainable in a housing shortfall context, would be one such site adjacent to a Key Service Centre that could accommodate some growth. Land south of Bromham Road, Biddenham, immediately adjacent to the Bedford Urban Area boundary (the most sustainable area in the borough) would also be a logical option for up to 40 homes.
5.16 This would also meet the aims and objectives in the Framework, for example;
• Para 16: “Plans should: a) be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”;
• Para 79: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby”. (our emphasis)
5.17 The fifth is that it is Intended that if the favoured strategy involves additional development in and around villages, that parish councils will be asked to allocate land in accordance with LP2040. This is for non-strategic scale sites but if this is carried forward into LP2040, then each Parish should be given a housing requirement as required by paragraph 66 of the Framework which states:
“66. Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period. Within this overall requirement, strategic policies should also set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations. Once the strategic policies have been adopted, these figures should not need retesting at the neighbourhood plan examination, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances that affects the requirement.” (our emphasis)
5.18 We consider there are reasonable alternatives that should be considered. They are:
(1) greater growth in larger villages including Key Service Villages alongside urban related growth and transport corridor growth.
(2) an expansion of Option 6, with more growth in Key Service Villages, and to include urban-related growth.
5.19 Both these options should distinguish between larger more sustainable villages (KSCs and RSCs) and smaller ones. In the evidence base there is the Settlement Hierarchy Paper dated April 2022. At the time of the Draft Plan this report was not available as there was a “review underway” and was “not yet available for comment, but will be finalised in order to support the plan for submission (2022)”. We highlighted that it is important that this should be the subject of consultation prior to the Submission Plan being published so that any issues are considered prior to the spatial strategy evolving and reducing any potential objections to a key part of LP2040. Whilst it is part of the evidence base, any objections are to go before the Examination rather than being considered prior to Submission. This point applies with even greater force to the HELAA where factual errors or unchecked judgements have resulted in sites not being allocated. If these matters were picked up following consultation, then the evidence base would have been more robust. We examine issues with the HELAA in later sections.
5.20 One of our specific interests is Wootton which is one of the 8 Key Service Centres. In the settlement hierarchy paper, it is one of the most sustainable settlements in the borough. Policy 4S of the LP2030 sets out the aim to deliver 970 dwellings per annum across the borough, with a minimum of 3,169 dwellings to be distributed across the various settlements. Part iv states that a minimum of 2,000 dwellings should be located at Key Service Centres of which Wootton is one. The policy then continues when it states:
“it will be necessary to identify sites to meet the following levels of development, generally in and around defined Settlement Policy Area boundaries. Other than in Roxton, all sites will be allocated in Neighbourhood Development Plans. In rural service centres allocations may exceed 50 dwellings where specific local justification is set out in Neighbourhood Plans demonstrating that it would be appropriate in terms of the scale, structure, form and character of the settlement and the capacity of local infrastructure”
5.21 Criteria xi to xvi then set out a specific housing requirement for each settlement. However, there is no specific requirement proposed for Wootton. This was explained in the 2017 version of the LP2030 because Wootton had expanded in recent years. This should not be seen as further development at Wootton not being appropriate; rather it confirms its suitability and capacity as a location for growth. We consider that going forward Wootton should be identified as a location for growth and given a specific requirement. This should be at least 500 dwellings as set out in Options 3b, 3c, 4, 5 and 6. That should not mean that all other Key Service Centres are also required to deliver 500 dwellings as they are already required to deliver 500 dwellings in LP2030 and form part of the committed 13,000 dwellings. These settlements could get less or as was the case at Wootton zero in LP2030 as LP2040 progresses. What is clear is that Wootton should have a specific requirement of at least 500 dwellings especially due to its sustainability credentials and its close relationship to Bedford town. If there is a concern about the effects of recent development in Wootton, which in our view do not stand up to scrutiny, there is no reason why the Council cannot suggest a requirement to Wootton to be delivered
later in the plan period.
5.22 Indeed paragraph 2.8 of the committee report of Application 19/00894/MAO (land west of Wootton Upper School) the LPA states:
“2.8 Despite the lack of allocation for Wootton, this does not mean that development should not occur.”
5.23 In that context, Policy W2 of the emerging Wootton Neighbourhood Plan states:
“Provision will be made over the plan period for up to 105 homes as proposed within site specific policies W3 to W6. Development in excess of this figure will only be permitted where the proposal relates to a site within the SPA in accordance with Policy W1.”
5.24 That plan is to 2030, yet is not meeting the full need as explained in paragraph 60 of the Wootton Neighbourhood Plan which states:
“Public consultation was carried out in June/July 2018 on the proposed scale of development in the WNDP, with 73% of respondents strongly agreeing/agreeing with the allocation of sites sufficient to accommodate a total of 145 residential units within the plan period, on the basis of need ascertained by the Housing Needs Survey. This survey aimed to assess the need of local people for either affordable housing or market housing in Wootton, at the time when it was envisaged that the Bedford Borough Local Plan would cover the period to 2035. The quantum of development has been marginally reduced in response to further resident feedback and to reflect the reduced Local Plan period to 2030.”
5.25 Therefore, the housing need from the evidence base is 145 dwellings. It should be noted that the 105 homes proposed in Policy W2 is seeking to address existing and potential housing needs of the existing residents of Wootton and it takes no account of the newly forming households and the increase in households in the plan period across Bedford Borough that the standard method calculates. This is a particularly important point as the LP2040 consultation confirms that capacity within Bedford town for housing is limited and the Plan will rely on growth outside of this to meet needs of which Wootton can play an important role. However, it demonstrates a continuing need for new housing in Wootton which LP2040 should plan to meet.
5.26 Paragraph 4.12 of the Education Paper states that “Wootton has expanded significantly in recent years and development is soon to commence on land south of Fields Rd. Initially it was thought that there may be scope for some additional capacity in local schools later in the plan period but updated school numbers show that this is unlikely to be the case”. This is not evidenced in that document, yet the IDP states that there is a surplus of 328 places (Figure 48ID). Are these surplus places being taken up by the less sustainable allocations such as HOU13 and HOU16? For example, HOU13 requires a secondary school contribution which demonstrates there is capacity to expand existing schools. Therefore, we have significant reservations on the evidence base and how it has been used to prepare the Plan.
5.27 This was a matter assessed by the Examiner for the Neighbourhood Plan. Paragraphs 4.16 to 4.18 state:
“4.16 Up to 105 dwellings are proposed in policy W2 but it is made clear that this figure could be exceeded on suitable sites within the Settlement Policy Area, subject to the requirements of Policy W1 being met. This approach is based on the findings of the Housing Needs Survey (2017) and is supported by a majority of the local community. I am aware that Wootton is defined within the Bedford Local Plan as a ‘key service centre’ and on my visit I noted the wide range of community facilities and services available. However, I also saw that there has been significant development in the area over recent years and I consider that the Parish Council has adequately justified the reduction in housing numbers from 145 (as set out in policy W2 of the Pre-Submission version of the WNDP document – September 2020) to 105. This reduction is based primarily on resident feedback during consultation on the pre-submission version of the Plan and to reflect the reduced Bedford Borough Local Plan period from 2035 to 2030.
4.17 I note that some local residents questioned the need for more housing in the village and suggested that Wootton has ‘reached the limit’12. However, the housing figure is based on the Housing Needs Survey (2017) and NPPF section 5 confirms that it is the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF confirms that a sustainable pattern of development should be promoted. I consider that the wide range of community facilities and services that are available in Wootton contribute significantly to its credentials as a sustainable location for development.
4.18 Conversely it was suggested that in order to ‘boost the supply of homes’ 13 more housing should be allocated, and for example, it was suggested that there should be an allocation at the Chequers Public House14. On current evidence I am satisfied that the Parish Council has satisfactorily justified its approach15, but circumstances may change with the adoption of the Bedford Local Plan Review (scheduled for 2023) and that is one of the reasons I am recommending that the WNDP is reviewed every two years (see paragraph 4.56).”
5.28 Paragraph 4.10 referred to the out of date nature of the housing needs and proposed an early review. It states:
“4.10 The Parish Council has based its housing requirement on the 2017 Housing Needs Survey (with a reduction to take into account the reduced Local Plan Period from 2035 to 2030). The Borough Council has not objected to this approach and bearing in mind I am recommending review of the WNDP every 2 years (see paragraph 4.56), I am satisfied that, at this time, sufficient land has been identified for housing development in the village.”
5.29 Therefore, the Plan is wrong to suggest that sites are not required in Wootton given the dwellings delivered to date and commitments. The Examiner proposing an early review confirms that housing needs need to reassessed to meet current and future needs.
5.30 It is clear that the housing needs of the area will not
be met the most sustainable village as set out in Appendix 3 of the Settlement Hierarchy with Addendum which scores Wootton as the highest of the 80 settlements assessed. The Plan needs to be altered to identify a specific requirement for Wootton.

Comment

Representation ID: 9912

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: EF Wootton and Sons and Sarrosons

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The Council’s proposed Spatial Strategy, as defined under Policy DS2(S) is undermined by the risks of adopting the Stepped Trajectory set out in Policy DS3(S).

The proposed Spatial Strategy does not address the potential for delays in the delivery of East-West Rail, and other key infrastructure required to support the proposed strategic allocations on the East-West Rail / A421 transport corridor.

Progress with East-West Rail between Bedford and Cambridge and slow, and there are uncertainties surrounding when this piece of major infrastructure will be delivered. The Stepped Trajectory is reliant upon this infrastructure to meet the identified housing and employment needs, set out in Policy DS3(S). There is a high-risk of a slower rate of housing delivery, or a delay in the commencement of development on the identified new settlements South of Bedford and at Little Barford that would undermine the strategy.

The Council’s proposed residential development trajectory in the years 2030-2040 is therefore not realistic nor deliverable. We would contend that East-West Rail will take longer to come forward, and that the Council is likely to fall far short of achieving the requisite 1,700 dwellings per annum in the years 2030-2040.

The risks surrounding the delivery of EWR are acknowledged in the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (June 2021).

We recognise that the Council has acknowledged these risks stating it will monitor the provision and delivery of infrastructure and, if necessary, bring forward a review of the Local Plan. However, for the plan to be positively prepared and effective, we would suggest that he plan needs to mitigate these risks through the allocation of additional sustainable sites in line with the general locational strategy, such as adjoining or within a short distance of the edge of the Bedford Urban Area.

This Spatial Strategy is therefore not effective, nor is it positively prepared to address the potential weaknesses in the strategy during the plan period. We would contend that this would make the plan, as submitted, UNSOUND.

Object

Representation ID: 9928

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A. Introduction
1. These representations are submitted by Marrons Planning on behalf of Rainier Developments and Strategic Land in response to the Regulation 19 Draft of the Bedford Draft Submission Local Plan 2040 (DSLP2040) prepared by Bedford Borough Council (BBC). There are three main issues with BBC’s approach:
I. BBC have not satisfied the Duty to Cooperate in accordance with s.33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, paragraph 24 of the NPPF and paragraph 029 of the Planning Practice Guidance on plan-making. BBC acknowledge within their Duty to Co-operate Position Statement that neighbouring authorities have not yet had sight of their draft policies and strategic allocations, notwithstanding the late stage in the plan-making process. Necessarily, if neighbouring authorities have not seen the detail underpinning the emerging plan, it must follow that they have not meaningfully engaged with it.

A. Introduction
1. These representations are submitted by Marrons Planning on behalf of Rainier Developments and Strategic Land in response to the Regulation 19 Draft of the Bedford Draft Submission Local Plan 2040 (DSLP2040) prepared by Bedford Borough Council (BBC). There are three main issues with BBC’s approach:
I. BBC have not satisfied the Duty to Cooperate in accordance with s.33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, paragraph 24 of the NPPF and paragraph 029 of the Planning Practice Guidance on plan-making. BBC acknowledge within their Duty to Co-operate Position Statement that neighbouring authorities have not yet had sight of their draft policies and strategic allocations, notwithstanding the late stage in the plan-making process. Necessarily, if neighbouring authorities have not seen the detail underpinning the emerging plan, it must follow that they have not meaningfully engaged with it.
II. The DSLP2040 is inflexible by relying on strategic allocations which depend on uncommitted infrastructure. For example, the emerging plan includes allocations for 5,800 homes, which depend on East West Rail (EWR) stage 3, despite the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) concluding that the project now appears ‘unachievable’ (IPA annual report, 2021-2022). Other strategic allocations depend on schemes to upgrade the Strategic Road Network (SRN), all subject to funding bids and the outcome of Road Investment Strategy 3 (RIS3). In parallel there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that these strategic sites are developable and viable. This all presents significant risks to the DSLP2040’s delivery. Non-strategic sites in sustainable locations which could otherwise help ensure a deliverable 5-year supply have been rejected without justification.
III. The ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify a departure from the Local Housing Need (LHN) have not been demonstrated in conflict with NPPF61. Over the first ten years of the plan, BBC proposes a housing requirement 25% below the LHN (1,010dpa vs. LHN of 1,355dpa). Furthermore, the enclosed evidence demonstrates that an uplift in the LHN to 1,744dpa is justified. The critical social and economic consequences of not meeting housing needs from the outset of the plan has not been addressed in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA).
2. These three fundamental failings of the DSLP are now expanded upon below.
B. Duty to Cooperate
3. The legal requirements of the Duty to Cooperate needs to be addressed prior to submission of the plan, as set out in NPPG031 Plan-making: “The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements… As the duty to cooperate relates to the preparation of the plan it cannot be rectified post-submission, so if the Inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with they will recommend that the local plan is not adopted and the examination will not proceed any further…”.
4. At this late stage in the plan-making process (Regulation 19 pre-submission) BBC state that neighbouring authorities have still not had sight of the plan or the strategic site allocations within it (page 5, Duty to Cooperate Position Statements, April 2022). Unresolved issues regarding unmet housing needs, the implications of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc and infrastructure concerns regarding the capacity of transport junctions and congestion are identified throughout BBC’s Duty to Cooperate Position Statements.
5. Whilst BBC sets out that meetings and discussions have taken place, nothing constructive or substantive could have occurred insofar as cooperation and engagement is concerned if these adjoining authorities do not know what is in the plan in terms of its housing requirements, spatial strategy and allocations.
C. Lack of flexibility
Reliance on strategic-scale allocations and new settlements
6. The reliance on strategic-scale sites, including new settlements and extant plan allocations to deliver planned growth is not justified. The DSLP2040 relies on strategic sites comprising 3,175 dwellings finally coming forward on extant allocations (from the 2002 and 2019 plans), two new settlements at Little Barford (4,000 dwellings) and Kempston Hardwick (4,000 dwellings) and other strategic growth on the A421 corridor (4,750 dwellings) – all post 2030.
7. The flaws with this approach are as follows:
• BBC’s own viability evidence demonstrates that the two new settlements at Little Barford (HOU19) and Kempston Hardwick (HOU14) are unviable at the present time (Bedford Local Plan 2040 – Borough Wide Viability Study, BNP Paribas Real Estate, April 2022). The entire strategy is based on speculation that the necessary infrastructure will be in place and that market conditions will have improved to sustain the viability of these schemes.
• It is unclear how strategic infrastructure requirements have been incorporated within the viability appraisal – e.g. Kempston Hardwick New Settlement depends on A421 widening, a £60M scheme where developer funding is to also be sought (refer Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (AECOM, May 2022)). Similar uncertainty exists for other strategic allocations whereby developer contributions and funding are not identified, limiting the effectiveness of the BBC’s viability evidence.
• Delivering and funding for the strategic infrastructure necessary to unlock the strategic allocations remains uncertain. Table 5.2 of the Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan - The Need for a Stepped Trajectory (AECOM, May 2022), sets out the required infrastructure for each strategic site, for example:
EWR
 Both Kempston Hardwick (HOU14, 4,000 homes) and Little Barford (HOU19, 4,000 homes) – entirely depend on EWR stage 3. EWR is also identified as related to the delivery of East Wixhams (HOU16, 1,800 homes). However, there is no preferred alignment as of yet, no government commitment to its delivery nor confirmed funding. The IPA have recently concluded that both EWR stages 2 & 3 are rated ‘red’ where “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability re-assessed” (IPA Annual Report, 2021-22, page 54). This now calls into question the allocation of these strategic sites, contributing 5,800 homes to BBC’s land supply.
SRN – A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet
 Little Barford is also dependant on this major scheme to the SRN. It is also related to the delivery of River Valley Park (HOU 11, 1,000 dwellings). A decision on the DCO is still pending, as is the government’s funding decision.
SRN – A421 Widening
 This relates to the delivery of 11,930 dwellings comprising allocations HOU3, HOU11, HOU14, HOU16, HOU17 and HOU19. BBC’s IDP identifies that this £60M scheme is dependent on the outcome of RIS3, government funding and developer funding. The outcome of the RIS3 process – whereby BBC will need to make the case for their inclusion in this national investment strategy – is uncertain at this stage, but is clearly fundamental to the delivery of DSLP2040.
 The Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan - The Need for a Stepped Trajectory explains that the identified SRN schemes “must be recognised in the RIS [Government’s national Road Investment Strategy] to be funded and delivered. RIS is therefore key to supporting the LP2040.”
SRN – A421 / A600 Junction
 This is identified a direct requirement to unlock delivery of College Farm (HOU17, for 1,000 dwellings). This £1M scheme is also dependant on RIS3, with a combination of funding from national highways and developer funding (the extent of developer funding remaining unclear with respect to the delivery and viability of HOU17).
SRN – B530 / Manor Road / Kiln Road
 A £5M scheme required to unlock the delivery of Kempston Hardwick new settlement, again dependant on the outcome of RIS3.
SRN – Kempston Hardwick Links
 A £5 scheme dependant on funding and investment decisions by East West Rail, again critical to the delivery of Kempston Hardwick new settlement.
SRN – Little Barford Mitigation
 A £1M scheme not expected to open until 2040, all funded by the developer. It is unclear whether or how this has been factored into the viability assessment for the Little Barford allocation.
• The delivery rates and trajectories for the strategic sites remain unjustified at this stage – for example rates of 300-600dpa projected at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick, rates of development that are unprecedented in Barford. Furthermore, in terms of the plan’s flexibility and effectiveness, it only takes a delay of one or two years (which could be likely given the various infrastructure requirements and lead-in times) to result in a shortfall in housing delivery to 2040.
• The specific capacities of the strategic allocations and new settlements have not been evidenced – for example, HOU14 Kempston Hardwick and HOU19 Little Barford cannot realistically achieve the delivery of 4,000 homes with respect to other land-use requirements, biodiversity net gain and infrastructure requirements.
• There is no evidence that the extant local plan allocations P11, P12, P13, P14 and P25 are deliverable, given a considerable track record of delay since the adoption of plans in 2002 and 2019. No evidence is included to substantiate their rolling forward and re-allocation in the DSLP2040. As can be seen at Appendix C, these sites were expected to have come forward by 2030 in the 2018 housing trajectory supporting the LP2030 but BBC has now conceded that these are not deliverable within the adopted plan period, and pushed them even further back.
• A sole reliance on strategic sites fails to reflect the invaluable role for a mix of sites in having an important contribution to the housing needs of an area and their ability to be built out relatively quickly under NPPF69, and the need for a variety of land (NPPF60).
Lack of 5-year housing land supply
8. In the early years of the plan and even against BBC’s supressed requirements of 970dpa - 1,070dpa under the stepped approach, BBC’s trajectory shows that demonstrating a 5-year housing land supply plus buffer will not be possible upon adoption of the plan (BBC estimate adoption ‘late 2023’ ).
• At 2022/23 BBC would have a supply of just 4.75 years supply (a 5-year requirement of 5,177 dwellings (1,035dpa), including 5% buffer, against a supply of 4,915 dwellings).
9. The above position is reliant on windfalls of 148dpa contributing within the 5-year period. If windfalls are removed - given the lack of justification and evidence – BBC’s position worsens.
• At 2022/23 BBC would have a supply of just 4.08 years supply (a 5-year requirement of 5,177 dwellings (1,035dpa), including 5% buffer, against a supply of 4,223 dwellings, excluding windfalls).
10. BBC’s 5-year land supply is also reliant on extant allocations and sites where ‘clear evidence’ on the deliverability is currently lacking, as set out in Appendix D.
11. Clearly, if the 5-year requirement were to reflect the minimum LHN of 1,355dpa (i.e. no stepped trajectory), or to the uplifted LHN identified in these representations (to 1,733dpa), then the shortfall in deliverable land supply worsens.
Reasonable alternatives to help boost supply
12. The SA rejects the entirely reasonable alternative (a central requirement of NPPG001 – SEA and SA) of delivering homes on non-strategic sites in otherwise sustainable locations. For example, additional growth at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres is rejected on the crude assumption that such locations will result in increased car dependency with associated negative consequences in terms of CO2 emissions and air quality. Spatial option 3c was dismissed on this basis and ‘village related growth’ considered the worst component of the strategy (SA paragraphs 7.10, 7.23 and 8.13). However, the Council have not properly assessed the capacity of the KSCs and RSCs to accommodate sustainable growth – there is no assessment of settlement and site options as part of the SA process.
13. It is clear that sustainable, suitable and deliverable sites are available in such locations, as can be seen from the evidence provided at Appendix E (Site 760 Land South of Keeley Lane, Wootton). The evidence shows that such sites are as sustainable as BBC’s preferred allocations and, crucially, are deliverable and can meet pressing local needs.

D. No exceptional circumstances to justify a departure from the LHN
Policy requirements
14. NPPF61 requires that “To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.” (Emphasis added).
BBC’s approach and exceptional circumstances
15. BBC proposes a stepped trajectory, whereby provision runs at 970dpa for the first 5-years of the plan (2020-2025), 1,050dpa for 2025-2030 and 1,700dpa for 2030-2040. For the first 10 years of the plan period it therefore averages 1,010dpa, 25% lower than the LHN of 1,355dpa, an overall shortfall of 3,450 dwellings 2020-2030.
16. BBC’s justification for this approach is that there will be long lead-in times to bringing forward the strategic-scale allocations and associated nationally significant infrastructure, which is unlikely to be resolved until 2030 at the earliest. It is based on the assumption that the currently unviable new settlements will be viable post-2030 and that there will be greater certainty on the delivery of infrastructure by this point too (e.g. that commitments and funding decisions will have been made regarding EWR and the outcome of whether funding bids to RIS3 were successful will also be known).
17. However, BBC has not demonstrated why these circumstances are exceptional, with no consideration of market signals nor future demographic trends as NPPF61 requires. In fact, evidence undertaken by Marrons Planning, demonstrates that market signals would lead towards an uplift to the LHN, by at least 378dpa - to 1,733dpa, as explained in the Housing Needs Assessment at Appendix A.
18. Furthermore, BBC has embarked on their strategy without testing the implications of a failure to meet the LHN. The SA simply concludes that the stepped trajectory’s implications for housing delivery will be ‘? uncertain’ (SA, Appendix 8, page 113, SA Objective 12). For such a significant issue which goes to the heart of the whole plan and could hinder achievement of sustainability objectives for economic growth (SA objective 5), providing for residents’ needs (SA objective 13) and social cohesion (SA objective 14) as well as people’s quality of life, health and well-being, this lack of evidence and assessment is a significant omission.
19. On the basis of the above it is clear that exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated, in conflict with NPPF61.
E. Conclusions
20. These representations demonstrate fundamental failings with DSLP2040.
21. In the first instance, the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate cannot be met, and the plan, as drafted, would be unlikely to progress past the first part of the examination process.
22. In terms of matters of soundness:
I. The plan is inflexible, ineffective and in conflict with the government’s ambition to boost the supply of homes (NPPF60), relying on strategic sites and associated infrastructure, the delivery of which is all uncertain.
II. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify a 25% reduction in the LHN over the first 10 years of the plan period.
23. Taking forward the DSLP2040 could have significant economic impacts given Bedford’s location within the Oxford-Cambridge Arc with a failure to address objectively assessed needs also having severe social consequences in the context of a national housing and affordability crisis, as well as the health and well-being of Bedford’s communities.
24. Critically, none of this has been assessed in the DSLP2040’s supporting SA. Reasonable alternative strategies including non-strategic growth to otherwise sustainable locations – including sites which are deliverable, viable and available now to help boost supply and meet local needs - have been rejected.
Please note: supporting Appendices A-E which accompany these representations are attached and enclosed.

Support

Representation ID: 9940

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Bromham Parish Council

The Parish Council supports the approach to the development strategy whereby the initial focus for growth is in the urban area, the most sustainable location for growth, and then it targets growth based around the rail network, again taking advantage of the opportunities that exist for people to live and travel sustainably. The inclusion of two new settlements at Kempston Hardwick, and at Little Barford, is supported as it enables the creation of new sustainable communities aligned to the already well connected and accessible growth opportunities offered by the A421 corridor. The Local Plan recognises the importance of the A421 corridor for future growth opportunities, and that the significant infrastructure proposals will provide a well-connected, accessible and sustainable location for growth. Growth along this corridor should be exploited.
The Parish Council welcomes the focus of the Local Plan on ensuring that new development is supported by new infrastructure, including green infrastructure (In this regard, it is intended that development will help to bring forward the new water sports lake at Bedford River Valley Park to the east of Bedford at Willington, the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Park to the west of the town and to further progress the Forest of Marston Vale). It also recognises the challenge that town centres face and it includes proposed policies that would permit more residential properties in the town centre to help support existing and new town centre businesses, and an enhancement of the cultural offer. The Plan also focuses on encouraging high-skilled employment opportunities alongside housing development, with up to 26,700 jobs planned at several sites across the borough. These employment sites are being allocated where they have good connectivity, including by rail, along the A421 corridor and the A1 close to the Black Cat Roundabout.

Comment

Representation ID: 9945

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS2 (Spatial Strategy) sets out a spatial strategy for the local plan and the areas where new development will be directed. It states that development will be focused within the urban area of Bedford, and at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. In seeking to meet the need over the Plan period for 27,100 homes, the spatial strategy depends on the delivery of significant development at Kempston Hardwick and a new settlement at Little Barford. Taken together, these locations are expected to deliver 7,200 homes over the final 10 years of the plan.
Whilst we do not object to the proposed allocations in principle, it is considered that the expected rates of delivery on the sites is too optimistic. In order to be considered ‘sound’ a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery should be provided, in accordance with paragraph 73 (d) of the NPPF. If the housing trajectory was revised to be in line with available evidence on average annual build out rates for large schemes [3 For example, the Lichfield’s report ‘Start to Finish’ (February 2020)], the Council will inevitably need to identify additional sites in order to ensure the housing needs of the Borough are met in full.
In identifying additional sites, it is considered that a greater proportion of housing should be directed to smaller sites in urban areas other than Bedford to secure more proportionate balanced growth, such as the Site at Rushden Road, which is located within the Bedford Borough but adjacent to the southern boundary of Rushden (located within North Northamptonshire Council). As demonstrated within the accompanying vision document, the Site is suitable, available and deliverable.
The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-31 (adopted July 2016) recognises Rushden as a Growth Town (the highest tier of settlements) and defines its ‘spatial role’ as “to provide the focus for major co-ordinated regeneration and growth in employment, housing, retail and higher order facilities serving one or more districts”.
Furthermore, the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the 29th of March 2021. The Hearing Sessions concluded on Thursday 5th of May 2022. Within the Part 2 Plan, Rushden is identified as a growth town, which will provide the majority of new housing and employment development during the plan period, through a new sustainable urban extension. This includes at least 2,500 dwellings and associated jobs and facilities. This is considered to demonstrate the suitability of Rushden as a location for new development. On this basis, we consider that the Site would align with the Plan’s vision for greener, more accessible, and more prosperous Borough.
Whilst it is acknowledged that ongoing or future infrastructure improvements e.g. Black Cat Junction improvements and the East West Rail section through the Borough are due to be completed later in the plan period, and this may inform the overall growth strategy and trajectory, there also needs to be consideration of smaller, sustainable sites (without extensive infrastructure requirements) that can come forward earlier in the plan period and take pressure off the delivery of a high number of sites and homes between 2030 and 2040 (especially those reliant on the delivery of infrastructure). The wording within the subtext to the policy which states that “the Council will monitor the provision and delivery of infrastructure and, if necessary, bring forward a review of the local plan” is supported.
Notwithstanding the above, the Viability Assessment that has been published as part of the Council’s evidence base to the BBLP40 highlights the challenges of achieving viability in complex urban areas such as Bedford, particularly where schemes may involve a degree of recycling existing buildings (paragraph 6.4). As such, the allocation of greenfield sites in other urban locations such as the Site at Rushden Road will ensure development comes forward in compliance with the Council’s policy requirements e.g. relating to affordable housing, whilst providing holistic / inclusive growth throughout the entire Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 9973

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DS2(S) Spatial Strategy
Gladman are seeking changes to the spatial strategy of the Local Plan. More small and medium sites should be allocated to ensure that housing delivery can be increased in the short term to a level required by the standard methodology.
The spatial strategy can be summarised as growth opportunities within the Bedford urban area, strategic expansion of the urban area and strategic sites in transport growth corridors. Even growth to the villages is of a strategic scale. The nature of the sites proposed mean that housing delivery will not increase in the short term. Sites in the urban area may not be immediately available and the strategic sites are reliant on proposed strategic infrastructure.
We have submitted detailed commentary around the SA and the testing of options including village growth and we feel that any spatial strategy that overlooks the pivotal role growth in the villages can play in the timely delivery of housing is unsound.
The Council has deliberately sought to avoid allocating growth to settlements that were required to take growth in the adopted local plan, yet this plan only covers the period to 2030. There would be a ten-year period where these settlements are receiving no additional housing growth, set against a backdrop of the acute affordability issues across Bedford this is only likely to increase unaffordability in the villages. There will be a housing need in the villages beyond 2030 but this not currently addressed in the pre-submission draft. Another opportunity to increase housing delivery in the shorter term is a reconsideration of sites adjoining/adjacent to the urban area. However, the Council have opted to include only two strategic scale sites, adjacent to urban areas, on the basis of a green and blue infrastructure led approach. Concerns around potential coalescence are noted, but there are sites available to the Council in close proximity to the existing urban area that can contribute to the provision of green infrastructure whilst also delivering housing in the short term.
The inclusion of two new garden settlements to deliver a significant proportion of development in the latter stages of the plan period is a concern from a deliverability perspective. New settlements can play an important role in the delivery of new housing to meet the needs of a district, whilst avoiding some of the major constraints that may limit development elsewhere. However, the lead-in time and delivery of such schemes must be realistic and it is unlikely that these will start to deliver units in the first five years of the Plan. Therefore, any new settlements must be complemented by a range of additional smaller scale sites in both urban and rural locations that will deliver units in the early part of the plan period and provide flexibility if the larger sites do not deliver as quick as anticipated. If large scale housing targets are to be met a range of sites of differing scales and locations is vital.

Object

Representation ID: 9982

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The spatial strategy is unsound as it is not consistent with the requirements of national policy.
3. The Council’s assessment of housing needs is consistent with the approach set out in Planning Practice Guidance and results in a minimum housing need across the plan period of 27,100 homes. In seeking to meet these needs in full the Council’s spatial strategy relies on the delivery of significant development at Kempston Hardwick (HOU14) and the new settlement at Little Barford which, together, are expected to deliver 7,200 homes over the final 10 years of the plan.
4. Whilst the HBF does not oppose either of these allocations we are concerned that the expected rates of delivery on these two allocations is overly optimistic. The Council expect both these sites to deliver 3,800 homes each between 2030/31 and 2039/40 at an average of 380 dpa, with a peak delivery rate of 600 homes between 2037/38 and 2039/40. Whilst the period between this plan being adopted and these developments commencing is broadly reasonably the average delivery rate and peak delivery rates are high compared to evidence from other similar schemes.
5. The second edition of Lichfields, Start to Finish Feb report published in 2020 provides helpful insight into expected housing trajectories for a range of schemes and we would recommend that the Council uses this evidence to reconsider its delivery trajectories. In particular we would suggest the Council considers the evidence in this report with regard to schemes of over 2,000 new homes. Table 3 of the report sets out that the mean annual delivery rate for schemes of over 2,000 homes is 160dpa, significantly lower than the Council’s expectations. However, using the mean can disguise schemes that delivered much higher rates but even here the Council’s estimates appear high with figure 3 indicating that the highest average delivery rate seen was under 300dpa.
6. With regard to peak delivery rates the report sets out in Table 5 that schemes of over 2,000 delivery rates can reach 600 dpa citing Cambourne in Cambridge as an example. However, this rate of delivery was significantly higher than other schemes and still only resulted in an average annual build out rate of 223 dpa. Therefore, whilst there may be some years where delivery of 600 dpa is possible this should be seen as an exception and as such we do not consider the delivery estimates for both the sites referred to above, which the Council expect will consistently deliver 600dpa, to be as being justified. The HBF consider it necessary to amend the trajectory for both these sites to deliver at an average rate of circa 280 dpa with a peak delivery rate of no more than 400 dpa. These are still ambitious estimates but are more aligned with the evidence.
7. Ensuring delivery estimates are reasonable is important in considering whether the strategy being proposed by the Council is sound in that it meet the key requirement set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF that needs are met in full. Adjusting the delivery estimates on these two sites to deliver a more reasonable but still ambitious average delivery rate of 280dpa would result an under supply of 748 homes. As such the Council will need to identify additional sites in order to ensure housing needs are met in full.
8. In addition, the Council will need to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in their land supply to guarantee the plan is deliverable across its plan period. Whilst the proposed adjustments are more realistic, they are still, as outlined above, at the upper end of what has been delivered on similar schemes elsewhere. With any large development there can be delays to commencement and slower build out rates. As such ensuring that there is sufficient supply in the early part of the plan period in order to maintain a buffer towards the end will give flexibility in the Council’s land supply and guarantee the Council can meet needs and reduce the need for future reviews.
Sites of less than 1 ha
9. One of the consequences of a spatial strategy that places its reliance on larger sites to meet needs is that there are relatively few smaller sites allocated. As the Council are aware paragraph 69 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should: “identify through the development plan and brownfield registers land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites of less than 1ha”. The Council in their Small Sites Topic Paper outline in the table following paragraph that they consider that such sites will deliver well in excess of what is required by the NPPF. However, their estimates are not consistent with what is required by the NPPF. The Councill’s estimates include the likely supply from windfall and neighbourhood plans whereas the NPPF requires such sites to be identified either in the local plan or in the brownfield register. The likely supply from windfall or Neighbourhood Plans are self-evidently not identified supply and do not address the key purpose of this policy which is to provide the certainty of an allocation or permission in principle that is only available from inclusion in either the local plan or brownfield register.
10. It is important that the Council recognises that the reason behind this policy was the declining number of SME housebuilders and the Government’s recognition that if it is to achieve the overarching aims of meeting needs and providing a diverse range of housing it needs to support SME housebuilders. In seeking to ensure more small sites are allocated, sites that are more typically brought forward by SME developers, the Government is seeking to reduce the risks faced by such developers allowing the sector grow. As such the inclusion of windfall sites, which by their very definition are sites not identified by the local plan, in the estimate of delivery on small sites is inconsistent with national policy. Removing both the windfall estimate and estimate of delivery from neighbourhood plans means that delivery on sites of less than 1ha identified in with the local plan or brownfield register is 1,161 homes – some 1,549 homes short of the required level.

Object

Representation ID: 9984

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

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

The Development Strategy Topic Paper contains the rationale used by the
Council to justify its approach to spatial strategy. It sets out an approach which will focus development on the urban areas, strategic opportunities adjacent to the Bedford urban area and growth locations on the East West Rail / A421 transport corridor.

In regard to development in the rural areas, the policies of the Plan seek to limit growth to the completion of strategic Key Service Centre and more limited Rural Service Centre residential development identified in Local Plan 2030.

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was derived under the former NPPF2012 and only extends through 2030, there is no method within the plan or supporting evidence base to identify housing needs for designated rural areas. By presenting an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively within the ‘rural areas’, the Council has effectively excluded growth connected to villages as a component of its chosen strategy.

It is fundamentally unsound that Policy DS2(S) seeks to provide for a far more limited scope for development to meet identified priorities for the rural area than Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 that it is proposed to replace. Policy 3S provides in principle for the recognition of growth in Key Service Centres delivering enhancement to services and facilities, whereas Policy DS2(S) and the spatial strategy as proposed does not make any such commitment either as part of meeting additional housing needs prior to 2030 or over the full plan period to 2040.

This is compounded by the failure to consider specific capacity analysis for individual settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Addendum reaffirms this (April 2022). The Council has simply decided not to evaluate whether the settlement hierarchy or capacity of individual locations such as Great Barford, as outlined in the 2030 Plan, needs to be changed. The Council has failed to assess in detail either the suitability of individual site options against existing and emerging policy or the relationship of site options to the characteristics and services of individual settlements in order to inform this view. This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66, 68 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722. The Council simply states that it has not looked at amendments to the settlement hierarchy or a more flexible approach to the distribution of growth because no new allocations or expansions were planned at Rural Key Service Centres under the selected strategy (see Supporting Document ID: 24 Addendum paras 5 and 4).

Although the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was generated under the former NPPF2012 and only goes through 2030, there is no mechanism within the plan or associated evidence base to evaluate housing needs for designated rural centres. By presenting an either/or choice between large-scale strategic growth or extension of the urban area in the selected A421 and rail-based development corridors and development in rural areas, the Council has practically eliminated growth related to villages as a component of its preferred strategy. There is absolutely no evaluation of the degree to which these elements of an appropriate strategy could work in harmony rather than opposition to one another.

The reason the Council is unable to complete this assessment is that, as part of its site assessment process, it did not produce enough evidence to identify potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at specific settlements within the hierarchy before selecting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas in its entirety.

We specifically take issue with the district's evaluation of rural settlements. Despite the requirements set forth in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (necessitating immediate review) and modifications to national policy and guidance, the Council has not altered the method used to evaluate reasonable alternatives in this component of the settlement hierarchy from that used to evaluate the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is the cause of the issues that have been identified. The Council has simply refused to decide whether or not any potential site option is suitable before beginning its assessment of strategy options that exclude the village-related component of growth.

Aligned to this, but more broadly, the Development Strategy Topic Paper confirms that there hasn't been any attempt at a more thorough testing of all feasible alternatives, including development in rural areas; with only the preferred approach having been assessed robustly, and even then, only specific aspects of the transport corridor strategy have been thoroughly tested.

The Council's proposed trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, demonstrating an over reliance on strategic scale development, will exacerbate existing problems with delayed and slow delivery of allocated sites, rendering ineffective even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirements.

The Council's position is further undermined by the simple fact that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible before years 11 through 15 of the plan period, if not later. This result of this is an almost immediate supply issue which can only reasonably be addressed by the allocation of small/medium sized sustainable sites across the rural area. Providing a choice of locations for growth will ensure that market saturation is avoided and will support rural vitality in line with the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG.

As set out in our client’s previous representations the scope for development in the "east" and "south" corridor parishes and support for expansion at Great Barford under Option 2d of the Council’s Strategy Options, under the framework of a "hybrid" approach, would be supported in principle. This acknowledges that rural areas can contribute to sustainable development, particularly in early stages of the plan period.

The Council has simply not progressed its evidence base sufficiently in order to assess individual site options or to assess the potential positive effects of growth at settlements within the A421 transport corridor (and to counter dis-benefits of likely delays to delivery of the selected strategy) in a manner that would justify it excluding further village-related growth from this aspect of the spatial strategy

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village extensions, including at Great Barford, with our client’s land available at two different scales (100 and 500 dwellings), suitable, and with development achievable that would secure contributions to sustainable development as assessed favourably in the initial Sustainability Appraisal indicators (including new green infrastructure, community facilities and opportunities for recreation).
Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Support

Representation ID: 9998

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Boyer

5. POLICY DS2 - SPATIAL STRATEGY
5.1 Wates supports the primary principle behind the proposed spatial strategy. This is that Bedford strives to become a net zero carbon emission Borough, situated at the heart of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc. This aspiration is reflected in a proposed strategy for growth which centres on sustainable (transport-oriented) locations, as situated within the A421 / East West Rail Corridor.
5.2 A key aspect of this approach concerns the South of Bedford Policy Area (designated under Policy HOU12). This includes the proposed new settlement at Kempston Hardwick, the expansion of Shortstown and the completion of the Wixams new settlement on the Midlands Main Line and at Gibraltar Corner. The balance of growth is then mainly to be provided within and adjoining the existing Bedford Urban Area.
5.3 It is considered that this approach accords with NPPF paragraph 11, which requires all Plans to promote sustainable patterns of development. The proposed approach also finds favour in NPPF paragraph 104(b), which indicates that opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure should be realised. Indeed, paragraph 105 adds that;
“…Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes”.
5.4 There are clearly opportunities to create new planned communities (of a strategic-scale) within the Bedford Borough. As evidenced by Wixams, such new towns and settlements have proved an effective strategy for meeting housing, economic and social needs, both within the Borough and across the wider region. The creation of new communities continues to be strongly supported in current national planning policies, with the NPPF (at paragraph 73) stating that;
“The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes).”
5.5 The overall spatial strategy generally aligns with Option 2b(i) of the Development Strategy Topic Paper (May 2022), which seeks to concentrate growth within the A421 transport corridor and rail-centric development, whilst also identifying and allocating suitable sites within and around Bedford. Noting that an option centred solely on urban-based growth (i.e., at Bedford) would fail to meet housing needs or would require unacceptable / unrealistic densities, the A421 transport corridor (with rail-based growth) clearly emerges as the most sustainable and suitable option when compared to the alternatives identified.
5.6 At paragraph 5.16, the document is clear that the approach to the South of Bedford Policy Area will be to maximise the benefits of rail-based growth, with higher density development achieved close to rail stations. This is indeed consistent with the NPPF, which at paragraph 125(b) indicates that Plans “should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area”, adding that Plans should apply minimum density standards to seek a significant uplift in locations that are well-served by public transport.
5.7 The distribution of growth proposed through the Draft Local Plan is also consistent with the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The SA sets out, at paragraphs 1.8 to 1.15, that five broad growth options were explored, with the transport corridor option being further disaggregated to test four sub-options. This process presented fourteen alternatives options which could potentially meet the identified scale of housing and economic growth.
5.8 The ‘Option 2’ sub-options 2b (i), 2b (ii) and 2b (iii) all performed similarly positively, with it being judged that (in addition to growth with the Bedford Urban Area) rail-centric development at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick would give rise to the highest probability of travel by public transport, as an alternative to private car use. The variation between these sub-options is largely limited to the exact scale of growth at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick and Wixams respectively, with this having limited effect on the SA’s evaluation.
5.9 It is recognised in draft Policy DS2(S) and its supporting text, that bringing forward strategic development (e.g., new settlements) requires extended lead-in times and relies on the delivery of significant new infrastructure. Indeed, East West Rail and the associated new station to serve the proposed Kempston Hardwick new settlement, are not expected to be completed before 2030. For this reason, the Draft Local Plan does not anticipate delivery until the latter part of the Plan-period
5.10 In this context, it is welcome that the Plan also allocates sites that can deliver new housing earlier within the Plan-period. This is necessary to comply with NPPF paragraph 60, which requires that “…a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed”, to support the Government’s ongoing objective of “significantly boosting” the supply of homes. Diverse sources of housing supply will also be needed if the Plan is to prove effective in sustaining a five-year housing land supply, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 74.
5.11 The southern expansion of Wixams (as is envisaged in draft Policy HOU15) provides one such opportunity for early delivery. Growth at this location allows for a continuation of existing development strategies and avoids the need to start anew. Clear masterplanning principles have already been established and have guided development at Wixams for many years4. Furthermore, existing cross-boundary governance mechanisms already exist in the form of the Wixams Joint Development Committee, which comprises Members from CBC and BBC.
5.12 There is now much more certainty that a new Train Station will be delivered at Wixams, with the proposals having progressed to the ‘Stage 2b’ design-stage in 2021. In January 2022, BBC selected the preferred design for the station and indicated that it intends to bring forward a planning application, to allow construction by 2024. It is then highly likely that the proposed train station will be brought forward, thereby creating the opportunity to deliver new sustainable development at Wixams in the short-term.
5.13 These precedents will facilitate timely delivery, which is a fact that distinguishes the proposals on Land South of Wixams from other proposals within the broader South of Bedford strategy (as per draft Policy HOU12), that may take longer to bring forward.
Compliance with the Tests of Soundness
5.14 Overall, Wates supports the proposed spatial strategy, in so far as it seeks to provide for further strategic growth through new settlements, balanced by the expansion of existing settlements, alongside a portfolio of other smaller allocations throughout the Borough. This approach is justified and consistent with national planning policies, which require Local Plans to promote sustainable patterns of development. Conversely, the inclusion of a portfolio of smaller allocations will support housing delivery throughout the Plan-period, thereby facilitating the effectiveness of the Plan overall.

Comment

Representation ID: 10002

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Jane Walker

I support the approach to future development in the areas denoted in the draft Plan.
Clapham has already had allocated significant development in the current plan and Oakley has allocated at the top end of the range of housing required under the Local plan to 2030 so I am glad that the future Plan does not include further large development within or next to, either village’s boundary. Both villages now have a “made” Neighbourhood development plan so these should be taken into account with any future development.
I am concerned about the impact of the East West Rail proposals on Clapham, in particular. In addition, the congestion getting to and from the station and Bedford town for both villages during its construction, will be significant, regardless of which route is ultimately chosen. Please ensure that future Local Plans consider the impact of EWR’s construction on Clapham and Oakley, their residents and the environment and I ask that Bedford Borough Council planners work with the parish councils in these villages to develop mitigation for any proposals that ultimately come from EWR company.

Object

Representation ID: 10008

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: North Hertfordshire District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are currently anticipating the adoption of our own Local Plan for the period 2011-203. Once complete (and without prejudice to any Inspector’s report or decision on adoption), this would – along with the Plans for neighbouring Luton and Central Bedfordshire – complete the statutory planning framework for addressing the housing needs of Luton over this period.
It is our understanding that Luton intend to commence a review of their own Local Plan once the issue of its housing needs over the period 2011-2031 have been fully resolved. Key decisions around that Plan are yet to be made, in terms of plan period, housing requirements, potential development capacity within Luton etc. Proposed Government reforms to the planning system are also anticipated. These may include successor arrangements to the current statutory Duty to Co-operate. However, I would presently anticipate that unmet development needs from Luton for the period beyond 2031 could well be an issue that requires further consideration in this next round of plans.
Under the agreements reached for the current round of plan-making it was acknowledged that, in the first instance, authorities within the functional Luton Housing Market Area (Luton, Central Bedfordshire, North Hertfordshire and Aylesbury Vale) would work together to meet any unmet needs to the best of their abilities. In the event unmet needs arising from Luton could not be met within the defined Luton Housing Market Area, it would be necessary to initiate a wider search within adjoining housing market areas with good links to the town.
It has been acknowledged by the authorities in the housing market area that North Hertfordshire has made the maximum reasonable contribution to unmet housing needs from Luton in its current Plan. Central Bedfordshire have faced significant challenges in accommodating unmet needs from Luton alongside their own needs that arise within areas of the authority that fall within the Luton Housing Market Area. However, between the two authorities, it is proposed that the identified unmet needs of Luton for the period to 2031 will be met.
Your current consultation fails to identify and acknowledge the good strategic connections that it benefits from in relation to Luton, as discussed in our previous response letter to your Reg 18 consultation where paragraph 6.2 (of that document) identified:
Bedford benefits from good strategic connections to London and nearby economic centres, such as Milton Keynes and Luton, and planned improvements to connect to Cambridge.
Policies DS2(S): Spatial Strategy, and DS3(S): Amount and timing of housing growth, fail to acknowledge the role that Bedford Borough plays in the wider Housing Market Area and the contribution that it can make to neighbouring authorities housing need, such as Luton. As such, we find the policies unsound due to the lack of regard for neighbouring authorities’ housing requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 10014

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Ms Ruth Patrickson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I would like to object to the application in principle relating to the proposed developments near the Elstow/ Wilstead / Shortstown areas.
These areas are rich in countryside and wildlife and I feel strongly that they should be left without being developed.
The increase in traffic and pollution associated with the proposed developments would further spoil this beautiful area. I feel that it is extremely important for the future generations to have the same opportunities to enjoy the countryside and open spaces as previous generations have done.
I also have concerns about how the health service will cope with all this additional housing. I work at the Hospital, and have seen how the capacity of the Hospital does not meet the demand currently. This would only be exacerbated further by an increase in population such as that proposed.
With the Abbeyfields and Wixams estates being developed over the last 20 years, surely this area has already done it's part in housing development. Please do not let these developments go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 10022

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Shortstown Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy DS2(S) ix. Expansion of Shortstown to the west. In keeping with our
objection to Policy HOU17 we object to expansion of Shortstown to the west. Shortstown
has seen substantial additional housing but no improvement of transport links and the
impact of large sites currently in build has not been reviewed. A pause is required in order for traffic, services, and related items to be stabilised and the as yet unknown new higher level. We can always proceed with additional developments later but once approved they cannot easily be cancelled after the damage they cause has been revealed.

Support

Representation ID: 10043

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

SUPPORT

Policy DS2(S) contains the spatial strategy for PSBLP, which seeks to focus development within the urban area, selected strategic locations adjacent to the urban area, and at growth locations within the East West Rail/A421 Corridor. The preferred spatial strategy is explained in the Development Strategy and Site Selection Topic Paper, which is based on Option 2b. The key parts of the preferred spatial strategy are set out in Paragraph 5.3 of the Topic Paper, which in summary concentrates growth in the urban area and in the A421 Corridor, at strategic employment sites well related to the strategic road and rail network, and in locations that would support strategic green infrastructure projects in the South of Bedford Area. The preferred spatial strategy is consistent with national policy contained in the NPPF in terms of sustainable transport objectives. Paragraph 105 of the NPPF expects the planning system to actively manage patterns of growth to support the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, with significant development directed to locations that are or can be made sustainable. Paragraph 106 expects planning policies to include the following: to support a mix of uses across an area; to minimise journeys within larger scale sites; to align strategies for sustainable transport and development patterns; to provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks; and to provide for any large public transport projects such as East West Rail.

The two promoted developments by the Southill Estate, which are identified as draft allocations in PSBLP, at Abbey Field West of Elstow (Policy HOU 5) and Pear Tree Farm Elstow (Policy EMP 5) are consistent with the preferred spatial strategy and with national policy relating to sustainable transport. The promoted developments are in accessible locations, and are well related to the urban area, to other proposed strategic developments, and to proposed transport infrastructure projects in the A421 Corridor including East West Rail. The promoted developments include policy requirements for pedestrian and cycle connections with the surrounding area and existing networks. The promoted developments also include policy requirements for the delivery of open space and green infrastructure, and for connections to green corridors in the South of Bedford Area.

The spatial strategy contained in Policy DS2(S) is supported, and no changes are required.

Object

Representation ID: 10047

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bates/Must Family

Agent: Bletsoes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy as we believe that the Spatial Strategy followed by Bedford Borough Council does not fully consider the Employment Allocations proposed within the Plan when considering the allocation of residential development.

Specifically a large Employment Allocation (Policy EMP8 Land at Roxton, South West of the Black Cat Roundabout) is identified at Roxton and will include circa 17 hectares of Employment Land. We consider that additional residential growth should therefore also be allocated to Roxton to help service the employment growth. The proposal Employment Allocation will change the status and nature of Roxton and the immediate vicinity and as a result the village should be identified as a Key Service Centre rather than its current identification as a Rural Service Centre.

It is noted that Roxton has received an allocation for 50 dwellings in the Local Plan to 2040, but this allocation has been continued from the Local Plan to 2030 with development of this site about to commence, therefore we believe that Roxton should receive a further allocation for residential development to provide housing opportunities to serve the large employment scheme and to help sustain the existing service base at Roxton.

Our clients have undertaken highway work and there is sufficient capacity within the existing highway to serve a significant quantum of development and the land in question relates well to the existing built framework of the village. Furthermore the large proposed Employment Allocation will further enclose the area proposed for residential development. There are no constraints to our clients’ ownership and a number of different development scenarios could be considered including a provision of Community facilities such as additional land for school expansion and/or other community objectives.

We would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Local Planning Authority to discuss our proposals further.

Comment

Representation ID: 10048

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Howbury Hall Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The Spatial Strategy is considered logical in its approach. It is clearly appropriate to deliver the bulk of the new development requirements within the urban area, on the edge of the urban area and along the East West Rail / A421 corridor.

The A421 is the main east west route and links Bedford with the A1 to the east and M1 to the west. It has been and is the subject of further investment in the plan period.
In this regard the strategy it is supported by the Howbury Hall Estate.

We do however raise concern regarding that the apparent lack of provision for at least some small scale development in and around some of the Boroughs more sustainable villages.

Whilst the Council considers that some development in the rural area will come forward organically within settlements and / or through neighbourhood plans, experience to date with this strategy in the 2030 plan is that this has not been delivered. Many villages have proposed neighbourhood plans, sought designation of a neighbourhood plan area but progress has then slowed or ceased.

When querying the progress of Neighbourhood Plans a frequently used response from various Parish Clerks has been that they are under no pressure to progress and produce a plan as the Borough plan does not specifically require them to do so. Further, if a plan is progressed it is unlikely to include any development proposals, again as there is no requirement to do so.

A complete lack of development in the villages leads to their stagnation. Housing prices rise and there is little or no chance for younger people to access housing in those areas. Local shops and services gradually fail through lack of use.

Comment

Representation ID: 10067

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Fisher German LLP

This representation has been prepared on behalf of Richborough Estates in respect of their land interests at Land at to the east of Newton Lane, Turvey as illustrated on Figure 1 below. This site is an omission site in the emerging Bedford Local Plan 2040.
1.2 The site is considered suitable for allocation in the scenario that further housing sites are required to enable the Local Plan to be found sound (as we consider to be the case as set out within these representations).
Figure 1: Opportunities and Constraints Plan: Land at Newton Lane East, Turvey

Turvey is a sustainable settlement designated in the adopted Local Plan as a Rural Service Centre.
Turvey is one of the highest scoring Rural Service centres in the Borough, scoring only a few points
less than settlements designated as Key Service Centres (Settlement Hierarchy 2030 (Addendum April 2022) Figure 3). The adopted Local Plan seeks to deliver 25 - 50 dwellings through the emerging Neighbourhood Plans (this is in contrast to the 500 dwellings in the Key Service Centres, which Turvey falls just outside of). In historic iterations of the Bedford Local Plan (2015 consultation paper) the Council produced evidence which demonstrated that the Rural Service Centres could each accommodate up to 150 dwellings. The Council recognised the benefits of delivering larger developments in the Rural Service Villages advising that:
“Some villages have experienced the loss of vital services such as shops and pubs in recent years. Changing the current strategy of restraint in the rural policy area could increase the population and change the age profile of rural villages. An increase in activity and spending power would support existing vulnerable village services and facilities, and possibly lead to new provision. Furthermore, larger developments would be likely to bring with them a range of types and sizes of housing, which would provide more choice for existing residents wanting to stay within a village but down-size.” (Development Strategy and Site Selection Methodology Background Paper, September 2015)
1.4 The draft policies at that time supported such an allocation. Despite this latent capacity, the Council ultimately sought to reduce the quantum of housing to be delivered within the Rural Service Centres in favour of a new settlement, however, when the viability and deliverability of this was challenged the Plan period was reduced with an early review mechanism. Richborough
Estates and a number of interested parties objected to this approach of the new settlement and the reduced Plan period allowing the Plan to be found sound with the new settlement removed.
1.5 Turvey Neighbourhood Plan has since progressed to referendum on 15th July 2021. The result was marginal with 52% of votes in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan and 48% against. The Neighbourhood Plan was ‘Made’ on 1 September 2021.
1.6 The Neighbourhood Plan identifies land to deliver 50 dwellings across two allocations. Notwithstanding this, as has previously been evidenced by the Council, settlements such as Turvey remain well positioned to provide additional sites to ensure the Council can meet its future housing needs. Sites in the Rural Service Centres can deliver quickly and ensure that the step
change in delivery is met in the initial years of the Plan period whilst maintaining the vitality and viability of the services and facilities these settlements offer.
1.7 The land east of Newton Lane can deliver circa 80 dwellings, as demonstrated in the Vision Statement which is again submitted alongside these representations (having previously been sent to the Council through previous consultations). It is considered this is commensurate with the size and sustainability of the settlement and combined with the 50 dwellings to be delivered through the Neighbourhood Plan would still be below of the 150 dwellings the Council has previously evidenced the settlement could deliver within the Local Plan period to 2030. Indeed having regard to the sustainability of the settlement, and its place within the settlement hierarchy, just below those settlements which are expected to deliver 500 dwellings in the adopted Plan, it is considered that the capacity of Turvey to accommodate new homes could be far greater than
150 dwellings.
1.8 Richborough Estates are a respected land promotor who contribute high quality new residential development land and who have a strong track record of delivery in the local region.
1.9 This representation follows policies in the order that they appear in the consultation document.

It is our view, for the reasons set out below, that the Local Plan is not sufficiently justified, is not effective and is not consistent with National Policy. It therefore fails to meet the legal tests of soundness.

The overarching aims and ambitions of the Spatial Hierarchy are generally supported. However, we have concerns that the approach adopted underutilises the role of existing sustainable settlements, including the Rural Service Centres, and places a significant overreliance on the delivery of new settlements and is not therefore sound because it has not taken full account of all the reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alternatives are discussed within the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (May 2022). It notes that the Arc impacts are not yet known and so the growth strategy focuses only on Bedford’s own growth requirements.
2.5 Through previous consultations, the following growth options were put forward:
- Option 1a – development in and around the urban area only
- Option 1b – sites within the urban area at enhanced density
- Option 2a: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south.
- Option 2b: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south, plus one new settlement.
- Option 2c: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 2d: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south and east, plus one new settlement:
- Option 3a: Development in and around the urban area, plus four new settlements.
- Option 3b: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres.
- Option 3c: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 4: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 5: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 6: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 7: Development in two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
2.6 Within the topic paper, the Council consider that a reasonable alternative for the purposes of the NPPF test was an alternative that could provide dwelling growth within 10% of the required need. Option 2D was identified as a reasonable alternative.
2.7 As detailed in response to Policy DS3 and DS5, there seems an absolute reluctance by Bedford Borough to allocate any further additional growth at the Rural Services Centres despite the acknowledged available capacity and the benefit being that some proportionate growth would be delivered earlier in the Plan period rather than almost solely relying on the delivery of strategic sites. In the context of immediate housing need and with the current cost of living crisis, failure to deliver housing (both market and affordable) in settlements such as Turvey will result in more and more young people being forced out of the settlements in which they may currently live and continue to suppress natural household formation. Your attention is brought to the LPDF publication ‘The Housing Emergency’ (appended for information), which sets out key impacts of the housing crisis and demonstrates the need for increased housebuilding nationally. Key metrics demonstrating the scale and impact of the crisis include the increase of age of first time buyers from 27 in 2007 (in 26 it was 1997) to 34 in 2020. In addition, over the last 11 years the number of households renting has gone up 24%; during this time average rents have increased by 46%, far in excess of wage growth. Nationally there are 3.66 million concealed or overcrowded houses. 17.5 million people are impacted by the housing emergency, living in overcrowded, dangerous, unstable or unaffordable housing. 1 in 5 adults regard housing issues as having a negative impact on their mental health.
2.8 All settlements, but particularly sustainable settlements with a service offer, need proportionate and commensurate growth to ensure they do not age and stagnate.
2.9 Land east of Newton Lane, Turvey has shown that there would not be any adverse impact on the landscape and settlement character as a result of the site coming forward for development. In terms of the reduced ability for rural sites to be accessible to rail by active travel, it is important to note that some sites would be accessible by active travel, but more broadly they would be accessible by green travel through the ongoing transition to hybrid and electric cars, public transport and cycling. Moreover, due to an increased prevalence in home working and online deliveries, people are able to live more sustainably in what was traditionally considered to be a less sustainable location. The evidence which supports the Neighbourhood Plan confirms that the land East of Newton Lane is the best remaining available site within the village (Turvey Site Assessments and Allocations Report (April 2020).
2.10 The Plan and Strategy has a deliberate disregard of the role that Neighbourhood Plans should be playing in accommodating growth beyond their current period to 2030. Neighbourhood Plans should be policy bound to allocate an amount of growth up to 2040, as they were obliged to within the 2030 plan (see current policy 4S). NPPF Paragraph 66 sets out that Strategic Policies should “set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations”. Clearly to reflect the overall strategy as required by the NPPF, this must extend requirements up to 2040.

Comment

Representation ID: 10074

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Countryside Partnerships Plc

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Please refer to the representations contained in attached the document “195345 - LP2040 Statement of Representations DS2S_DS3S_DS5S” prepared by Phillips Planning Services Ltd.

The representation contains our clients’ responses to policies DS2(S), DS3(S) and DS5(S) in respect of their interests in Land west of the village of Great Barford south of the A421 – site ID 878.

The statement has been compiled to follow the Council’s desired format.

In our opinion, the Council’s proposed Spatial Strategy, as defined under Policy DS2(S) is undermined by the risks we have identified in the Stepped Trajectory
set out in Policy DS3(S). We wish to raise concerns that the Spatial Strategy does not sufficiently address the potential for delays in the delivery of East-West Rail,
and other key infrastructure required to support the proposed strategic allocations on the East-West Rail / A421 transport corridor. Paragraph 4.3
concisely captures the main elements of the Council’s strategy and states:
“The completion of EWR will result in the creation of highly accessible locations around new rail stations. By concentrating on accessible locations, the spatial
strategy aims to minimise the need to travel by car and therefore reduce the emission of carbon dioxide in line with the objectives of the plan. The growth locations are as follows:
A. Within the urban area
B. At strategic locations adjacent to the urban area which contribute to the delivery of key green infrastructure projects
C. At new growth locations focussed on the EWR / A421 transport corridor with the potential for rail based growth, particularly in the south of Bedford area and
at a new settlement at Little Barford.”
Given the slow progress of detailed proposals for East-West Rail between Bedford and Cambridge, and uncertainties surrounding when this piece of major
infrastructure will eventually be delivered, the reliance on the Stepped Trajectory to meet the identified housing and employment needs, set out in Policy DS3(S), appears to be highly optimistic, and does not positively plan for the potential of a slower rate of housing delivery, or a delay in the commencement of development on the identified new settlements South of Bedford and at Little Barford.
The Council’s proposed residential development trajectory in the years 2030-2040 is therefore not realistic nor deliverable. We would contend that East-West
Rail will take longer to come forward, and that the Council is likely to fall far short of achieving the requisite 1,700 dwellings per annum in the years 2030-2040.
The risks surrounding the delivery of EWR are acknowledged in the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (June 2021). In the analysis of the ‘Option 2’ sub-options i.e. Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail based growth plus one or two new settlements. In the ‘Weaknesses and delivery challenges’ assessment of the reasonable alternatives
for Option 2 the Topic Paper states:
• Viability and land assembly challenges for urban land and timing of delivery in some cases dependent on EWR delivery;
Delivery of new rail stations is proposed, but not yet confirmed.”
While we recognise that the Council is acknowledging these risks stating it will monitor the provision and delivery of infrastructure and, if necessary, bring
forward a review of the Local Plan, we would contend that for the plan to be positively prepared and effective, the plan should attempt to mitigate these known risks through an appropriate policy framework to be put forward now, in the Local Plan 2040, rather than postponed for another review.
This Spatial Strategy is therefore not effective, nor is it positively prepared to address the potential weaknesses in the strategy during the plan period. We would contend that this would make the plan, as submitted, UNSOUND.

Comment

Representation ID: 10077

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Milton Keynes Borough Council

Thank you for consulting Milton Keynes Council on Bedford Borough Council’s “Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission”. We welcome the consultation which is an important stage in delivering a plan-led strategy for the borough. Recognise that there are strategic issues of cross-boundary significance, notably housing, transport and employment land for warehousing. There has been ongoing engagement between the two authorities in taking forward preparation of our respective planning policy frameworks. This has involved regular cross-boundary meetings and engagement on the relevant supporting evidence base.
Milton Keynes is a regional service centre as a destination for work and leisure for communities living in Bedford and further east along the A421 corridor (and planned EWR rail corridor). Having considered the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission, and those documents made available alongside it, we do not raise any objection in relation to these matters. We note that a number of concerns and comments raised in our response to the draft plan stage in February 2021 have been addressed through the final spatial strategy, amendments to the plan, and further evidence base work.
Housing and Transport Strategy
As with the draft plan, we are happy to see that the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission is seeking to meet the Local Housing Need (LHN) for the period to 2040 in full.
Our main interest lies in how the different spatial options may affect car-based trips to Milton Keynes versus trips made by other modes (principally rail-based). The effects of different strategies on how people living beyond Milton Keynes may travel to Milton Keynes for work or leisure could have consequential impacts on infrastructure provision within Milton Keynes.
Several options were assessed and put forward through the draft plan stage. The chosen spatial strategy in the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission constitutes a combination of new settlements and allocations to the south and east of Bedford centres upon potential new rail stations, the A421 and/or East West Rail corridors, and urban densification primarily within Bedford. This strategy represents a more consolidated spatial pattern of growth compared to some of the more dispersed options contained in the draft plan. This is supported as it is likely to result in fewer car-borne trips with potential impacts on the Milton Keynes road network.
To assess the potential for cross-border transport effects we have reviewed the supporting document ‘BBTM Model Assessment of Local Plan 2040 Preferred Strategy’, May 2022. In particular, the Iteration 5 results appear to represent most closely the chosen spatial strategy of the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission. We have also considered the Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Transport, Final Report, May 2022.
We note these reports include some minor adjustments to the land allocations and infrastructure, when compared to earlier iterations in the draft plan, and use Bedford Borough Council’s most up to date 2018-based version of their transport model. It is not expected this model would represent Milton Keynes in detail, and the published reports show only a small area of Milton Keynes in the various traffic flow, junction delay and volume over capacity maps. Therefore, we only have limited information about the impact that the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission, and its suggested mitigation measures, would have on the wider Milton Keynes borough. As such we have, where possible, isolated Reference Case vs Local Plan comparisons in 2040 to look at the traffic impact of the plan on our eastern boundary, and the incremental effect of the suggested mitigation.
The modelling shows only a minor impact on the Milton Keynes junctions immediately to the west of the M1 between J13 and J14 when comparing ‘2040 reference Case’ with ‘LP2040 without mitigation’. The main difference near Milton Keynes is a modest increase in A421 traffic through Central Beds to Junction 13 and the M1. The small differences in flows between ‘with mitigation’ and ‘without mitigation’ shows that mitigation in Bedford borough would have little effect on this A421 increase. However, the mitigation does lead to slightly increased levels of traffic to/from Milton Keynes Borough on the A422 and A428 in the peaks, and junction delays and volume over capacity ratios in Milton Keynes. However they are not considered significant and the main impacts are due to reference case growth rather than new growth contained in the Local Plan 2040: Plan for submission.
It would be informative to understand the assumptions underlying the traffic generation represented in the modelling. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates that East West Rail Connections Stages 2 and 3 and Wixams and Stewartby Hardwick new Stations are included either as committed, planned, or informed by the modelling analysis. As stated in our previous response, it is not clear how the new services have been represented and the extent to which these changes affect the mode share of travel and contribute to the lower level of car traffic between Bedford borough and Milton Keynes. Also, we note that, within the reference case, neither Marston Gate Expansion nor MK East (now with outline permission) have been included as significant external developments. However, the effects of these developments are already well understood through existing modelling and, in combination with the small additional effects of the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission, are unlikely to result in significant impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 10081

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Overview
The main reason why the council is seeking to argue a stepped trajectory as part of its plan is because the emerging strategy remains significantly dependent on strategic sites burdened by extensive and expensive infrastructure requirements. This is confirmed as such in its stepped trajectory topic paper.

A large element of the council’s proposed supply (2,175 dwellings) is once again to come from four large, complicated sites in and around the town centre, none of which are anticipated to deliver a single unit within the first decade of the plan period. Indeed, based on our review of these opportunities below it is suggested that the council is ready concede that they are entirely undeliverable, hence their inclusion deep into the plan period.

Additionally, the bulk of supply from years 2030 to 2040 is expected at two new settlements – at Kempston Hardwick (covered by Policy HOU14) and at Little Barford (covered by Policy HOU19). The anticipated delivery rates at each, peaking at 600 dwellings per annum (dpa) during the final three years of the plan period, is simply astonishing and certainly not grounded in reality.

The Development Strategy
The council’s development strategy, set out as draft Policy DS2(S) ‘Spatial Strategy’ of the Local Plan 2040 is an ambitious one. It seeks to focus almost entirely upon securing housing through a combination of urban regeneration, urban extensions coupled with strategic infrastructure delivery, new settlements, and allocations in neighbourhood plan. In short, there are no quick wins. The ambitions are of course laudable, and all elements of the strategy accord with the various related threads of the NPPF. However, the strategy is littered with likely insurmountable challenges and instances where the council has simply failed to face the reality of the sites it is seeking to allocate.

The first critical area that the strategy has failed to grapple with in a sound manner is the mounting and soon to be acute need for new homes now, in the earliest years of the plan period. In this respect the strategy is imbalanced. To present our analysis in respect of the trajectory in a different way – if the council was to prepare a paper demonstrating its 5-year housing land supply position for the initial years of the plan without a reduction in the annual requirement prior to 2025 it would only be able to demonstrate an approximate 3.64-year supply.

The council has identified in its trajectory that the current commitments across the Borough – largely comprising the completion of larger sites first identified in the previous Local Plan adopted some 20 years ago in 2002 – will provide almost all new homes across the Borough during the first five years of the plan period. Incredibly, and bearing in mind the anticipated 1,925-unit undersupply based on the council’s LHN, only three of the council’s new allocations to be introduced by the Local Plan 2040 are expected to deliver any units prior to 2026 (so the first 5 years) and even then they will only yield 63 units. To expand on this point and set against a deficit of 3,450 units for the first 10 years of the plan period these new allocations will only yield a total of 983 units prior to 2030, so less than a single year’s worth of need.

To clarify, when faced with a deficit in supply in the first 5-years and indeed 10-years of the plan period the council has chosen to ignore this inconvenience rather than allocate the sites required to meet these needs now. The success of the plan’s development strategy and its approach to growth continues to rely on 20-year-old sites to continue to meet the changed and more substantial needs of today. This appears to represent the complete antithesis of the NPPF’s drive to significantly boost the supply of new homes and is entirely at odds with the requirements of paragraph 68 of the NPPF to identify a supply of specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period.

On this basis the plan’s development strategy, in respect of securing sufficient housing delivery over the next 5-years is not currently fit for purpose. It is in fact too ambitious and fails to meet the basic requirements of a local plan – that is to meet the immediate development needs of the Borough. A far greater variety of sites are required which can be delivered much earlier in the plan period and are devoid of any physical, technical, or legal constraints.

Indeed, the proposed plan features the exact same glaring omission as the adopted Local Plan 2030, that is an inexplicable paucity of new allocations on the edge of the Bedford/Kempston urban area. This is highlighted by Policy DS5(S) ‘Distribution of growth’ which identifies that only 1,500 of the additional dwellings to be delivered by the plan will be on strategic locations adjacent to the urban area with the delivery of all of these hindered by the need for significant infrastructure delivery. More straightforward urban edge sites offer the best balance of deliverability (generally unconstrained greenfield sites served by existing urban infrastructure) and accessibility with land at the correct locations afforded swift access to existing shops, services, and facilities within the urban area. Our client’s land at Salph End represents a compelling opportunity to deliver exactly this type of site, one which we reiterate later in this submission.

Town Centre Sites
Turning to look at the council’s anticipated supply over the 2030 to 2040 period the continued inclusion of the four saved ‘town centre’ sites as allocations in the plan along with an additional opportunity at Ampthill Road represents a significant concern to our client. Put simply we do not consider that these sites are deliverable and certainly we do not feel that the council has made sufficient evidence available to justify their inclusion in the plan. This corresponds with our client’s position put towards the examination of the Local Plan 2030. Combined we consider that the town centre sites are significantly burdened by infrastructure, legal and environmental constraints that means they cannot possibly be included in the council’s trajectory with any certainty.

Whilst we would usually comment on the substance and direction of the allocation policies covering each site it is noted that the council is instead relying on an approach which ‘saves’ the four previous allocations included in the Local Plan 2030. Only Ampthill Road benefits from a new allocation policy. In which case our commentary in respect of this submission critiques the achievability of each site and the way in which significant doubts around their delivery impact on the efficacy of the updated development strategy.

Infrastructure Constraints

One of the key constraints to the delivery of the four original town centre sites (those allocated by the Local Plan 2030) is the lack of funding for key pieces of infrastructure, the Ford End Underbridge / Prebend Street Relief Road prominent amongst them. On review, and considering our concerns in respect of this matter raised at the time, the inspectors of the Local Plan 2030 recognised the dubious nature of the town centre sites with reference to supporting infrastructure in particular, albeit giving the council the benefit of the doubt due to the required early review of the plan.

In their report, and on the town centre sites, the Inspectors confirmed:

“75. We are aware that some of the sites identified have remained undeveloped for some time and some are subject to multiple constraints, not all of which can be resolved in the short-term, although the continued involvement of One Public Estate (OPE) in bringing together public land, and promoting it for redevelopment, will help play a part. The provision of infrastructure with the help of the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) will assist in bringing the town centre sites forward in a co-ordinated manner and ensure the viability of future development. A funding bid for the construction of the Ford End Underbridge has been identified as a key component in ensuring the delivery of future development across the town centre.

76. At the time of writing this bid has not been formally approved, and so there is no certainty that funding for the project will be secured entirely through the public purse. However, we are conscious that without inclusion within the plan, the impetus to secure funding is less likely, reducing the likelihood that the redevelopment of town centre sites would come forward in a coordinated manner. In such circumstances the objectives of the plan would be unlikely to be realised. We therefore consider that uncertainty over the HIF bid at this time should not preclude the town centre sites from allocation. Nevertheless, we have taken a cautious approach in relation to the timescale for delivery of these sites in our assessment of likely housing supply.”

In which case one key reason why the previous Inspectors maintained the sites as allocations in the plan was to reinforce the council’s bid for HIF funding for a critical piece of infrastructure required to enable the town centre sites, the Ford End Underbridge. The reliance of the delivery of these sites on this project is in fact emphasised beyond doubt in the adopted Local Plan 2030 and in respect of the Ford End Road site, with the text supporting its allocation stating:

“7.13 Critical to the overall brief which will emerge for the scheme is the fact that the housing concept must both deliver attractive modern urban living and either improvements to the transport networks or a form of development which will limit the impact on the network. This will to some degree depend on the outcome of the Council’s Housing Infrastructure Fund bid which seeks to secure funding for a replacement Ford End Road bridge and the provision of the Prebend Street relief road. In addition, a western access to Bedford Midland station for the public and operational purposes should be constructed if site constraints permit.”

Shortly after the adoption of the Local Plan 2030 the council’s HIF bid for £15m was rejected by Secretary of State Robert Jenrick MP as it did not meet the criteria required to secure HIF money. To this end this critical piece of infrastructure required to deliver the town centre sites remains unfunded. The reliance on the road scheme does, however, remain. Paragraph 5.11 of AECOM’s infrastructure report supporting the council’s stepped trajectory confirms that “the Prebend Street Relief Road…supports the cumulative growth in the urban area, particularly the existing allocations on Ford End Road and South of the River, as well as from (sic) smaller new sites”. However, at paragraphs 4.3.48 to 4.3.50 of AECOM’s main Infrastructure Delivery Plan they reiterate that following the unsuccessful HIF bid these critical highways upgrades in the town centre remain unfunded with the now £16m cost to be covered by “a range of sources including developer funding”.

On this basis the justification for including (retaining) these sites in the plan cited by the Local Plan 2030 Inspectors falls away. There was hope that their allocation would attract the necessary government funding required to aid their delivery – this strategy failed. In which case what the council is now left with is four sites crucial to the delivery of its development strategy which are devoid of the means to deliver the infrastr

Ownership and Legal Constraints

There are other critical issues with at least two of the town centre sites that will at best significantly delay their delivery but more likely render them entirely unachievable. Focusing on Land South of the River the key issue remains the complexity of its ownership. Whilst the One Public Estate (OPE) initiative will assist in coordinating the delivery of the assets of bodies such as Bedford Borough Council, the NHS and Network Rail it was made clear during the site assessment process accompanying the Local Plan 2030 that the site is burdened by a far more complex tapestry of ownership comprising private landlords, investment companies and commercial businesses. It is unclear to what extent each of the individual landowners was engaged as part of the Local Plan 2030 process or indeed whether they have once again been engaged in respect of the Local Plan 2040 process. Accordingly, it remains unclear whether any form of binding Joint Landowner Agreement is in place allowing for the robust promotion of some of the key tranches of land within the masterplan area.

It is acknowledged that the bodies comprising the OPE played an active role in the formulation of the original Town Centre Masterplan, essentially a high-level delivery strategy which formed part of the evidence base of the Local Plan 2030. However, it was entirely unclear what involvement the remainder of the private and corporate landowners across the allocation had in the process. Paragraph 1.16 of the document stated that “there are a number of sites that are linked and have interdependencies requiring a co-ordinated approach to their release, especially those within the ownership of One Public Estate partners. It is recognised that these sites can be difficult to unlock, and as a consequence may take time to come forward, possibly beyond the timeframe of the emerging Local Plan”. This suggested that the full list of landowners was only coordinated to the loosest extent prior to the formulation of this strategy.

The ownership history of the land at Ford End Road is similarly complex. Prior to its identification in the Local Plan 2030 the land was promoted as part of the Call for Sites exercise in December 2015 by the council’s own Environment and Sustainable Communities Director. It is notable that the Call for Sites form submitted at the time failed to conclude on whether there were legal or ownership constraints or whether the site was even available for development. It did, however, confirm that the initial 24ha site had six owners comprising a mixture of public bodies, private investors and existing businesses. The owners were stated as Bedford Borough Council, Charles Wells, National Grid, Rolls Royce, Network Rail and the NHS. This assumed the inclusion of the brewery land that the site now wraps around. At this point the Ford End Road development was intended to secure the complete regeneration of a range of bad neighbour uses at the heart of one of the town centre’s largest residential areas. This objective allowed the then draft allocation to gain significant traction.

On allocating the site paragraph 7.11 of the now adopted Local Plan 2030 confirms that “the Land at Ford End Road is a substantial development site to the west of the town centre which is currently in a number of ownerships. As such it is essential that development is guided by a comprehensive development brief which ensures that should some parcels come forward independently they will not prejudice the overall aims of the brief. At the present time the Eagle Brewery occupies part of the site and the Plan does not rely on any housing contribution from the site in the period before 2030. The brief must therefore demonstrate how the early phases of development can coexist alongside the Brewery whilst setting out how a comprehensive vision can be achieved across the site in the longer term”.

However, coinciding with the adoption of the plan Marston’s Brewery was in the process of acquiring the site as a going concern at a cost of £55m. This transaction is now complete. The former owner, Charles Wells, has now relocated its operations to the edge of the urban area. Marston’s has since begun to expand its own brewing operations at the site kick-started by an initial investment of £250,000 into its general refurbishment and followed by an increase in the number of beer lines brewed on the premises along with the operational decision to make the brewery its centre of distribution for import lines such as Estrella Damm. In short, the site now represents a key part of Marston’s portfolio and it looks extremely unlikely that this land remains available to the council. It is, however, clearly still assumed that the brewery land will come forward at some point for development.

Technical and Environmental Constraints

In respect of land at Ford End Road contamination, and the costs associated with the remediation of the site, clearly remains the most critical concern in respect of its delivery. We understand that since 2002 there have been consistent attempts to sell the old gas works land on its own since it was decommissioned. These attempts have continually been hampered by issues relating to a lack of information in terms of the extent of contamination and any necessary remediation. We understand that the current owners are not prepared to give any warranties in respect of these matters.

The deliverability of the site is key to ensure that it can be considered as a sound allocation in the context of the Plan’s spatial strategy. The lack of market interest for a potential housing site that has carried consistent Officer support since at least 2002 is compelling. BNP Paribas first placed the land on the market on behalf of National Grid in May 2016. This position endures at the time of writing with expressions of interest invited on the 5ha gasworks site by noon on 7th September 2022 . Based on ongoing updates provided to our client by a local agent we understand that, despite sporadic interest in the site, it remains on the market largely due to the burden of remediation.

It was also made clear from the Bedford Masterplan sites assessment document, prepared in support of the Local Plan 2030, that there are a number of environmental constraints that would influence the delivery of development within the Land South of the River allocation. The most significant of these appear to relate to heritage and archaeology. It is not clear whether any further work has been undertaken in respect of these matters since. We would expect that if they had they would comprise part of the evidence base of the Local Plan 2040. Specifically, the development of the Kingsway Triangle, at the core of the site, is impacted by 26 Cauldwell Street, a Grade II listed building which will require appropriate treatment of its setting from any surrounding development.

In addition, much of the allocation potentially impacts on the historic King’s Ditch of the Medieval town, which is an area of high archaeological value. The Historic Environment Records (HER) for Bedford shows archaeological finds in relation to the Anglo-Saxon settlement including timber framed buildings, tips, a hearth, pot kiln and bread oven. In the absence of any heritage appraisal of the land or below ground survey work it is impossible to conclude how heritage assets will impact on both delivery and site capacity.

A large portion of the site comprises the Britannia Road car park which provides staff parking for Bedford Hospital, one of the largest employers in the town. Loss of even a small proportion of the capacity provided by this already oversubscribed facility would place crippling pressure on parking in and around the hospital site. Without any indication that subscription to this car park is due to decrease the feasibility of this element of the allocation falls on the lack of an alternative strategy for replacement car parking provision.

We requested that the council produces clear evidence to respond to all of these issues, across both sites, as part of the Local Plan 2030 process, albeit it was not forthcoming. There appears to be even less information made available in respect of the delivery of these key sites as part of this consultation with the council apparently seeking to ‘bank’ them as saved allocations. However, the comments made by the previous Inspectors who raised reservations about the deliverability of the town centre sites indicate that they must be investigated afresh, and indeed more rigorously, as part of this process to warrant their retention in the council’s housing trajectory. Both the Land South of the River and Ford End Road allocation demand the production of a significant amount of additional evidence to justify their renewed inclusion as a combined source of 1,700 new homes over the plan period.

Viability

The viability of the town centre sites is currently a concern that must be taken very seriously by the council. The viability assessment of each, prepared by Carter Jonas and included as part of the evidence base of the Local Plan 2040, demonstrates that none of the four town centre sites would be viable based on a combination of 30% affordable housing (the policy requirement) and set against current day benchmark land values and project costs. Each of the Land South of the River, Ford End Road, Greyfriars and Ampthill Road sites would only be demonstrably viable based on optimistic projections in respect of appreciating residential market values, a reduction in affordable housing delivery (in some instances to 0%) and an assumed start on site date of no sooner than 2030. In short, there is a significant level of conjecture around whether these sites will ever be viable.

The land at Ford End Road is a strong case in point. The council has failed to learn from the difficulties experienced in the past in relation to realising the redevelopment of the site in light of the significant costs and technical constraints related to its contamination. Proposals were first in place as long ago as 2002 to realise the land as a new sustainable community at the town. To stimulate its delivery a Development Brief for the Gas Works Site was adopted as SPD in July 2002, an initiative that was bolstered by significant financial support from the East of England Development Agency of around £2 million. An outline planning application was then submitted that secured a recommendation for consent for 154 dwellings and 9,000ft² of employment space (03/01660/OUT). Tellingly this permission lapsed due to a failure to agree a satisfactory planning obligation. This is a strong indication that viability represented a critical constraint even at a time when the housing market was reaching its peak. Therefore, despite the provision of an enabling development brief, the securing of funding for remediation and demonstrable developer interest the site continues to lie entirely undeveloped.

On this basis the Carter Jonas Viability Assessment serves to amplify rather than allay these concerns in respect of its deliverability. The financial appraisal results at Table 3 of the document demonstrate that the residual value of the developable area of the site (apparently including the currently unavailable brewery due to the use of a development target of 700 dwellings) may be somewhere between -£4.4m and -£12.3m. This is depending on affordable housing contributions with the least level of loss representing a zero contribution. It is only when speculative land and market housing costs for the 2030/31 period are factored in that Carter Jonas appear confident enough to demonstrate a positive land value of £9.1m including a 30% affordable housing contribution (£23m without). This is purely speculation.

Critically, in calculating the development costs at paragraphs 2.7 to 2.29 of the report Carter Jonas appear to omit reference to one key abnormal – the cost of remediation. The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) published guidance entitled ‘Guidance to Dereliction, Demolition and Remediation Costs’ in March 2015 that explored model remediation costs across a range of site types. Figure 2 of the guidance shows that the remediation of sites of this type, comprising smaller gas works and various open industrial land, would likely command an upper cost of approximately £740,000 per hectare prior to the safe implementation of a residential use. This equates to remediation costs across the site of approximately £12.58m (2015 prices). Based on the same approach taken by Carter Jonas in index-linking costs and values up to the 2030/31 period it is anticipated that this figure would amount to close on £20m at the point of development. This would at best result in one of the Council’s key residential sites likely delivering zero affordable housing and would most likely render it unviable unless all of Carter Jonas’ projections are realised.

Otherwise, the findings in respect of the other town centre sites are far from positive. In respect of the Greyfriars site (287 dwellings) paragraphs 3.41 and 3.42 conclude:

“The viability modelling of the Greyfriars site indicates that residential development is not viable when the residual land value is compared to the site’s Benchmark Land Value based on current day costs and values. However, the sensitivity analysis indicates that viability improves in the scenario where growth and inflation is applied, to the point that the scheme’s development value shows a positive residual land value, although this remains significantly below the Benchmark Land Value.

The Greyfriars site includes the urban renewal of social housing, and in reality BPHA (the housing provider) may not sell its land to implement the new housing scheme, which would lower the Benchmark Land Value for the Greyfriars site overall. It is not uncommon for urban estate renewal schemes to show a deficit position against the Benchmark Land Value in terms of the financial viability assessment and subsequently proceed on this basis. This is because, there is usually an investment programme that seeks to renew an asset that it coming to the end of its life and is considered to be a long term liability.”

In which case the viability of this proposal appears to be based on yet more assumptions, that is the availability of public project funding. In any event, and even without an affordable housing contribution, the margins are small with an at-best £4.4m residual land value estimated at 2030/31.

The viability of both Land South of the River and Ampthill Road once again appear troubling based on current day benchmarking and costs. Together these sites are heavily reliant on accurate appreciation in market values to achieve a positive residual land value by 2030/31, albeit it is acknowledged that the Ampthill Road land would currently carry a positive residual land value in the instance of a 0% affordable housing contribution. In respect of Land South of the River the key hub site of the Kingsway Triangle represents the parcel most at risk in respect of viability with negative values in the event that a 30% affordable housing contribution is required. In any event all matters in respect of the viability of the site must be considered alongside the significant infrastructure, environmental and legal constraints identified elsewhere in our submission.

New Settlements
The second limb of the council's trajectory that causes us significant concern relates to the extraordinarily swift projected delivery of two significant and complicated new settlements, at Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford, which between them are to deliver over 50% of the council’s residual housing requirement over the plan period – specifically 7,600 houses. These are all to be delivered in the period 2030 to 2040 following the completion of various pieces of strategic infrastructure. We do, however, consider that many of the council’s assumptions which lead them to the delivery trajectory of both sites are hugely misjudged and not based on any apparent evidence.

Delivery rates

The council’s trajectory, set out in the relevant topic paper, seeks to demonstrate that across the two new settlements the council will secure 7,600 dwellings over a 10-year period. On average this represents the delivery of 760 houses across per annum. This figure is significantly bolstered by the council’s expectations that by 2037/38 these new settlements between them will be yielding 1,200 houses each year, 600 houses at each site. This represents approximately four completions every single day over a three-year period – that is almost 30 likely similar new homes coming onto the market each week.

These expectations represent a gross misunderstanding of how the housing market operates. As referenced elsewhere in this submission our client recently completed a public inquiry in respect of their Section 78 appeal seeking permission for the delivery of their land at Salph End. During this inquiry both parties – our client and the council – engaged in a rigorous assessment of housing delivery across the Borough which included a suite of evidence submitted by development in respect of intended delivery rates on individual sites.

Based upon responses from a range of national housebuilders the average delivery rate per developer is approximately 50-75 dwelling per annum per site. The only instances where delivery expectations exceeded 75dpa were at Wixams (200dpa) and at Wootton (121dpa). There were, however, extenuating circumstances allowing a higher rate of delivery in each instance. At Wixams the housing was being delivered by Barratt David Wilson Homes who were delivering 100dpa under each brand – essentially there were two developers on site. Then, at Wootton the 121dpa target was to be achieved through a consortium of three developers working closely together – Taylor Wimpey, Bellway and Bovis. Based on the more productive Wixams site it would require 12 developers working simultaneously spread across both new settlements, each delivering 100dpa, to achieve the 1,200dpa anticipated from 2037 onwards. The market could not withstand this, consequently the development industry would not support this, and in any event the likely supply of labour will not be able to accommodate this.

In comparison the council’s previous proposed new settlement at Colworth, which was included in the initial submission draft of the now adopted Local Plan 2030, was anticipated to deliver 275dpa following the construction of its own proposed railway station. Our client challenged even these expectations at the time as being unrealistic. To now assume the not one but two new settlements will deliver up to 600dpa each concurrently is fantastical and not rooted in any form of reality.

The council does of course have experience in delivering new settlements. Wixams Village to the south of Bedford is now delivering homes at a consistent rate and represents a vital contributor to the Borough’s housing land supply. It also presents an ideal case study demonstrating the reality of the delivery of new settlements both by the council but also within the specific housing market area.

In November 2016, Lichfields published a comprehensive assessment of industry average delivery rates for strategic development sites entitled titled ‘Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?’ (November 2016, followed by an equally helpful update in February 2020). This report recognises that there are a lot of factors that influence the delivery rate on large sites including the strength of the local housing market, the number of sales outlets and the tenure mix of units. On average, however, it finds that the build-out rate for sites of more than 2,000 homes is just 161 homes.

Helpfully the report includes the figures on the delivery rate of the Wixams development as one its sample developments used to identify its average lead in times and delivery rates. Excluding its first year of delivery (only 8 dwellings) the report shows that Wixams delivered on average just 137 dwellings per year for the following 6 years (up to 2015/16, the date of publication of the Lichfield report). In respect of completion in the years since we refer to the council’s own monitoring data (its annual housing monitoring reports) which show that in the years since annual completions were 37, 47, 95, 114 and 177 or an average of only 94dpa. Compared to this analysis even the council’s expectations of 200dpa for each new settlement in the second and third years of delivery seem incredibly ambitious.

Returning to the 600dpa figure it is then notable that of the 70 sites assessed by Lichfields, ranging from 500 to 15,000 dwellings, only two of them saw the delivery of more than 600 homes in a single monitoring year – Cambourne near Cambridge and The Hamptons on the edge of Peterborough. In which case local experience born out of the Wixams delivery, the average delivery rates of 161dpa for large sites calculated by Lichfields, and even the long list of individual delivery years shown in the raw data provided by Lichfields shows that the council’s expectations of 600dpa on not one but two sites in the Borough does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

In terms of lead in times and first completions the council’s projections are once again very optimistic. The timescales indicated by the council’s ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ suggest that first completions will be recorded on each site during year 2030/31. Then, it is expected that they would hit the ground running with an impressive delivery of 100 units in the very first year. For two new settlements which will require an entirely new network of infrastructure linking them to primary transport networks this is unrealistic. Turning once again to the ‘Start to Finish’ analysis it identifies an average planning approval period of 6.1 years for site of 2,000 homes or more. This timescale accounts for the period from first identification to the submission of the application and then the time taken to secure an implementable consent.

On the basis of the adoption of the Local Plan 2040 in December 2023 as per the Local Development Scheme and allowing for the average planning to first completion period of 6.1 years there is a chance that homes may be ready on each site by 2030 as estimated. However, due to the complexity of each proposal, the requirement that they both ‘plug in’ to other overarching infrastructure strategies (including East West Rail – see below) and reflecting on the gestation period for a scheme of the same scale in the same borough, the Wixams, of 10.5 years (taken from the Start to Finish analysis) we are confident that at best first completions should be expected closer to 2035.

It is then noted that both new settlements are included in the plan to complement the delivery of proposed rail infrastructure, situated as they are in the proposed East West Rail (EWR) corridor either side of Bedford. On this basis it is clear that the delivery of the new route and the two new stations which will serve the settlements will play a key role in unlocking their development potential. Indeed, in respect of the new settlement at Kempston Hardwick paragraph 4.85 of the plan confirms that “the likely timing of key infrastructure provision, particularly EWR and the A421 (road upgrade) mean that the development will take place later in the plan period and deliver around 3,800 homes by 2040”. On that basis it is helpful to look at some additional case studies of the time taken to deliver new railway stations, all of which were proposed to complement new growth:

• East Midlands Parkway (Midland Main Line) – Delivery timescale = 9 years (planning submission to operation), but unclear what the lead in time was for an application:
Outline planning application (Ref: 00/00656/OUT) submitted to Rushcliffe Borough Council in June 2000 and permitted in November 2002. 2 subsequent applications to vary consent to allow reserved matters application to be submitted later (Ref: 05/01514/VAR and 06/00965/VAR). Reserved matters application submitted in February 2007 and approved in October 2007 (Ref: 07/00417/REM). The station opened in January 2009.

• Stratford-Upon-Avon Parkway – Delivery timescale = 10 years (proposals to operation) or 3 years (planning submission to operation):
In 2003, an initial study considered the possibility of a Parkway Station. In 2008 a further study was undertaken that indicated that there would be sufficient demand for a railway station located at this site. The proposed station was then included within the second Warwickshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011. An outline planning application was submitted by Warwickshire County Council in October 2010 and approved in April 2011 (Ref: SDC/10CC058). The Station opened in May 2013.

• Cambridge North – Delivery timescale = 14 years (proposal to operation) or 4 years (planning submission to operation):
A station serving the north of Cambridge was first proposed in 2003 in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan. A major scheme business case was presented to the Department of Transport in 2007. Progress was slow due to a number of issues including difficulties in relocating rail freight operations elsewhere, as well as funding difficulties. A full planning application was submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council in July 2013 and approved in July 2015 (Ref: S/1497/13/CM). The station opened in May 2017.

These case studies suggest the average period between the proposal of a new station and its opening is approximately 12 years. Even then these are all for new stations on existing railway routes. In the case of EWR the railway line will itself first need to be constructed, a project which currently only proposes stopping services at an upgraded Ridgmont Station, approximately 8km to the south. Planning permission will then be required, funding secured, and all engineering and construction works completed prior to the station opening.

Closer to home the delivery of the Wixams Station is further evidence of both the delays and uncertainty related to the delivery of new railway infrastructure. With funding part secured from Gallagher Estates as part of a 2006 Section 106 Legal Agreement, of which Bedford Borough Council were a signatory, it was anticipated that match funding would be secured from Network Rail to allow delivery of the station by 2014. Following prioritisation of the EWR project Network Rail effectively withdrew their own funding pledge leaving the delivery of the station in doubt. The council has only very recently been able to identify alternative funding for its delivery and a period of further consultation closed on 24th July 2022. This included a project timeline suggesting that the station is intended to open in 2024. Even if this target is hit it would represent a delivery period of 22 years following the initial identification of the Wixams project in the 2002 Local Plan.

In which case there are several questions that the council must answer conclusively in its evidence base to provide assurances that these two new settlements can be included as such a key component of supply in its trajectory. These are:

• Based on limited evidence in respect of deliverability, feasibility, and phasing for each new settlement in the evidence base of the Local Plan 2040 (indeed, the Kempston Hardwick proposal is not even mentioned in the council’s ‘New Settlements Assessment’ topic paper – a perplexing omission) how can the council support its assumptions of first delivery within 7 years of the adoption of the plan?
• Taking into account the rigorous analysis of Lichfields in respect of completion rates (concluding at an average across all large sites of 162dpa), allied with the similar rates of delivery at Wixams and the evidence presented by numerous developers towards the inquiry relating to our client’s own land, how can the council possibly justify an upper delivery rate of 600dpa concurrently at each new settlement?
• Considering the intention of both settlements to complement and be supported by the delivery of significant new road and rail schemes can the council clearly demonstrate how build-out rates are positively catalysed by the delivery of this infrastructure and can it be assured that the completion of new homes will not be compromised by any delays in delivery (funding, hidden archaeology, ground conditions etc)?

Without a satisfactory and rigorous response to all of these questions it is impossible for the council to demonstrate that its current trajectory in respect of the two new settlements is justified. By pushing the first delivery of each site backwards to the more realistic 2035/36 monitoring year and by then reducing annual delivery rates at each site to the benchmark 161dpa indicated by the Lichfields study this would see the loss of almost 6,000 homes form the council’s trajectory. This represents a critical issue in respect of the deliverability of the plan and its strategy.

Conclusions on the Development Strategy
What is clear from the analysis set out above is that the council’s continued heavy reliance on five town centre sites (the four previously allocated in the Local Plan 2030 and the proposed additional site at Ampthill Road) and two substantial and complicated new settlement proposals represents a significant flaw in its development strategy. It also places the plan’s ability to deliver the level of housing required prior to 2040 at significant risk, particularly considering the minimal 4.6% uplift applied to its LHN.

In total the five town centre sites are expected to yield 2,705 dwellings over the plan period before 2040. If even 50% of these dwellings do not come forward in time the council will miss its overall development target of 27,100 homes. Bearing in mind that the adopted Local Plan 2030 anticipated 1,441 of these dwellings to be complete prior to 2030 the slippage in delivery timescales over a 3-year period already suggests reliance on these sites presents unacceptable risk to its development strategy.

Then, based on the application of more realistic assumptions in respect of both delivery timescales and then annual built rates at the council’s two new settlements we contend that up to a further 6,000 homes should be removed from the trajectory. This would surely provide a significant nail in the coffin of the soundness of the plan. Previously the council sought to shorten the plan period to dodge this bullet. This option no longer exists with paragraph 22 of the NPPF requiring a plan period which extends at least 15 years beyond the year of adoption. This would take the council through to 2038.

The combination of the council’s lowered delivery targets for the 2020-2030 period (see our analysis of the stepped trajectory in Enclosure 2) along with this likely slippage and significant reduction in delivery during the 2031-2040 period results in a development strategy which is full of holes and drastically inadequate. The council cannot afford to proceed on this basis. There is an evident need to approach the Local Plan 2040 as one which significantly boosts the supply of housing now whilst also being realistic in respect of its supply later. A wholesale review of the current draft strategy is necessary, one which must include the identification of alternative sites set against an alternative strategy which seeks to make the most of deliverable and sustainable development opportunities adjacent to the urban area.

Conclusions on soundness

Policy DS2(S): The spatial strategy of the plan as drafted is unsound. It includes a rigid, imbalanced, and overly ambitious strategy which is too heavily reliant on constrained urban sites, many of which cannot be demonstrated as either deliverable or developable, along with substantial new settlements and communities which as demonstrated by the proposed housing trajectory will not begin to deliver homes until beyond 2030 at the very earliest and then nowhere close to the rates suggested by the council. It is a strategy which fails to meet its most basic requirement of achieving a 5-year supply of housing land and fails to secure any level of sufficient delivery until at least 10 years into the plan period.

Crucially it fails to make the most of sustainable and swiftly deliverable development opportunities on the urban edge such as that of our client’s land. Combined, these weaknesses result in a plan which will fail to keep up with housing needs for the entirety of the plan period and will most likely fail to meet its overall housing target. These factors will exacerbate affordability and result in other unsustainable impacts such as in-commuting and increased car usage. On this basis the plan should be considered unsound in that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

Policy DS5(S): This policy is then closely aligned with Policy DS2(S) in that it demonstrates where the new housing allocated by the plan is to be delivered, indicating the significant bulk is to be accommodated by new settlements which will only yield new homes deep into the plan period. It highlights the low level of development directed towards urban edge locations and simply illustrates our client’s concerns in respect of an entirely imbalanced development strategy. As an extension of Policy DS2(S) this policy should be considered unsound in that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.