Policy DS2(S) Spatial strategy

Comment

Representation ID: 10089

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Trakbak Racing Limited

Agent: WSP

Need for SPR to be allocated as a key employment/sports arena to support its continued growth and development
SPR is a sporting facility of national significance which makes a valuable cultural and economic contribution to the local area, as set out earlier in these (and previous) representations. Despite this, there is no policy allocation in the emerging or adopted local plan which reflects the primacy of the venue and which looks to support its future growth. This is the despite SPR continuing to look for opportunities to expand its operations, to the benefit of the local area, owing to its continued success as a venue.

The lack of an allocation of SPR appears to be an oversight in the emerging local plan, Trakbak Racing LTD therefore would like to put forward the site for a specific allocation which looks to support the upgrading and expansion of this key employment area and sports arena. A red line boundary is attached at Appendix A of this letter which shows the site area proposed to be put forward for this allocation. This red line boundary encompasses the whole site as well as some land to the west of it that SPR may consider expanding into in the future.
The red line boundary outlined should be allocated under a specific policy entitled ‘Santa Pod Raceway’. This allocation should then explain the significant cultural and economic contribution of SPR before stating that any proposals for development at the raceway, which are related to and build upon its existing operations, will be permitted as long as it is considered sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
The addition of this policy allocation in the emerging plan would be in accordance with paragraph 81 of the NPPF as it would help create conditions for this key local business (of national significance) to invest, expand and adapt, increasing the number of people it can employ and benefitting the economy.
Need for a noise buffer zone around SPR
When the Council previously withdrew the garden village settlement at Colworth (nearby to SPD) which was put forward as an allocation in the previously emerging Bedford Local Plan 2030, they recognised that the development of housing in close proximity to SPR is inappropriate. Despite this, there is nothing in the ‘Spatial strategy and Site allocations’ chapter, on pages 22-84 of the emerging Local Plan 2040, to reflect that or to protect SPR from the effects of alternative development proposals on its business.
Trakbak Racing LTD has concerns about this, and in particular if the Council fall into a position of failing to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land during the emerging plan period which could result in speculative housing applications being submitted nearby to SPR. At paragraph 3.9 of the document ‘Trakbak Racing LTD Regulation 19 Representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan (October 2018)’ it is explained that there is a known noise issue in connection with SPR. In consequence, there is a risk of unreasonable restrictions being placed on SPR because of new development.
In relation to this, paragraph 187 of the NPPF that “existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established” needs to be complied with to ensure that the emerging local plan is in accordance with policies of the NPPF (as required by paragraph 35 of the NPPF). The agent of change (the housing development) should be required to provide suitable mitigation where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development.
Appendix 23 of Trakbak Racing LTD Regulation 19 Representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (October 2018) contains a letter from MAS Environmental dated 25th October 2018. This
3 Reference to this can be found on page 3 of the Appendix 2 which outlines a composite list of noise assessments undertaken by MAS Environmental

letter explains that any development within the previously proposed Colworth garden village development area (site reference 1002) would carry significant risks regarding noise impact. Development in the area indicated as the inner buffer zone (within a 1.4km area of SPR, highlighted in red on figure 1) would be subject to noise from the raceway for the majority of events and there is no evidence to suggest that mitigation could adequately resolve the issue.
Trakbak Racing has been advised that any housing development approved within this area would indicate substantial changes needed at SPR and potential demise of the business due to noise complaints or severe restrictions on the operation and use of the raceway. Housing therefore should not be allocated, or approved, in this inner zone.
The outer buffer zone (within a 2.4 km area of SPR, highlighted in blue on figure 1) corresponds with the distance from the raceway to the nearest residential housing in Podington and Souldrop, where there has historically been a campaign of noise monitoring. Within this area, Trakbak Racing have been advised that, any proposed housing would require significant and substantial mitigation both at the development site and at the raceway.
In this outer buffer zone it should be essential for the Council to be satisfied, before supporting the allocation of any sites, that it would be possible for mitigation within the proposed development to provide an acceptable noise environment. This would need to be supported by robust evidence and the Council should provide guidance in the Local Plan as to what standard should be required.
Figure 1: Proposed noise buffer zones for residential housing within 1.4km (outlined in red) and 2.4km (outlined in blue) of Santa Pod

Adoption of the MAS recommended exclusion buffer zone would represent a positive response to the issue of housing around SPR and would ensure that paragraph 187 (‘agent of change’) of the NPPF is complied with. The restriction will need to be in a strategic policy to ensure that it guides the neighbourhood planning process adequately.
It is significant that in the case of SPR there is no restriction on noise levels. The distance selected for the buffer zone has been identified based on the measured noise levels experienced in the relevant areas and so is based on a sound evidence base.
The introduction of housing into the inner buffer zone would represent a serious threat to the continuation of the business at SPR. It would not accord with paragraph 187 of the NPPF and so would render the plan unsound. Any housing within the outer buffer zone would need to be subject to robust mitigation measures to provide a specified satisfactory indoor and outdoor noise environment and sites should not be allocated unless that can clearly be demonstrated. In this case the plan does not, in the absence of policy guidance in relation to the location of housing to avoid noise issues from SPR, provide a clear and adequate strategic framework and that omission goes to the soundness of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10104

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Bromham

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.
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 757 Land South of Northampton Road, Bromham). 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.

Object

Representation ID: 10108

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Roxton

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.
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 776 Land off Bedford Road, Roxton). 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.

Object

Representation ID: 10117

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. This representation relates to Land at Marsh Lane/Rushden Road, Milton Ernest (Site ID: 910) and should be read alongside the accompanying Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report (Appendix 1) and Opportunities and Constraints Diagram (Appendix 2) appended with this Form.

These objections relate to land partly allocated within the Milton Ernest NDP and the remainder of which presents opportunities to contribute towards additional needs for development. Within the context of our client’s overarching objections regarding soundness and legal compliance the failure of the Local Plan 2040 to provide a housing requirement figure for the designated neighbourhood area at Milton Ernest, or to consider needs beyond 2030, has precluded further assessment of this option.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

This is despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.


Policy DS2(S) is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 and provides for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals and objectives for sustainable development in the rural area (and specifically at Milton Ernest) than is provided for under the existing spatial strategy or required as part of an appropriate strategy for the Local Plan 2040.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722.

The Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that in the case of Milton Ernest have sought to support growth to 2030 only at the lower end of an identified range.

This should be considered within the context of the Examiner’s Report for the made Neighbourhood Plan (and subsequent Modifications to the Plan) recognising the requirement for review of the NDP within five years from adoption and expressly requiring recognition of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 (para 4.10). Specifically, regarding our client’s interests and the proposed extension of the site boundary (including provision of additional open space) (para 4.33) the Examiner recognised this is a matter that could be considered as part of planning applications for the site. However, in terms of the site assessment and plan-making process these are evidently matters that should be considered within the context of the Local Plan Review where there are opportunities to complement the existing direction of growth.

It is relevant to note that our client’s land, as with all other options for village-related growth, has been rejected as part of the SHELAA and SA processes despite the land having been part-allocated within the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan. Notwithstanding this, it is also noted that the Council’s assessment of SA indicators for the site fail to recognise its opportunity to provide new open space (7a) and that the allocation in the site itself will provide appropriate landscape mitigation (8a). There is also the opportunity to enhance social cohesion through the provision of allotments. It is only the process of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040 that can reasonably consider the current circumstances of the land and its scope to support further sustainable allocations for growth and this simply has not been carried out within the evidence base.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Milton Ernest where this is capable of being accommodated within the context of the existing spatial strategy.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 10120

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Bedfordshire

Agent: Bidwells

General comments
Whilst agreeing that the allocation of site HOU8 is sound, I recognise that it is important that the development strategy as a whole is sound in order to ensure that development of my client’s site can be realised in the future. On this basis, I feel it prudent to note the below points in relation to the wider development strategy which I consider the Council need to be aware of moving forward:
• The average/peak delivery rates identified in the housing trajectory for large, strategic sites appear optimistic in a number of cases. Therefore, the level of housing that will be delivered in the plan period could be less than that expected by the Council. This reinforces the importance of allocating sites such as HOU8 but means that additional small-scale allocations may need to be proposed to underpin short term supply.
• Whilst the housing requirement is based on the Standard Method, I am uncertain if sufficient work has been undertaken to assess if a higher housing figure could be adopted. Again, this reinforces the need to maintain those site allocations proposed in the Plan but may necessitate additional allocations to make the Plan sound.
• It does not appear that there is a buffer in relation to land supply over and above the level needed to meet the current housing requirement. Again, this reinforces the need to maintain those sites currently proposed for allocation in the Plan but may also necessitate the allocation of other sites to
support overall delivery rates and make the Plan sound.

Object

Representation ID: 10126

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bletsoes

Agent: Rosconn Strategic Land

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RSL are of the opinion the spatial strategy is unsound as it is not consistent with the requirements of national policy.
Paragraph 4.7 of the Draft Plan identifies the need to deliver 1,355 dwellings per annum, giving a total of 27,100 dwellings for the 20 year plan period between 2020-2040. Para 4.7 also states, taking into account of existing commitments, completions and an allowance of windfall, the residual housing figure is 12,276 dwellings to be allocated in this plan. RSL agree that the Council need to identify a minimum of 12,276 additional new homes up to 2040 based on the most recent revisions to the Government’s Standard Method calculation.
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that the standard method only calculates the “minimum annual housing need figure” and that “It does not produce a housing requirement figure.” (Reference: 2a-002-20190220). The PPG further clarifies that changing economic circumstances or other factors might have an impact on demographic behaviour and there are situations where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. These situations include but are not limited to growth strategies for the area where funding is in place to promote additional growth and where strategic infrastructure improvements are occurring that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally (Reference: 2a-010-20201216).

It is, therefore, important to consider whether there is sufficient housing being provided in this plan to support the future economic growth of Bedford given the Borough’s prominence within the Arc Spatial Framework during the plan period. Despite the uncertainties regarding the Arc’s deliverability and the Government’s drive to deliver the Spatial Framework moving forward, the Council will need to consider the likely impacts of economic growth arising from such improvements on population growth and housing needs in Bedford.
RSL note that the proposed spatial strategy expects to deliver approximately 13,550 additional new homes within the plan period as set out in Policy DS5(S), which is an approximate 10% uplift beyond the Council’s housing requirement. This uplift is generally welcomed by RSL, however, to ensure that housing needs can be met and that any sudden changes in delivery expectations are compensated for, the Council should consider a more substantial buffer / uplift in supply. By increasing the supply at this stage to approximately 20% for example, it would provide more flexibility to offset for any potential under delivery and avoids the risk of having to make further amendments to the plan at a later date to include additional allocations.
The spatial strategy set out in the Draft Plan directs the further growth required to meet assessed needs to 2040 to locations that are currently accessible, or will become accessible during the plan period. Policy DS2(S) states the proposed growth locations will focus growth primarily within the urban area, followed by strategic locations adjacent to the urban area which contribute to the delivery of key green infrastructure projects. Furthermore, new growth locations are proposed to be focussed on the East West Rail (EWR) and the A421 transport corridors, particularly south of Bedford area and at a new settlement at Little Barford are proposed.
The above development strategy has omitted further growth in the Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres, with no growth being directed in the north of the Borough. North of the Borough includes several highly sustainable settlements, including Key Service Centres of Bromham, Clapham, and Sharnbrook, and a selection of Rural Service Centres and smaller villages. RSL believe this undermines the long-term sustainability of the Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres in this area.
Paragraph 4.27 states after 2030, once EWR and highway improvements have been completed, the strategic growth sites allocated in this plan will be able to deliver substantial growth. The Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan (The Need for a Stepped Trajectory: Transport), forming part of the evidence base, also acknowledges the significant growth to the south of Bedford and a new settlement at Little Barford will require significant forms of new or enhanced transport infrastructure. The package of transport infrastructure to mitigate impacts on the highway network includes large schemes such as the EWR and Strategic Road Network (SRN) improvements, which are reliant on central government funding and processes such as Road Investment Strategy. The Delivery Plan also acknowledges that the transport infrastructure which is considered key to supporting growth is unlikely to be delivered in full before 2030. Chapter 4 of the Delivery Plan sets out when key transport infrastructure will be delivered, noting that the SRN improvements proposed to support growth would only be built out in the late 2020s or even early 2030s. The A421 Widening and A428 Back Cat to Caxton Gibbet schemes are ‘considered to be complex and therefore could face risks to their delivery timescales’. With regards to the EWR, the government has previously set out its commitment to complete the restoration of the rail link by 2030, with the Central Section of EWR the subject of consultation in 2021 and a Preferred Route Announcement due 2022.
The NPPF makes it clear at paragraph 60 it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward and paragraph 69 sets out the benefits of small and medium sized sites and the importance to promote the development of a good mix of sites. Para 5.5 of the Delivery Plan notes that ‘large sites’ (sites with a capacity of at least 500 dwellings for housing) support 12,430 dwellings, meaning large sites support the delivery of ‘all but approximately 1,000 of the dwellings newly allocated’ in the Local Plan 2040. Table 5-2 sets out the relationship between a large site and the transport schemes. This table demonstrates that the implementation of a transport infrastructure scheme is judged to directly support a site’s delivery for 4 of the 7 ‘large sites’ allocated within the Local Plan 2040. For these sites, para 5.6 notes ‘it would be highly unlikely that a site would be able to come forward without the associated transport scheme being in place prior to or at the early phases of development’. These 4 sites account for delivering approximately 10,400 dwellings.
NPPF paragraph 16 notes plans should be positively prepared in a way that is aspirational but deliverable. Furthermore, paragraph 73, part d) requires local authorities to make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery with regards to larger scale development given the lead in times for such sites. RSL are concerned the Delivery Plan’s conclusions evidence that the strategy put forward by the Council is unsuitable given the high dependency of the proposed housing supply on large transport infrastructure projects delivering to schedule. The Delivery Plan acknowledges there is an inherent risk associated with delivery of large infrastructure projects, which needs be taken into account. Clearly, if there were to be a delay to the infrastructure projects outlined above, there is a significant risk the proposed housing allocations will not deliver sufficient housing to meet the minimum requirement within the plan period.
Overall, RSL considers the spatial strategy is contrary to national policy as set out above, specifically with regards to deliverability and variety of sites allocated and would fail the soundness tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
RSL consider that more deliverable contingency sites should be identified in the Local Plan 2040 to offset the risk of under-delivery and to provide the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Neighbourhood Planning has successfully allocated or committed growth throughout Bedford Borough in line with the requirements set out in the Bedford Local Plan 2030. However, this Draft Plan consultation document does not, as per the previous draft Local Plan 2040, delegate any further growth to local communities through the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan, or indeed the review of an existing one.
RSL recognise that some Parish Council’s may be reluctant to consider further sizable allocations going forward to 2040. However, we would encourage the Borough Council to review the potential of the Key Service Centres capacity to deliver further growth, and to consider the opportunity to build upon the infrastructure being delivered / committed that existing allocations in Neighbourhood Plans will deliver in order to offset the risk of under-delivery of the proposed allocations as set out above.
For instance, further development can be delivered at Hill Farm in Sharnbrook, utilising the improved infrastructure and facilities associated with the Hill Farm Neighbourhood Plan housing allocation, and the remaining capacity of the Site of approximately 250 dwellings could make a meaningful contribution towards housing delivery in the next plan period.
The Site, as outlined in red below, is part of the site promoted via the Call for Sites process (Site 814). The majority of the farm, outlined in green below, has been allocated in the ‘made’ Sharnbrook Neighbourhood Plan under Policy S5 and is now subject to an Outline Planning Application (Reference 22/01037/MAO) submitted by Bellway and Redrow who intend to jointly build out the site. The description of development is as follows:
Outline application with all matters reserved except access, for the erection of up to 500 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space, vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle links and parking provision, and necessary supporting infrastructure including land for the provision of a primary school (2ha) and a community hub (0.2ha); land for formal and informal open space; drainage and service infrastructure works.

The residual land at Hill Farm, extends to circa 13.85 hectares and has the potential to deliver approximately an additional 250 dwellings. The remainder of the Site presents an opportunity to build upon the infrastructure that will be deliver by the development of the 500 dwellings. The location is considered as a sustainable extension to the village and will further support the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan.
One of the key benefits of this location is the high degree of accessibility to the wider road network, as well as strong connections and integration with existing public transport routes. The principal access point will be via the new roundabout on the A6 proposed as part of the Outline Planning Application, with secondary access points along Mill Lane and Templars Way. The Site would also benefit from access to new and upgraded footpaths and cycleways providing improved connectivity to the village centre; extensive public open space, and land for leisure facilities including sports pitches; land for a replacement primary school, small scale retail units, and a potential location for a new community building and/or a new doctors’ surgery.

There is an opportunity for further growth of the wider site to build upon this infrastructure, contributing towards deliver. The Neighbourhood Plan allocated site will significantly enhance the sustainability of the location, and it is therefore considered entirely logical to examine the potential opportunity for further growth on the residual land at Hill Farm.
As per NPPF para 79, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive especially where this will support local services. To that end, the recently published Census 2021 data (June 2022) concludes a falling birth rate on top of an already falling proportion of children aged 0-14 (18.9% to 17.4%) will see a continued and increased fall in demand for primary and, consequently, secondary school places during the Plan period. This results in a situation whereby places at the local primary and secondary schools will be freed up to cover any increased demand as a result of new development. Thereby, additional development at Hill Farm will help the sustainability of local community facilities. Furthermore, the secondary school currently has good capacity and is supported by “out of catchment” pupil numbers coming from the Rushden area and Northamptonshire. However, with the addition of new school provision being delivered in the Rushden East Sustainable Urban Extension allocation, pupils will no longer have to travel to Sharnbrook from Northamptonshire; and as a result there will be sufficient provision at the secondary school to accommodate an increase in numbers as a result of additional development at Hill Farm.
One of the key reasons for Hill Farm’s allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan is its direct connectivity to the A6. This means that new housing and supporting infrastructure can be delivered, and accessed, without resulting in an adverse impact on the historic core of the village and its associated road network.

Object

Representation ID: 10131

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roebuck Land and Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS2(S) ‘Spatial Strategy’
This policy starts by stating that ‘development will be focussed within the urban area, at specified locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor.’. Limb x specifically states:
“A new settlement and related employment provision at Little Barford well connected to the new East-West Rail station at its intersection with the East Coast Main Line.”
We fail to see how this proposed allocation is justified at the current time, until there is further certainty on the route alignment, new station location and delivery timetable or, whether it could be sustained if the EWR initiative is cancelled. The text therefore needs to be amended and the reference to the new EWR station needs to be removed.
In doing so, there would need to be further evidence to demonstrate that this large development is suitable and achievable in this location regardless.

Object

Representation ID: 10156

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: J C Gill Developments Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy (DS2(S))
The reliance on brownfield site’s as housing allocations is a flawed approach as it overlooks the role that brownfield site’s have as windfall opportunities. Their inclusion on a brownfield register, also negates the need to allocate as they are by definition acceptable for redevelopment. They should not be included in the plan to deliver new development.
The Plan relies too heavily on new settlements. They are not the most sustainable locations, take a very long time to emerge from conception to implementation and rely on significant new infrastructure. The Plan promotes new infrastructure opportunities but until these are in place there should be no reliance on their delivery because they are largely influenced by control outside of the Council.
The Plan fails to recognise the importance of small and medium sized site’s, which is specifically supported by the NPPF. Moreover, there are many site’s that are located on the edge of the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or on the edge of existing sustainable communities in the rural area. These site’s are more sustainable and more deliverable than the proposed new settlements and offer a better solution to deliver essential new homes into the borough.
Neighbourhood plans expire in 2030 and yet this plan is until 2040. There is a 10 year gap, at the very least where no development is proposed for much of the rural area, amounting to an embargo on development. This will have an impact on those communities as their need for homes increases whilst supply is not provided.

Object

Representation ID: 10201

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Local Plan spatial strategy is underpinned by the aspiration of the Borough Council to deliver growth to meet its needs “…at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc…” This decision has influenced the spatial strategy set out in the submission Plan.

However, the Government’s Levelling–up and Regeneration Bill in May 2022 omits any reference to the OxCam Arc. Furthermore, the Infrastructure & Projects Authority annual report on major projects 2021-22 confirms that the successful delivery of East West Rail Connection Stage 2 & 3 appears to be unachievable and the project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.

The Council’s strategy for a large proportion of the proposed growth is rail based. Should the rail infrastructure including rail stations are unachievable then the new settlement housing allocations at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick would seem undeliverable.

Without the benefit of a firm commitment from the Government to fund the East West Rail Connection Stage 2 & 3, the Local Plan and its proposed spatial strategy (Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy) will not deliver the required housing growth, including affordable, to 2040. The Local Plan is therefore not justified as it fails the test of soundness as set out in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Object

Representation ID: 10206

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Trustees of the Lawton Pension Scheme

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy
2.9 Draft Policy DS2(S) sets out the spatial strategy, noting development will be focused within the urban area, at strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 and East West Rail corridor.
2.10 The Spatial Strategy outlines the delivery of development in the urban area through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Whilst the value of this is acknowledged in making effective use of the land, these sites are often challenging to deliver due to the high technical constraints that exist. Contamination, degraded land, ecological issues, legal and title constraints together with leaseholder concerns and the high cost of redevelopment often make these sites very difficult to develop, but moreover they cannot be relied upon to be developed in any fixed period. They are all classic windfall sites, or opportunity sites; but they are not suitable for allocation.
2.11 The allocation of these brownfield sites for redevelopment overlooks their potential to comprise windfall development throughout the plan period. Windfall sites are generally seen as tools in bolstering identified supply and addressing shortfalls in housing delivery but their allocation means that the Council can no longer fall back on these sites to cover under delivery. Their inclusion in the brownfield register (as they all should be) presents its own ‘commitment’ as a potential contribution to overall housing delivery numbers, but to allocate as well is an unsound basis for demonstrating the delivery of ‘new’ housing requirement for the Borough.
2.12 The Spatial Strategy also places significant reliance on the delivery of substantial isolated greenfield sites and new settlements. As outlined in the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (2022), that supports the emerging Local Plan, a range of assumptions are made in order facilitate the delivery of these settlements within the plan period. These comprise the delivery of substantial infrastructure projects on which the delivery of new settlements will be wholly reliant. Many of these infrastructure projects have been in the pipeline for a significant period of time and have experienced substantial delays in the past. Their timely implementation cannot be assured and yet the Council rely on this to happen. The reliance placed on the delivery of these strategic greenfield sites and new settlements for the delivery of homes through the Local Plan is considered to comprise significant risk and is highly likely to result in a shortfall throughout the plan period.
2.13 However, the real flaw in the planned spatial strategy is that the Council has not considered all reasonable alternatives and has not sought to identify sites in the most sustainable locations, such as on the edge of the Urban Area, or sustainable rural settlements. These sites have been overlooked in their assessment and we urge that this is reviewed.
2.14 This is the most sustainable location for growth. The Council must include these sites in advance of the identification of new settlement locations, especially where there is clear deliverability and cooperation with landowners and developers to pursue their development.
2.15 It is considered that the Spatial Strategy is flawed, overlooking sustainable locations for development in favour of uncertain new settlements and difficult brownfield sites that should be left as windfall opportunities. The Council has not looked closely at the preferred alternative site locations on the edge of sustainable settlements such as Milton Ernest, where this representation relates.

Object

Representation ID: 10216

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ben Pile

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy (DS2(S))
The reliance on brownfield sites as housing allocations is a flawed approach as it overlooks the role that brownfield sites have as windfall opportunities. Their inclusion on a brownfield register, also negates the need to allocate as they are by definition acceptable for redevelopment. They should not be included in the plan to deliver new development.
The Plan relies too heavily on new settlements. They are not the most sustainable locations, take a very long time to emerge from conception to implementation and rely on significant new infrastructure. The Plan promotes new infrastructure opportunities but until these are in place there should be no reliance on their delivery because they are largely influenced by control outside of the Council.
The Plan fails to recognise the importance of small and medium sized sites, which is specifically supported by the NPPF. Moreover, there are many sites that are located on the edge of the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or on the edge of existing sustainable communities in the rural area. These sites are more sustainable and more deliverable than the proposed new settlements and offer a better solution to deliver essential new homes into the borough.
Neighbourhood plans expire in 2030 and yet this plan is until 2040. There is a 10 year gap, at the very least where no development is proposed for much of the rural area, amounting to an embargo on development. This will have an impact on those communities as their need for homes increases whilst supply is not provided.

Object

Representation ID: 10220

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Anwyl Land

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2. Representations
The Tests of Soundness
2.1 As this consultation stage concerns a Local Plan 2040 Draft for Submission (Regulation 19), the consultation seeks views on the legal tests of soundness and legal compliance. Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) states:
“Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are ‘sound’ if they are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with National Policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national policy, where relevant.”
2.2 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.
Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy
2.3 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 Sharnbrook, 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 or is likely to be deliverable as discussed within these representations.
2.4 Reasonable alternatives are discussed within the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (May 2022). It notes that the Oxford to Cambridge 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.
2.7 As detailed in response to Policy DS3 and DS5, there seems a reluctance by the Council to allocate further growth to either the Key or Rural Services Centres despite the acknowledged available capacity and the benefit being that 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 the current cost of living crisis, failure to deliver housing in the Borough will impact affordability levels and may continue to suppress natural household formation. All settlements, but particularly sustainable settlements with a service offer, need proportionate and commensurate growth throughout the Plan period, to ensure they do not age and stagnate. In respect of Sharnbrook, as discussed later in the representations, no growth is directed there as of yet as the Neighbourhood Plan directs all growth away from the settlement and thus capacity clearly remains for commensurate growth adjacent to the settlement.
2.8 Land west of Kennel Hill, Sharnbrook has already demonstrated through historic assessment and as a option site, that there would not be any unacceptable 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 and public transport. Moreover, due to an increased prevalence in home working and online deliveries, people are able living more sustainably in what was traditionally considered to be a less sustainable location. Regardless, as recognised through the designation as Sharnbrook as a Key Service Centre, it already benefits from a good level of connectivity and service offer.
2.9 The Plan and Strategy also 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. Currently, according to the Council’s published trajectory, the delivery of housing will cease in the year 2030/31 in “Sharnbrook” (albeit that reflects Sharnbrook Parish, not Sharnbrook itself).

Object

Representation ID: 10222

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ben Pile

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy
2.9 Draft Policy DS2(S) sets out the spatial strategy, noting development will be focused within the urban area, at strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 and East West Rail corridor.
2.10 The Spatial Strategy outlines the delivery of development in the urban area through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Whilst the value of this is acknowledged in making effective use of the land, these sites are often challenging to deliver due to the high technical constraints that exist. Contamination, degraded land, ecological issues, legal and title constraints together with leaseholder concerns, together with the high cost of redevelopment often make these sites very difficult to develop, but moreover they cannot be relied upon to be developed in any fixed period. They are all classic windfall sites, or opportunity sites; but they are not suitable for allocation.
2.11 The allocation of these brownfield sites for redevelopment overlooks their potential to comprise windfall development throughout the plan period. Windfall sites are generally seen as tools in bolstering identified supply and addressing shortfalls in housing delivery but their allocation means that the Council can no longer fall back on these sites to cover under delivery. Their inclusion in the brownfield register (as they all should be) presents its own ‘commitment’ as a potential contribution to overall housing delivery numbers, but to allocate as well is an unsound basis for demonstrating the delivery of ‘new’ housing requirement for the Borough.
2.12 The Spatial Strategy also places significant reliance on the delivery of substantial isolated greenfield sites and new settlements. As outlined in the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (2022), that supports the emerging Local Plan, a range of assumptions are made in order facilitate the delivery of these settlements within the plan period. These comprise the delivery of substantial infrastructure projects on which the delivery of new settlements will be wholly reliant. Many of these infrastructure projects have been in the pipeline for a significant period of time and have experienced substantial delays in the past. Their timely implementation cannot be assured and yet the Council rely on this to happen. The reliance placed on the delivery of these strategic greenfield sites and new settlements for the delivery of homes through the Local Plan is considered to comprise significant risk and is highly likely to result in a shortfall throughout the plan period.
2.13 However, the real flaw in the planned spatial strategy is that the Council has not considered all reasonable alternatives and has not sought to identify sites in the most sustainable location, that is on the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or inside the Urban Area. These sites have been overlooked in their assessment and we urge that this is reviewed.
2.14 This is the most sustainable location for growth. The Council must include these sites in advance of the identification of new settlement locations, especially where there is clear deliverability and cooperation with landowners and developers to pursue their development.
2.15 It is considered that the Spatial Strategy is flawed, overlooking sustainable locations for development in favour of uncertain new settlements and difficult brownfield sites that should be left as windfall opportunities. The Council has not looked closely at the preferred alternative site locations on the edge of or within the Urban Areas, such as the site that this representation relates.

Object

Representation ID: 10229

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Rapleys

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

TW object to the identification of Little Barford as a new settlement under para x. of DS2(S) as it is not deliverable or developable within the 2040 Plan period. It is reliant on key rail infrastructure that does not even exist and is unlikely to be so by 2030.
Please see attached representations ….specifically paragraph 2.9, section 3, paragraphs 3.1-3.28, paragraph 5.6 bullet 4, section 6, Appendices A, B, C for the detailed reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 10234

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: J C Gill Developments Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy (DS2(S))
The reliance on brownfield site’s as housing allocations is a flawed approach as it overlooks the role that brownfield site’s have as windfall opportunities. Their inclusion on a brownfield register, also negates the need to allocate as they are by definition acceptable for redevelopment. They should not be included in the plan to deliver new development.
The Plan relies too heavily on new settlements. They are not the most sustainable locations, take a very long time to emerge from conception to implementation and rely on significant new infrastructure. The Plan promotes new infrastructure opportunities but until these are in place there should be no reliance on their delivery because they are largely influenced by control outside of the Council.
The Plan fails to recognise the importance of small and medium sized site’s, which is specifically supported by the NPPF. Moreover, there are many site’s that are located on the edge of the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or on the edge of existing sustainable communities in the rural area. These site’s are more sustainable and more deliverable than the proposed new settlements and offer a better solution to deliver essential new homes into the borough.
Neighbourhood plans expire in 2030 and yet this plan is until 2040. There is a 10 year gap, at the very least where no development is proposed for much of the rural area, amounting to an embargo on development. This will have an impact on those communities as their need for homes increases whilst supply is not provided.

Object

Representation ID: 10241

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: J C Gill Developments Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy (DS2(S))
The reliance on brownfield site’s as housing allocations is a flawed approach as it overlooks the role that brownfield site’s have as windfall opportunities. Their inclusion on a brownfield register, also negates the need to allocate as they are by definition acceptable for redevelopment. They should not be included in the plan to deliver new development.
The Plan relies too heavily on new settlements. They are not the most sustainable locations, take a very long time to emerge from conception to implementation and rely on significant new infrastructure. The Plan promotes new infrastructure opportunities but until these are in place there should be no reliance on their delivery because they are largely influenced by control outside of the Council.
The Plan fails to recognise the importance of small and medium sized site’s, which is specifically supported by the NPPF. Moreover, there are many site’s that are located on the edge of the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or on the edge of existing sustainable communities in the rural area. These site’s are more sustainable and more deliverable than the proposed new settlements and offer a better solution to deliver essential new homes into the borough.
Neighbourhood plans expire in 2030 and yet this plan is until 2040. There is a 10 year gap, at the very least where no development is proposed for much of the rural area, amounting to an embargo on development. This will have an impact on those communities as their need for homes increases whilst supply is not provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 10252

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

4. Spatial Strategy to 2040
4.1 CBC supports the use of the Standard Methodology for calculating the housing requirement for the period from 2020 to 2040. It is recognised that this results in a total requirement of 27,000 new homes (1,355 dwellings per year), and that taking account of existing commitments, completions and an allowance for windfall, which amount to 14,824 dwellings, there is a need to identify sufficient land for 12,276 dwellings within the Bedford local plan to 2040.
 
4.2 As stated in our response to the Strategy Options and Draft Policies Consultation in September 2021, CBC is of the view that in the first instance, brownfield and previously development land should be utilised to its maximum capacity before looking to greenfield land to deliver growth. The Council therefore welcomes the approach taken within the submission local plan for new development to be focussed firstly on brownfield sites within and adjacent to the urban area, as well as town centre sites that offer regeneration opportunities. Policy DS5(S) is therefore supported to the extent that it identifies that the urban area will accommodate 1,200 new homes, whilst 1,500 new homes will be delivered in 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.
4.3 Policy DS5(S) also identifies that 10,850 new homes (and 73ha of employment land) will be delivered at two growth locations on the A421 corridor – south of Bedford including a new settlement, and Little Barford new settlement.
4.4 It is considered that the emphasis placed on these two growth locations to deliver such a substantial quantum of growth is likely to have significant impacts upon Central Bedfordshire and our communities. The Council has significant concerns about the transport implications that will undoubtedly arise for Central Bedfordshire as a consequence of this growth being focussed on the EWR / A421 transport corridor and therefore cannot support these two proposals at this time.
4.5 In the assessment of the options, the Pink, Yellow and Brown options focus development around the A421 corridor and the assumed East-West Rail corridors. Whilst the yellow option was one of the two options detailed within the evidence as performing the best in terms of the assessment metrics that were applied, it results in sub-options where development is focused to the south and east of Bedford and therefore with the most immediate potential for impact on the transport network within CBC, including the A421 and A1 corridors. When considering the future 2040 reference case it is also noted that the A421 and A1 (strategic cross boundary routes into Central Bedfordshire) are the routes that the modelling predicts will undergo the greatest levels of increase in terms of background traffic.
4.6 Four sub options (2a- 2d) were then considered, each being variants of the yellow option, resulting in an overall preferred option, which focuses development around the A421 and East-West Rail. In testing these options, the modelling report identifies flow increases on routes in CBC including the A1, A421, C94 with associated increases in both delay and volume/ capacity ratios. There are also increases predicted on the B530.
4.7 The proposed package of mitigation works, which predominantly provides a strengthened ring road to the south and west of Bedford, appears to have the general effect of releasing suppressed trips onto the wider major road network, in particular the A1, A421 and B530, all of which sit, at least partially within CBC. This is of immediate concern to CBC, especially in the context of our own growth strategy and allocated sites in our Adopted Local Plan (July 2021).
 
4.8 Including a focus on sustainability within Theme 2 of the Bedford Submission Local Plan is critical to managing growth and is welcomed, but we suggest that East West Rail and the reintroduction of ‘faster north- south travel’ (presumably on the Midland Mainline but this is not clarified) is not strictly an objective of the Plan as both interventions are in part controlled by external parties.
4.9 In terms of policy DS2, the South of Bedford policy area raises some specific concerns with regard to the A421 corridor and M1 junction 13 which we address in further detail later on in our response. Rail based development as a concept around Stewartby Hardwick and Wixams is supported, but this must be delivered alongside a robust highways mitigation strategy due to the nature of planned growth across the whole A421 corridor. Similarly, the Little Barford policy area raises concerns around impact on the A1 corridor and erosion of future capacity of the new Black Cat roundabout and realigned A428.

Object

Representation ID: 10254

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: J C Gill Developments Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Spatial Strategy (DS2(S))
The reliance on brownfield site’s as housing allocations is a flawed approach as it overlooks the role that brownfield site’s have as windfall opportunities. Their inclusion on a brownfield register, also negates the need to allocate as they are by definition acceptable for redevelopment. They should not be included in the plan to deliver new development.
The Plan relies too heavily on new settlements. They are not the most sustainable locations, take a very long time to emerge from conception to implementation and rely on significant new infrastructure. The Plan promotes new infrastructure opportunities but until these are in place there should be no reliance on their delivery because they are largely influenced by control outside of the Council.
The Plan fails to recognize the importance of small and medium sized site’s, which is specifically supported by the NPPF. Moreover, there are many site’s that are located on the edge of the contiguous edge of the Urban Area, or on the edge of existing sustainable communities in the rural area. These site’s are more sustainable and more deliverable than the proposed new settlements and offer a better solution to deliver essential new homes into the borough.
Neighbourhood plans expire in 2030 and yet this plan is until 2040. There is a 10 year gap, at the very least where no development is proposed for much of the rural area, amounting to an embargo on development. This will have an impact on those communities as their need for homes increases whilst supply is not provided.

Object

Representation ID: 10348

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.

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

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. 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 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).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

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
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.

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

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. 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 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).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

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 fact that there is insufficient evidence to show that rail-based growth in the A421 corridor is developable before years 11 through 15 of the plan period significantly undermines the Council's stance. This has the effect of creating an almost immediate supply problem, which can only be rationally resolved by distributing small- to medium-sized sustainable sites across Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres. Offering many options for expansion will help avoid market saturation and enhance rural vitality in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Oakley.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10356

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Agent: James Lawson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The local plan is considered to be unsound as it is not ‘justified’ insofar as the current approach does not reflect the most appropriate strategy taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.

In the second sentence of the policy (lines 3-4) the wording lacks clarity in its cross reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), as the requirement for all major residential led allocations to provide for/ fund all necessary infrastructure to achieve sustainable new communities is not sufficiently clear.

The policy should provide an overarching requirement for all major residential led allocations to provide for/ fund all necessary infrastructure set out in the IDP, particularly as each separate policy allocation references different types of infrastructure with no consistent theme.

Support

Representation ID: 10361

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: East West Railway Company Limited

Agent: Mrs JANE PARKER

This response to the Local Plan 2040: Plan for Submission, April 2022 [the “Submission Plan”] is
submitted by Adams Hendry Consulting on behalf of East West Railway Company Limited (EWR
Co).
EWR Co is the organisation responsible for delivering East West Rail (EWR), a major rail project
aiming to deliver both new and enhanced rail infrastructure to provide frequent, fast, and reliable rail
links for communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford, and Cambridge.
At the time of writing, a decision on the preferred route alignment has yet to be made. The latest
EWR proposals were subject to a second round of non-statutory public consultation between 31st
March 2021 and 9th June 2021. EWR Co is currently considering potential route alignments in light
of responses to the non-statutory consultation and therefore this response to the Submission Plan
is made on a without prejudice basis. EWR Co will provide an update on its position and any
implications it may have for the Local Plan in advance of the Local Plan Examination.
Proposed Development Strategy to 2040
The spatial strategy directs the further growth required to meet assessed needs to 2040 to locations
that are currently accessible or will become accessible during the period covered by the Local Plan.
EWR Co is supportive of local aspirations for, and the delivery of, new homes and communities at
Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford and notes that the delivery of EWR will mark a step change
in rail connectivity for these new communities.
EWR Co welcomes the recognition by the Council that 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.
South of Bedford Area
The South of Bedford strategic policy area allocated by Policy HOU12 extends from the edge of the
urban area to the borough boundary south and west of Bedford. This area includes locations where
strategic development is already planned or has recently taken place and identifies new opportunities
for strategic rail-based growth at the core of the Arc to deliver new jobs and homes.
A new settlement at Kempston Hardwick forms the centre piece of South of Bedford Area allocation
as discussed below.
New Settlement at Kempston Hardwick
A new settlement is proposed at Kempston Hardwick. The policy requirements for at least 4,000
new homes are set out in Policy HOU14.
Policy HOU14 recognises that development will be served by the new rail station on the EWR line
at Stewartby Hardwick. In respect of a potential new EWR station in this location, EWR Co consulted
on two service concepts as part of the NSC:
• Concept 1 would retain the existing service (in a modified form) and introduce limited-stop
Oxford – Cambridge services. No changes were proposed to the location of the existing
Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick stations in this concept.
• Concept 2 would provide improved services focused on a consolidated number of stations.
Stewartby station would be relocated to a site in the vicinity of the current Broadmead Road
level crossing and would provide access to the railway for the users of the current Stewartby
and Kempston Hardwick stations. The precise location of the new station remains to be
determined under this concept and would include associated infrastructure such as car parks
and access roads.
EWR Co acknowledges the fact that the Policy HOU14 includes reference to a proposed new EWR
station at Stewartby Hardwick. However, as it has yet to be confirmed which service concept will be
progressed by EWR Co, this may or may not be required. If concept 1 is taken forward, the need for
railway infrastructure improvements at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick stations will be
considered as proposals for EWR are refined. Whichever option is selected, the new community will
have good access to EWR services. An update will be provided to the Council on this matter at the
earliest opportunity.
Little Barford New Settlement
Policy HOU19 allocates land for a new settlement at Little Barford, for at least 4,000 dwellings and
allocates further land to the east of the allocation as a contingency area “should land be required to
facilitate the EWR route and / or station within the site.”
The NSC identified two emerging preferred Route Alignment Options for Project Section D:
Clapham Green to The Eversdens in the Consultation Technical Report
(https://eastwestrail.co.uk/consultation/consultation-documents):
• Alignment 1 from St Neots South Option A to Cambourne North via the A428 Improvement
Scheme; and
• Alignment 9 from Tempsford to Cambourne North via the A428 Improvement Scheme.
Two possible locations for a new station were identified in the Tempsford/St Neots area where the
EWR alignment crosses the East Coast Main Line; either a station north or south of St Neots or a
station north or south of Tempsford.
A final decision is still to be made on the route alignment and station location. However, whichever
option is selected, EWR Co will work closely with the Council to ensure that there is easy access
and good connectivity to EWR services for the new local community.
Strategic Masterplans for New Settlements including a Transport and Movement Strategy
EWR Co supports the Council’s intention to prepare a strategic masterplan for each of the new
settlements proposed at Stewartby Hardwick and Little Barford, in conjunction with landowners,
stakeholders and the local community as set out in Policies HOU14 and HOU19, noting that there is
no certainty that a station will be provided at Stewartby Hardwick.
As a key stakeholder, EWR Co welcomes continued engagement with the Council on the preparation
of the strategic masterplans and the transport movement strategies for the two new settlements.
Participation in Examination Hearing Sessions
EWR would like to participate in the examination hearing sessions in relation to the spatial
development strategy and any specific development allocations and policy requirements that may
have an interaction with EWR.
Summary
EWR Co is supportive of local aspirations for, and the delivery of, new homes and communities at
Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford. Once the preferred route alignment has been confirmed,
EWR Co will advise the Council on the likely implications of the draft development strategy for the delivery of EWR which seeks to increase connectivity, investment and growth within Bedford
Borough and across the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.
EWR Co welcomes ongoing discussions with the Council to ensure that the emerging local plan
allocations are consistent with the preferred route of the railway once this is confirmed.
An update on the preferred route alignment will be provided by EWR Co at the earliest opportunity
and in advance of the Local Plan examination due to be held in 2023.

Support

Representation ID: 10384

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bletsoe Parish Council

Bletsoe Parish Council considers that the submission version of the Local Plan 2040 is well drafted and, as far as can be determined, is legally compliant and sound.

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. However, we must make clear that we do not support the proposed route for East West Rail coming, as it does, into Bedford Midland and exiting north through the Poets area of Bedford town and the North Bedfordshire villages.

The Parish Council supports the inclusion of two new settlements, one at Kempston Hardwick, and one at Little Barford, as they will create new sustainable communities aligned to the already well connected and accessible growth opportunities offered by the A421 corridor. We are pleased that 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. We would like to see, more provision for high-tech businesses rather than large distribution warehouses provided for in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 10391

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: FCC Environment UK Ltd

Agent: Axis PED Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS2 (S) – Spatial Strategy – The spatial strategy set out within policy DS2(S) is supported. This proposes a sustainable pattern of growth directing development in the urban area and at locations with great accessibility to rail stations and where walking neighbourhoods can be created
The policy confirms development will be focussed at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. All new development is required to contribute towards achieving the stated objectives and policies of the plan. This is in accordance with paragraph 22 of the NPPF which confirms that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure.
The policy provides further detail of where development will be supported. This includes growth locations on the East West Rail / A421 transport corridor and with the potential for rail based growth. There are three sub-headings within this section, these are:
- South of Bedford policy area
- Little Barford area
- Other employment sites
The text for ‘Other Employment Sites’ states:
Locations well-related to the strategic road and rail network that will deliver employment growth, making Bedford an attractive place to do business.
Does the reference to employment sites relate to only those sites allocated for employment development, or does it also provide an allowance for other sustainable sites to come forward providing they are in a suitable location and currently in employment use? Greater clarity should be provided within this key policy so that it is effective in accordance with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 10416

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Lone Star Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The current Core Strategy identifies, Great Barford as containing 'a good range of services and [is] well connected to larger town centres by regular public transport.' As a Key Service Centre, the current Core Strategy recognises that it provides a 'strong service role for the local community and surrounding area'. The strategy alighted upon for the Regulation 19 plan however, whilst continuing to identify the role of Great Barford as a Key Service Centre, does not seek to identify a single additional home to the village, beyond that already committed through the current Core Strategy and identified via the Neighbourhood Plan.

Objection is raised to the overarching spatial strategy's reliance on a limited number of large sites to deliver the new homes required for the Borough. This is at the total exclusion of growth within sustainable settlements such as Great Barford, which are capable of accommodating additional growth on smaller sites well related to the urban fabric. These would be capable of early delivery, thereby avoiding the need for a stepped trajectory, and would meet need both when it arises, and within sustainable locations.

Objection is raised to the Local Plan Policies DS2(S), DS3(S) and DS5(S), on the grounds that these key policies embed an unsustainable growth strategy for the Borough, which fails to have regard to the evidence base, and which fails to follow through on the recognition of the settlement hierarchy, notably, larger villages such as Great Barford, which are identified as Key Service Centres and for which no new allocation is made for the plan period. In this case, the provision of a stepped trajectory, thereby denying the requirements of those in housing need today, is considered to be an unnecessary deferral of delivery. It also requires a significant uptick on historic delivery rates, over rates achieved in recent years. A strategy which draws on some smaller/medium sized sites, capable of faster delivery, would be more sustainable as p art of an overall balance which might still favour longer term delivery through large sites.

With regard to the provision of housing for older people, the emerging housing strategy is silent on the role that Key Service centres, such as Great Barford, may play in meeting that specific tenure. NPPF para 62 makes clear that the housing needs of older people are to be specifically addressed in planning policies. The Council's spatial strategy should reflect that Key Service Centres have a particular role (being defined as the most locally sustainable settlements beyond the Bedford/Kempston Urban Area) and which would be well placed to accommodate and meet the housing needs of an aging population.

For the above reasons the identified Policies DS2(S), DS3(S) and DS5(S), are considered unsound as they are neither Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective, nor consistent with National Policy .

Object

Representation ID: 10429

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.

Please see accompanying Site-Specific Statement – Land Adjacent Milton Hill, Clapham and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

Object

Representation ID: 10430

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Trevor Stewart

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

the policy which confirms the Borough Council's desire to become a greener and more pleasant area is totally contradicted by the release of more greenfield and rural sites for industrial and railway purposes.
Vast tracts of valuable agricultural land will be swallowed up as well as huge sections of the Borough's rural landscape and ancient woodlands.
These will be decimated by the E.W. proposal.
The Borough Council cannot claim to be green in the Plan but then allow such huge areas to be built upon. The policy contradicts the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10434

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd

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.

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

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development, upon a sustainably-located site well-related to the principal settlement of Bedford but maintaining appropriate separation from the urban edge within Kempston Rural parish, that these representations are made.

We continue to have fundamental concerns about how opportunities for development within Kempston Rural parish, including our client’s specific site interests, relating to the ‘urban edge’ component of growth have been assessed. A clear rationale exists for development beyond that proposed for allocation within the Council’s Plan for Submission. Further reservations are made regarding the Council's strategy for the distribution of growth, which merely refers to dwellings and ignores the method necessary to meet the housing demands of various groups, including specialist housing for older people and self-build/custom-build housing, additional opportunities for which could potentially be provided through the identification of additional small and medium-scale allocations as part of the selected strategy.

The SHLAA confirms in respect of our client’s land that the site has not been subject to more detailed testing on the basis that it does not accord with the preferred spatial strategy. We consider that the site, if applying a hybrid approach that would (as is already the case in the selected strategy) support the prioritisation of development around sustainable urban edges without undermining the wider need for some growth at Key Service Centre and Rural Service Centre settlements within the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Maximising the contribution from urban edge sites could make an important contribution when it comes to delivering housing, offsetting a reliance on strategic scale growth elsewhere within the Plan for Submission which often delivers at a much slower pace than small-to medium sized sites.

Given the proximity of our client’s land to the proposed allocation HOU13 at Gibraltar Corner, the site is demonstrably located within the Council’s selected strategy and would, with minimal additional impact, help to deliver much needed housing.

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040 as proposed, with 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 the housing requirement. 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 such as that at Green End, Kempston. Providing a choice of locations for growth will ensure that market saturation is avoided and will support urban and rural vitality in line with the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10468

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cambridge Meridian Academies Trust

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Please see accompanying Representations Report Paragraphs 3.16 – 3.34

For the reasons outlined within these and earlier representations the approach to the Plan for Submission Local Plan 2040 does not provide for a justified appropriate spatial strategy with reference to NPPF2021 paragraph 20 and specifically the requirement for strategic policies to provide for social and community infrastructure. In terms of MAT’s interests this relates specifically to addressing the required expansion of Lincroft Academy, which was rendered incapable of being addressed under the approach to the Local Plan 2030.

Object

Representation ID: 10473

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Property / iSec

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.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. This representation relates to Land at Marsh Lane/Rushden Road, Milton Ernest (Site ID: 910) and should be read alongside the accompanying Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report (Appendix 1) and Opportunities and Constraints Diagram (Appendix 2) appended with this Form.

These objections relate to land partly allocated within the Milton Ernest NDP and the remainder of which presents opportunities to contribute towards additional needs for development. Within the context of our client’s overarching objections regarding soundness and legal compliance the failure of the Local Plan 2040 to provide a housing requirement figure for the designated neighbourhood area at Milton Ernest, or to consider needs beyond 2030, has precluded further assessment of this option.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

This is despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.
Policy DS2(S) is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 and provides for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals and objectives for sustainable development in the rural area (and specifically at Milton Ernest) than is provided for under the existing spatial strategy or required as part of an appropriate strategy for the Local Plan 2040.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722.

The Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that in the case of Milton Ernest have sought to support growth to 2030 only at the lower end of an identified range.

This should be considered within the context of the Examiner’s Report for the made Neighbourhood Plan (and subsequent Modifications to the Plan) recognising the requirement for review of the NDP within five years from adoption and expressly requiring recognition of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 (para 4.10). Specifically, regarding our client’s interests and the proposed extension of the site boundary (including provision of additional open space) (para 4.33) the Examiner recognised this is a matter that could be considered as part of planning applications for the site. However, in terms of the site assessment and plan-making process these are evidently matters that should be considered within the context of the Local Plan Review where there are opportunities to complement the existing direction of growth.

It is relevant to note that our client’s land, as with all other options for village-related growth, has been rejected as part of the SHELAA and SA processes despite the land having been part-allocated within the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan. Notwithstanding this, it is also noted that the Council’s assessment of SA indicators for the site fail to recognise its opportunity to provide new open space (7a) and that the allocation in the site itself will provide appropriate landscape mitigation (8a). There is also the opportunity to enhance social cohesion through the provision of allotments. It is only the process of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040 that can reasonably consider the current circumstances of the land and its scope to support further sustainable allocations for growth and this simply has not been carried out within the evidence base.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Milton Ernest where this is capable of being accommodated within the context of the existing spatial strategy.

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: 10496

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Sharnbrook Parish Council

Sharnbrook Parish Council (SPC) notes the draft Local Plan 2040 (LP2040), and finds that the proposals put forward are robust.
SPC agrees that development in the North Bedfordshire area is both limited for further development and is already delivering house build (and associated infrastructure and services) through the LP2030 and other associated planning permissions. Development, in particular through Neighbourhood Plans, are already well advanced for the next decade. We remain unconvinced with the number of houses that are required in theBorough area. This is far higher than other corresponding areas, and urges the Borough Council to push back when appropriate. As far as is possible, new development should take place on brownfield sites before any development takes place on greenfield landscape – once it is gone, it is gone for good.
We support development along the corridor of the A421 and its environs to allow greater sustainability, and in particular, that of transport and ease of access to major employment areas, as well as the urban connnections.