Policy DS3(S) Amount and timing of housing growth

Object

Representation ID: 9406

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: O&H Land

Agent: Varsity Town Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The context for the Local Plan should reflect the locally derived housing position as well as the Borough’s role in delivering housing for the Borough and the wider community.

Object

Representation ID: 9465

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Landcrest Developments Ltd

Agent: Woods Hardwick Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Landcrest do not consider this draft plan to be positively prepared, justified or effective and thus can not be found sound in its current.

Object

Representation ID: 9474

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Council will need to justify its preference for a stepped trajectory when the Plan is examined in due course having regard to the guidance in the PPG at paragraph 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722. It is suggested that additional wording is added to Policy DS3(S) to clarify that the figure for the first 5 years of the Plan period is a minimum one and that every effort will be made to achieve the full local housing need under the standard method wherever possible.

Support

Representation ID: 9484

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Graham Mills

The phasing of development in new settlements is a very positive aspect of this Local Plan. However, if the required new Bletchley-Bedford-Cambridge railway stations, or the new dual carriageway to Cambridge are not built then the housing targets and the new settlements must be postponed till transport capacity is provided. Otherwise the Plan is not sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 9509

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1.1. CPC considers Policy DS3(S) Amount and timing of housing growth to be unsound as it is unjustified and ineffective as set out below.
Oxford-Cambridge ‘Joint Declaration’
1.2. Policy DS3(S) states that the Local Plan will make provision for a ‘minimum of 27,100 dwellings’ between 2020 and 2040. This equates to an average of 1,355 dwellings over the plan period. This is an increase of 385 dwellings on average per annum (a 40% increase) compared with the adopted Local Plan 2030 which has a requirement of 14,550 dwellings between 2015-2030 (970 dwellings per annum average).
1.3. Whilst paragraph 4.7 of the Local Plan explains that the housing requirement is a result of the Council following Government policy and guidance on housing requirements namely the Standard Method, the Council first states in the Local Plan that the 40% increase in housing is a result of the ‘Oxford-Cambridge Joint Declaration’1:
“…the Council will make provision for significantly more homes as described in the Arc joint declaration. It will do this as a result of government’s new standard method for calculating housing need, which it will deliver in full, and which results in an uplift of 40% when compared to the locally-calculated housing growth planned for in the Local Plan 2030, and by allocating sites that will continue to build out beyond the 2040 plan end date.”
1.4. However, there have been a number of rumours that the Arc may no longer be going ahead. This could also be evidenced by its absence in the Levelling Up and Regeneration White Paper2 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
1.5. There are a number of local media and trade press stories on this including an article in the Cambridge Independent (27th April 2022)4 which states:
1 The Oxford-Cambridge Arc – Government ambition and joint declaration between Government and local
partners (2019)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/799993/O
xCam_Arc_Ambition.pdf
2 Levelling Up and Regeneration White Paper (February 2022)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-the-united-kingdom
3 Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (11th May 2022) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-
03/0006/220006.pdf
4Oxford-Cambridge Arc confusion: Has the project really been ‘flushed down the toilet’? Cambridge Independent
(27th April 2022) https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/oxford-cambridge-arc-confusion-has-theproject-
really-been-9251669/

“One of the partners in the Arc’s development, Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure planning and government affairs and Pinsent Masons, said his understanding was that the spatial framework would no longer be going ahead.”
“Cllr Herbert (Cambridge City Council) also said East West Rail could be at risk, but said he hoped the different partners in the Arc discussions would continue to
work together.”
1.6. For BBC to base its housing requirement figure on a Joint Declaration for a project that appears to be in serious doubt could result in a Local Plan with an increase of 40% housing without the accompanying strategic infrastructure required to support the housing.

Object

Representation ID: 9510

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Stepped Approach to Housing Requirements
1.7. CPC notes that there are, what appear to be, multiple miscalculations in Policy DS3(S):
• Under the column 2025/26-2029/30 it states that the total number of dwellings for this period is 4,850 and that the dwellings per annum equates to 1,050.
However, 2025/26-2029/30 equates to 5 years. 4,850 divided by 5 = 970.
Therefore, BBC appears to have overestimated the number of dwellings per annum for the period 2025/26-2029/30 by 80 dwellings per annum. 80 dwellings
X 5 years (2025/26-2029/30) = 400 dwellings. BBC, it appears, has overestimated
the total number of dwellings in the policy by 400 dwellings.
• The totals of the three columns in the ‘stepped housing requirement’ table does not equate to 27,100 dwellings. 4,850 dwellings + 4,850 dwellings + 17,000 dwellings = 26,700 dwellings. Therefore, BBC has underestimated 400 dwellings somewhere in its calculations.
• It is noted that Policy DS5(S) Distribution of growth states that 400 dwellings will “take place beyond the plan period”, however this does not assist in understanding the miscalculations in Policy DS3(S) as outlined above. (Policy DS3(S) table pasted in original rep)
1.8. It is concerning that there is a shortfall of 400 dwellings in BBC’s calculations set out in the Local Plan which is hopefully a ‘typo’ or that the intended approach has not been communicated clearly so that this can be easily corrected and robustly explained by BBC.

Object

Representation ID: 9520

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Amount of Housing
2.14 Policy DS3(S) outlines the Council’s preferred approach to the delivery of housing, including the housing requirement and the temporal delivery of housing over the Plan period. This includes a ‘stepped trajectory’, with the housing requirement to increase throughout the Plan period.
2.15 The Plan utilises the baseline Local Housing Need (LHN) as the housing requirement, equating to 27,100 dwellings over the Plan period. The PPG is clear that when establishing a housing requirement “the standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area… Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.” [our emphasis] (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216). Examples of scenarios which may justify an increase of housing requirement include growth strategies, the delivery of strategic infrastructure improvements or the requirement of an authority to take on unmet need from a neighbouring authority.
2.16 It is important to note that the PPG sets out that the consideration of whether uplifts to the housing requirement from LHN are necessary should be undertaken prior to and independently of any consideration of the ability of an area to meet that need.
2.17 The Plan discusses the housing requirement at Paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the reasoned justification, albeit there is no discussion as to whether a higher housing requirement would be justified. The reasoned justification seems to challenge, informally, the LHN requirement. The Plan asserts that population would need to increase by 50,000 people with in-migration of more than 22,000 a year above existing trends to populate homes within Bedford at the standard method rate of 1,355 dwellings per year. However, it is significant to note, and acknowledged within the Plan, that Bedford Borough falls within the Oxford Cambridge Arc. Whilst there is a lack of clarity on the onwards direction of the top-down vision for the Arc, accelerated growth is likely to occur irrespective, led through economic demands which will drive an above historic trend rate of growth and migration. Furthermore, the Plan’s assumptions do not reflect a higher level of natural household formation rate, which may currently be suppressed due to a lack of housing or house prices more generally. Looking at historic rates of delivery could therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that historic suppressed growth and/or suppressed household formation rates could be used to feed into justification for any subsequent strategies and serve to further suppress latent growth.
2.18 The LP2040 is not consistent with national policy because it does not plan for sufficient housing to meet future needs and does not proactively plan for any uplift as a result of the Arc Framework. It remains our view that a higher housing figure beyond the Local Housing Need Figure (which is intended to be a minimum figure within the PPG) should be planned for within the LP2040 in order to ensure a sound Plan.
Timing of housing growth
2.19 The stepped trajectory is proposed as follows:
• 5 years 970 dpa = 4,850 dwellings during the period 20/21-24/25
• 5 years 1,050 dpa = 5,250 dwellings during the period 25/26-29/30
• 10 years 1,700 dpa = 17,000 dwellings during the period 30/31-39/40
• 20 years average = 1,355 dwellings during period 20/21-39/40
2.20 The stepped trajectory as proposed results in the delivery of 4,850 dwellings in the first 5 years (970 per annum), 5,250 in the next 5 years (1,050 per annum) equating to 10,100 dwellings in the first 10 years. This then dramatically steps up to 1,700 dwellings per annum over the final 10 years equating to 17,000 dwellings. This is an almost 70% increase from the requirement in the first 10 years of the Plan period to the requirement for the latter 10 years. To deliver this quantum of housing, the Council is relying on undeliverable levels of growth on the two strategic new settlement allocations (Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford) as discussed below.
2.21 Paragraph 4.27 of the emerging Plan advises that there is limited opportunity to bring forward additional sites in the early years of the Plan period due to the requirements for the delivery of strategic sites and the inter reliance on new development and the completion of major infrastructure projects which is why the stepped trajectory is required with significant growth pushed back to the latter part of the Plan period.
2.22 The approach oversimplifies matters and fails to recognise the latent capacity within the wider Plan area for existing sustainable settlements to deliver growth through smaller sustainable sites, which collectively could deliver a significant quantum of supply. Crucially, this supply can be front loaded in the Plan period, as sites within the smaller sustainable settlements are generally ‘shovel ready’, essentially meaning following allocation housebuilders are able to start quickly and deliver quickly. In addition to this, the delivery of such sites ensures the Council’s overall housing portfolio is varied, appealing to both a wide range of housebuilders and housing markets, thus ensuring the greatest choice and competition in the market, which ultimately drives delivery whilst protecting the continued over inflation of house prices.
2.23 The Council’s own evidence, which supported the preparation of the current Local Plan identified that the Rural Service Centres were able to deliver up to 150 dwellings in each settlement; the adopted Plan progressed a target of 25 to 50 dwellings to be delivered through Neighbourhood Plans. It is clear therefore that the existing settlements have capacity to accommodate additional growth through this Plan and that there is an opportunity to allocate sustainable sites in villages such as Willington to support the delivery of housing and importantly, support the delivery of housing in the early part of the Plan period so that housing need can be met immediately and not delayed as currently proposed. This approach would further ensure a buffer should the strategic allocations/new settlements fail to deliver as anticipated, which we consider will be the case.
2.24 It is considered that the timing of delivery from the new settlements is overly ambitious and fails to reflect past delivery rates and evidence associated with brining forward similar sites.
2.25 The Wixams is an example. The site was first identified as a location for new housing in the late 1990s through the Elstow New Settlement: Planning and Development Brief, which was adopted in September 1999. The role of the document was to provide the framework for the submission of both the outline and reserved matters planning applications for the timely delivery of the settlement. The outline planning application for the core site was submitted in November 1999. In September 2005 the Council, in consultation with the land promoters, published and adopted The Wixams Strategic Design Guide SPD, to further guide and expedite delivery of the site. At this stage, it was anticipated that the entire development would be delivered within 15 years; this would have meant that the site would have been close to being fully built out in 2022.
2.26 However, despite this and the intervening 17-year period, the most recent monitoring report, confirms that only the initial phases have been completed in full with significant development still to be brought forward, despite construction commencing as far back as 2007 (15 years ago).
2.27 The Wixam’s highlights the complexity associated with the delivery of new settlements. Whilst the continued delivery of the site is of course promising, the difficulty in reaching this stage, on a site within Bedford Borough, should act as a severe warning as to the obvious pitfalls associated with strategic delivery of new settlements and should be factored into the Plan’s strategy and its over reliance on new settlements delivering the whole of the LHN moving forward.
2.28 Despite the significant delays associated with the delivery at Wixams, and also evidenced through other Local Plans which have acknowledged failure due over reliance on strategic sites (Charnwood, Rushcliffe, West Northamptonshire, etc), the Council have seemingly wed themselves to a strategy which once again, places an over reliance of strategic development, including new settlements. This approach is not justified and therefore not sound.
2.29 Start to Finish (Nathanial Lichfields) reinforces the examples above and sets out that applications for schemes over 500 dwellings are unlikely to make a contribution in the first five years. This is primarily due to the complex planning issues related to both the principle of development and the detail of implementation. Where applications have been determined more quickly than the average, this is as a result of matters being substantially addressed prior to submission which, when combined with the determination period, still adds up to the same amount of time; as the report states “there is rarely a way to short-circuit planning”.
2.30 The NLP report goes on to state:
“Planned housing trajectories should be realistic, accounting and responding to lapse rates, lead-in times and sensible build rates. This is likely to mean allocating more sites rather than less, with a good mix of types and sizes, and then being realistic about how fast they will deliver so that supply is maintained throughout the plan period. Because no one site is the same – and with significant variations from the average in terms of lead-in time and build rates – a sensible approach to evidence and justification is required.”
2.31 Whilst the site promoter may point to more optimistic timescales, a far more cautious and evidenced approach is required, with smaller and more deliverable sites allocated to deliver immediately, in order to ensure a sound Plan.
2.32 In relation to the Kempston Hardwick New Settlement (Policy HOU14), it is noted that the site has no current planning status according to the Council’s online mapping. Land Registry details confirm that the site is in multiple ownership. It is not clear to what extent the landowners are in agreement as to the delivery of the site or whether there is agreement between all parties to bring the site forward. As set out above and demonstrated through the complex history associated with the Wixams, strategic scale development is difficult to deliver and takes a significant amount of time. These difficulties are compounded when the development covers multiple land ownerships.
2.33 The Little Barford proposed allocation (Policy HOU19) appears to be within a single land ownership but will still require significant time to deliver. The site is attached to St Neots, a town within neighbouring Huntingdonshire District. It is not clear whether Huntingdonshire have commented or agreed to this proposal. Clearly by locating development here, residents are most likely to work and spend in St Neots, not within Bedford. This therefore limits the benefits provided by this housing, without any compelling justification. Bedford’s LHN should be met, and development located where the need is. There is no compelling justification for the approach adopted by the Council, and this is a significant concern. Not only is the delivery of the new settlements not sound, the overall approach of directing almost all of Borough’s housing need to new settlements is also unjustified and fails to reflect the housing needs of the Borough as a whole. The proposed approach to the distribution of development fails to recognise the role smaller settlements, including the Rural Service Centres play. The delivery of housing to new settlements only fails to help young people remain in the settlements where they currently live, forcing younger people and families out of villages and contributing to a lack of social diversity within existing settlements. It also fails to support the vitality and viability of existing businesses and services in rural settlements, potentially risking their ongoing operation. The approach also fails to deliver a variety of housing to the housing market, preventing choice and competition as advocated in the NPPF and in the Letwin Review.
2.34 In relation to the new settlements, the Council’s assumes delivery on these sites will be at times 1,200 dwellings per annum collectively, equating to annual delivery of 600 dwellings per annum per site. This is highly ambitious. Nationally sites of over 2,000 dwellings only deliver on average 160 dwellings per annum. The Council’s trajectory however sets out that from commencement of delivery of units in 2030/31 up to 2039/40, annual delivery rates averages 380 dwellings per annum, in excess of double the national average for similar sites over 2,000 units. It is considered highly unlikely these anticipated rates of development will occur, particularly during the Plan period. The peak delivery of 600 units per site from 2037/38 is also considered highly ambitious and not reflected in delivery rates of other similar sites nationally, let alone within Bedford.
2.35 To ensure a sound Plan allocating suitable shovel ready sites in sustainable settlements such as Willington to deliver in the early part of the Plan period will lessen the reliance on complex sites to deliver in the latter stages of the Plan bringing delivery targets down to more reasonable and deliverable levels. This revised approach would enable the Council will deliver more homes in the short term, securing jobs and helping to slow the inflation on house prices. There will be further social benefits through the delivery of affordable housing at a time when there is an acute need. It will help maintain the viability and vitality of existing and ensure choice and competition in the market for housing assisting delivery and market absorption. It will also ensure the Council can maintain a five-year housing land supply; which currently looks to be marginal even on adoption, if it can be demonstrated at all. This approach is a fundamental risk as the Plan cannot be found sound if there is no five-year housing land supply at adoption and will weaken the plans effectiveness if Paragraph 11 is regularly engaged. Allocating sufficient sites to ensure a robust five-year housing land supply at adoption and throughout the Plan is therefore considered to be a fundamentally benefit as the Plan cannot be adopted or reasonably function without it.

Comment

Representation ID: 9553

Received: 19/07/2022

Respondent: Oakley Parish Council

Oakley PC supports the allocation of up to 50 houses in Oakley to 2040 but considers that the overall housing allocation in the 2040 Plan is too high as the standard method of calculating housing allocations is inaccurate and inappropriate. The Plan states that that the Borough Council will make provision for the significantly higher housing numbers in the Oxford/Cambridge Arc joint declaration, which is far greater than the locally calculated need.

Support

Representation ID: 9572

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

We support in principle Draft Policy DS3(S) (Amount and timing of housing growth), which
seeks the stepped provision of a minimum of 27,100 new dwellings across the borough across
the 20 year Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 9584

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arrow Planning Limited

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.1 Paragraph 15 of the NPPF (2021) requires Local Plans to, inter alia, provide a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social, and environmental priorities.
2.2 Paragraph 16 states that Local Plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to sustainable development and be prepared positively in a manner that is aspirational as well as deliverable.
2.3 The NPPF also requires (para 23) that the Strategic Policies of the Plan should provide a clear strategy for bringing land forward to meet objectively assessed needs in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 11), and, in doing so, allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area.
2.4 National Policy therefore provides a clear, positive context with a clear requirement to meet identified needs in an aspirational but deliverable fashion. Importantly, the NPPF does not state that Plans should adopt a ‘do minimum’ approach; instead it promotes ambitious growth, where it is carried out in a sustainable fashion.
2.5 Bedford Borough sits in a key location within a national area of strategic importance, being at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (‘the Arc’). Whilst the timetable for the Local Plan does not align with that of the Arc Spatial Framework, our client supports the
approach being taken by BBC of progressing the Local Plan in advance of the Arc Spatial Framework and consider it is crucial that the Plan is adopted in a timely fashion.
2.6 The Local Plan 2030 was adopted on the basis of an early review and was examined against the 2012 NPPF under transitional arrangements. The Local Plan 2030, therefore, whilst being relatively “young” in Local Plan terms, is quite outdated in terms of its approach to housing needs. The level of growth identified and allocated in the Local Plan was based upon historic methods for identifying housing need, and, therefore,
suppresses housing need for a recently adopted Plan.
2.7 The Local Plan 2040 must, therefore, address this issue in addition to considering housing needs associated with the Arc.
2.8 The Standard Method requirement (para 4.7 of the Local Plan) meanwhile, finds the Borough’s housing need to be 1,355dpa, which the Local Plan applies across the plan period of 2020 to 2040, creating a total of 27,100 dwellings.
2.9 The Local Plan 2030 did not, therefore, meet the housing needs as now identified based on the Standard Method. The Inspector’s Report into the 2030 Local Plan recognised (IR para 40) that if the Standard Method had been applied in that instance, then the housing need figure of 1,280dpa would have applied.
2.10 The Local Plan then proposes a stepped trajectory approach to deal with housing need, with only 970 homes per annum in 2020-2025, and 1,050 between 2025-2030. There would then be a significant increase to 1,700dpa in the final 10 years of the Plan.
2.11 The justification for this approach is due to the over reliance upon strategic allocations which large infrastructure requirements. This is not considered a sound approach and is effectively putting all the Council’s ‘eggs in one basket’. It is not justified by the evidence and the Local Plan.
2.13 In particular, the Sustainability Appraisal testing of the ‘stepped approach’ is fundamentally flawed, with the justifications given for positive scores around items such
as previously developed land (see SA Appendix 8 p. 113) being conjecture. The statement that the stepped approach would have a more beneficial effect on
development on previously developed land is incorrect; sites which are previously developed land can come forward irrespective of the stepped approach and the SA does not identify any previously developed land south of Bedford that benefits from the new rail stations and links. Indeed, the allocations at locations such as the Wixams are not on previously developed land but greenfield land. The SA must, therefore, be re-run with a correct assessment of the stepped approach.
2.14 A correct assessment of the stepped approach in the SA would identify that there are risks with being reliant upon so much growth linked to strategic infrastructure outside of the control of developers and the Council. This would in turn mean that many of the
benefits may not be realised, or realised later in the plan period, pushing housing delivery outside of the plan period.
2.15 This is particularly evident in this area, with the still awaited deliver of the Wixams rail station. That station was due to be completed in 2015 and is now timetabled for opening in 2024.
2.16 Instead, the Plan should take a more balanced approach, with a reduction in numbers on some of the strategic sites and the delivery of smaller strategic allocations which can come forward earlier and increase housing delivery in the period to 2030.
2.17 The Local Plan is not sound, as it is not justified or effective. To make the Plan sound the trajectory should be amended. Reflecting the fact that the Local Plan may not be adopted until 2023, and thus higher delivery in 2024 (compared to the Local Plan 2030), the trajectory should be as follows:
2020/21- 2023/24: 970dpa
2024/25 – 2039/40: 1,423dpa
2.18 Aligned with this, new allocations will be required, and a reduction in the number of dwellings on some strategic sites may be required.

Object

Representation ID: 9600

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Andrew and Robert Tusting

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS3(S) Amount and timing of housing growth
Amount of Housing
2.10 Policy DS3(S) outlines the Council’s preferred approach to the delivery of housing, including the housing requirement and the temporal delivery of housing over the Plan period. This includes a ‘stepped trajectory’, with the housing requirement to increase throughout the Plan period.
2.11 The Plan utilises the baseline Local Housing Need (LHN) as the housing requirement, equating to 27,100 dwellings over the Plan period. The PPG is clear that when establishing a housing requirement “the standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area… Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.” [our emphasis] (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216). Examples of scenarios which may justify an increase of housing requirement include growth strategies, the delivery of strategic infrastructure improvements or the requirement of an authority to take on unmet need from a neighbouring authority.
2.12 It is important to note that the PPG sets out that the consideration of whether uplifts to the housing requirement from LHN are necessary should be undertaken prior to and independently of any consideration of the ability of an area to meet that need.
2.13 The Plan discusses the housing requirement at Paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the reasoned justification, albeit there is no discussion as to whether a higher housing requirement would be justified. The reasoned justification seems to challenge, informally, the LHN requirement. The Plan asserts that population would need to increase by 50,000 people with in-migration of more than 22,000 a year above existing trends to populate homes within Bedford at the standard method rate of 1,355 dwellings per year. However, it is significant to note, and acknowledged within the Plan, that Bedford Borough falls within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc. Whilst there is a lack of clarity on the onwards direction of the top-down vision for the Arc, accelerated growth is likely to occur irrespective, led through economic demands which will drive an above historic trend rate of growth and migration. Furthermore, the Plan’s assumptions do not reflect a higher level of natural household formation rate, which may currently be suppressed due to a lack of housing or house prices more generally. Looking at historic rates of delivery could therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that historic suppressed growth and/or suppressed household formation rates could be used to feed into justification for any subsequent strategies and serve to further suppress latent growth.
2.14 The LP2040 is not consistent with national policy because it does not plan for sufficient housing to meet future needs and does not proactively plan for any uplift as a result of the Arc Framework. It remains our view that a higher housing figure beyond the Local Housing Need Figure (which is intended to be a minimum figure within the PPG) should be planned for within the LP2040 in order to ensure a sound Plan.
2.15 Notwithstanding concerns relating to the delivery of the quantum of the housing proposed as discussed later within these representations, it is further noted that the Council have provided only a 5% buffer. Given the reliance on difficult to deliver strategic sites which are highly likely to be delayed, as discussed within these representations, the Council at a very minimum should be seeking to provide a 10% buffer to ensure delivery, by ensuring choice and competition in the market. As set out below, the Council’s current approach monopolises housing land within Bedford to a select few landowners, which allows them to control price and delivery rates in a manner which suits them, not necessarily which delivers the quantum of housing Bedford needs.
Timing of housing growth
2.16 The stepped trajectory is proposed as follows:
• 5 years 970 dpa = 4,850 dwellings during the period 20/21-24/25
• 5 years 1,050 dpa = 5,250 dwellings during the period 25/26-29/30
• 10 years 1,700 dpa = 17,000 dwellings during the period 30/31-39/40
• 20 years average = 1,355 dwellings during period 20/21-39/40
2.17 The stepped trajectory as proposed results in the delivery of 4,850 dwellings in the first 5 years (970 per annum), 5,250 in the next 5 years (1,050 per annum) equating to 10,100 dwellings in the first 10 years. This then dramatically steps up to 1,700 dwellings per annum over the final 10 years equating to 17,000 dwellings. This is an almost 70% increase from the requirement in the first 10 years of the Plan period to the requirement for the latter 10 years. To deliver this quantum of housing, the Council is relying on undeliverable levels of growth on the two strategic new settlement allocations (Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford) as discussed below.
2.18 Paragraph 4.27 of the emerging Plan advises that there is limited opportunity to bring forward additional sites in the early years of the Plan period due to the requirements for the delivery of strategic sites and the inter reliance on new development and the completion of major infrastructure projects which is why the stepped trajectory is required with significant growth pushed back to the latter part of the Plan period.
2.19 The approach oversimplifies matters and fails to recognise the latent capacity within the wider Plan area for existing sustainable settlements to deliver growth through smaller sustainable sites; which collectively could deliver a significant quantum of supply. Crucially, this supply can be front loaded in the Plan period, as sites within the smaller sustainable settlements are generally ‘shovel ready’, essentially meaning following allocation housebuilders are able to start quickly and deliver quickly. In addition to this, the delivery of such sites ensures the Council’s overall housing portfolio is varied, appealing to both a wide range of housebuilders and housing markets, thus ensuring the greatest choice and competition in the market, which ultimately drives delivery whilst protecting the continued over inflation of house prices. This approach also helps SME housebuilders to operate in the area.
2.20 The Council’s own evidence, which supported the preparation of the current Local Plan, identified that the Rural Service Centres were able to deliver up to 150 dwellings in each settlement; the adopted Plan however progressed a target of only 25 to 50 dwellings to be delivered through Neighbourhood Plans. It is clear therefore that the existing settlements have capacity to accommodate additional growth through this Plan and that there is an opportunity to allocate sustainable sites in villages such as Harrold to support the delivery of housing and importantly, support the delivery of housing in the early part of the Plan period so that housing need can be met immediately and not delayed as currently proposed. Such sites will likely be needed to ensure the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply on adoption of the Local Plan. This approach would further ensure a buffer should the strategic allocations/new settlements fail to deliver as anticipated, which we consider will be the case.
2.21 It is considered that the timing of delivery from the new settlements is overly ambitious and fails to reflect past delivery rates and evidence associated with bringing forward similar sites. The Wixams is a prime example. The site was first identified as a location for new housing in the late 1990s through the Bedfoprdshire Structure Plan adopted in 1997, and the Elstow New Settlement: Planning and Development Brief, adopted in September 1999. The role of the latter was to provide the framework for the submission of both the outline and reserved matters planning applications for the timely delivery of the settlement. The outline planning application for the core site was submitted in November 1999. In September 2005 the Council, in consultation with the land promoters, published and adopted The Wixams Strategic Design Guide SPD, to further guide and expedite delivery of the site. At this stage, it was anticipated that the entire development would be delivered within 15 years; this would have meant that the site would have been close to being fully built out in 2022.
2.22 However, despite this and the intervening 17-year period, the most recent monitoring report, confirms that only the initial phases have been completed in full with significant development still to be brought forward, despite construction commencing as far back as 2007 (15 years ago). In the case of the Wixams, it took over 9 from the submission of the outline planning application for the first delivery of housing, despite explicit policy support. Since then delivery has still been far slower than expected.
2.23 The Wixam’s highlights the complexity associated with the delivery of new settlements. Whilst the continued delivery of the site is of course promising, the difficulty in reaching this stage, on a site within Bedford Borough, should act as a severe warning as to the obvious pitfalls associated with strategic delivery of new settlements and should be factored into the Plan’s strategy and its over reliance on new settlements delivering the whole of the LHN moving forward.
Despite the significant delays associated with the delivery at Wixams and other strategic sites within Bedford, and also evidenced through other Local Plans which have acknowledged failure due over reliance on strategic sites (Charnwood, Rushcliffe, West Northamptonshire, etc), the Council have seemingly wed themselves to a strategy which once again, places an over reliance of strategic development, including new settlements. This approach is not justified and therefore not sound.
2.25 Start to Finish (Nathanial Lichfields) reinforces the examples above and sets out that applications for schemes over 500 dwellings are unlikely to make a contribution in the first five years. This is primarily due to the complex planning issues related to both the principle of development and the detail of implementation. Where applications have been determined more quickly than the average, this is as a result of matters being substantially addressed prior to submission which, when combined with the determination period, still adds up to the same amount of time; as the report states “there is rarely a way to short-circuit planning”.
2.26 The NLP report goes on to state:
“Planned housing trajectories should be realistic, accounting and responding to lapse rates, lead-in times and sensible build rates. This is likely to mean allocating more sites rather than less, with a good mix of types and sizes, and then being realistic about how fast they will deliver so that supply is maintained throughout the plan period. Because no one site is the same – and with significant variations from the average in terms of lead-in time and build rates – a sensible approach to evidence and justification is required.”
2.27 Whilst the site promoter may point to more optimistic timescales, a far more cautious and evidenced approach is required, with smaller and more deliverable sites allocated to deliver immediately, in order to ensure a sound Plan.
2.28 In relation to the proposed Kempston Hardwick New Settlement (Policy HOU14), it is noted that the site has no current planning status according to the Council’s online mapping. Land Registry details confirm that the site is in multiple ownership. It is not clear to what extent the landowners are in agreement as to the delivery of the site or whether there is agreement between all parties to bring the site forward. As set out above and demonstrated through the complex history associated with the Wixams, strategic scale development is difficult to deliver and takes a significant amount of time. These difficulties are compounded when the development covers multiple land ownerships.
2.29 The Little Barford proposed allocation (Policy HOU19) appears to be within a single land ownership, but will still require significant time to deliver. The site is attached to St Neots, a town within neighbouring Huntingdonshire District. It is not clear whether Huntingdonshire have commented or agreed to this proposal. Clearly by locating development here, residents are most likely to work and spend in St Neots, not within Bedford. This therefore limits the benefits provided by this housing, without any compelling justification. Bedford’s LHN should be met and development located where the need is. There is no compelling justification for the approach adopted by the Council and this is a significant concern. Not only is the delivery of the new settlements not sound, the overall approach of directing almost all of Borough’s housing need to new settlements is also unjustified and fails to reflect the housing needs of the Borough as a whole. The proposed approach to the distribution of development fails to recognise the role smaller settlements, including the Rural Service Centres, play. The delivery of housing to new settlements only fails to help young people remain in the settlements where they currently live, forcing younger people and families out of villages and contributing to a lack of social diversity within existing settlements. It also fails to support the vitality and viability of existing businesses and services in rural settlements, potentially risking their ongoing operation. The approach also fails deliver a variety of housing to the housing market, preventing choice and competition as advocated in the NPPF and in the Letwin Review.
2.30 Not only is the delivery of the new settlements not sound, the overall approach of directing almost all of Borough’s housing need to new settlements is also unjustified and fails to reflect the housing needs of the Borough as a whole. The proposed approach to the distribution of development fails to recognise the role smaller settlements, including the Rural Service Centres play. The delivery of housing to new settlements only fails to help young people remain in the settlements where they currently live, forcing younger people and families out of villages and contributing to a lack of social diversity within existing settlements. It also fails to support the vitality and viability of existing businesses and services in rural settlements, potentially risking their ongoing operation. The approach also fails to deliver a variety of housing to the housing market, preventing choice and competition as advocated in the NPPF and in the Letwin Review.
2.31 In relation to the new settlements, the Council’s assumes delivery on these sites will be at times 1,200 dwellings per annum collectively, equating to annual delivery of 600 dwellings per annum per site. This is highly ambitious. Nationally sites of over 2,000 dwellings only deliver on average 160 dwellings per annum. The Council’s trajectory however sets out that from commencement of delivery of units in 2030/31 up to 2039/40, annual delivery rates averages 380 dwellings per annum, in excess of double the national average for similar sites over 2,000 units. It is considered highly unlikely these anticipated rates of development will occur, particularly during the Plan period. The peak delivery of 600 units per site from 2037/38 is also considered highly ambitious and not reflected in delivery rates of other similar sites nationally, let alone within Bedford.
2.32 To ensure a sound Plan allocating suitable shovel ready sites in sustainable settlements such as Harrold to deliver in the early part of the Plan period will lessen the reliance on complex sites to deliver in the latter stages of the Plan bringing delivery targets down to more reasonable and deliverable levels. This revised approach would enable the Council will deliver more homes in the short term, securing jobs and helping to slow the inflation on house prices. There will be further social benefits through the delivery of affordable housing at a time when there is an acute need. It will help maintain the viability and vitality of existing and ensure choice and competition in the market for housing assisting delivery and market absorption. It will also ensure the Council can maintain a five-year housing land supply; which currently looks to be marginal even on adoption, if it can be demonstrated at all. This approach is a fundamental risk as the Plan cannot be found sound if there is no five-year housing land supply at adoption and will weaken the plans effectiveness if Paragraph 11 is regularly engaged. Allocating sufficient sites to ensure a robust five-year housing land supply at adoption and throughout the Plan is therefore considered to be a fundamentally benefit as the Plan cannot be adopted or reasonably function without it.

Comment

Representation ID: 9617

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Land Allocation Ltd

Agent: AAH Planning Consultants

Since there are no exceptional circumstances identified by the Council, we support the use of the standard method to calculate the housing requirement for the Borough, since this is currently prescribed method of calculating housing need. The latest calculation sees a significant 40% increase in the Boroughs housing need, rising from 970 per annum, to 1,355 per annum. In total, 27,100 dwellings are needed between 2020 to 2040.

As per our previous representations, the Local Housing Need can fluctuate year on year when calculated using the Standard Methodology. Equally, the buffer that is required in the context of five-year housing land supply can also fluctuate. We maintain that unless the Council decide to confirm their five-year housing land supply, a 20% buffer would ensure the plan is future-proofed and provides flexibility, choice and competition in the housing market, reflecting government guidance. As per previous representations, we are not clear on what consideration has been given to an appropriate buffer.

We also cannot see that an uplift has been included to take into account economic growth. The Standard Method itself does not take into account economic growth, and we, therefore, recommend a housing requirement figure, calculated by the current calculation of the time, in this case, the Standard Method, but also takes into account the economic growth. This is of particular importance when Policy DS4(S) Amount of Housing Growth seeks for the provision of 26,700 additional jobs over the plan period. We do, however, support the allocation of specific employment sites and note that Policy DM8, New employment development in the countryside, builds on Policy 7S of the Local Plan 2030 to provide a better framework for economic growth in the rural areas, helping to maintain their vitality and viability.

Despite these positive steps, we maintain that a housing requirement uplift is necessary to support the economic growth and ambition of the plan. Therefore, we currently consider that the plan is not aspirational nor positively prepared as the target of new homes per annum (especially if using a stepped trajectory discussed further below) is insufficient to realise job-led housing needs across the plan area. In order to be found sound, the Local Plan should be targeting a higher growth within the Local Plan, incorporating an economic uplift and an appropriate buffer. Indeed, the NPPG identifies other factors which need to be considered when determining the housing requirement as detailed in previous representations, all of which suggest a higher housing need should be sought.

We reiterate the key government objection to ‘significantly boost’ housing supply and maintain that greater emphasis should be placed on the wording of Policy DS3, that 27,100 dwellings over the plan period is recognised as the minimum housing required. This key objective is highlighted in Paragraph 61 of the NPPF, and the associated NPPG guidance, is clear that the standard method represents the “…minimum number of homes needed…” and the plan must respond to the Government’s key objective of boosting the supply of housing. We continue to consider that it is important that there is flexibility in the number of housing allocations to ensure that a five-year housing land supply can be maintained over the plan period in order to meet the housing requirement and consider that the Council should be seeking to over-allocate housing land to ensure flexibility, choice and competition in the housing market reflecting government guidance.

In regards to the stepped trajectory and Policy DS3(S), Amount and timing of housing growth, we note that for the first five years (2020/21 – 2024/25), there is no increase in the provision of the number of dwellings than the current local plan (970) requires per annum. In the next five years (2025/26 – 2029/30), there is a marginal increase of 80 dwellings per annum (1,050). The last 10 years of the plan see a significant increase in the trajectory, requiring 1,700 dwellings per annum. Whilst the principle of a stepped trajectory is acceptable, we have concerns that having a stepped trajectory that is so low in the first five and ten years of the plan period, there is a high chance that the actual housing need of 1,355 dwellings per annum is unlikely to be met as the proposed trajectory is so far below the actual requirement. In turn, this could lead to a lack of five-year housing land supply, triggering the titled balance. We suggest that a more even and achievable trajectory is considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 9664

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Verve Developments Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Draft Policy DS3(S) is supported with reservations regarding the soundness of the policy.

Through the proposed development, the Land at Bedford Heights will form an important part of the Council’s housing pipeline to address substantial shortfalls in the supply of affordable housing including 1no. bed rented affordable homes. The Bedford Borough Local Housing Needs Assessment Addendum – April 2022 Update, in Figure 9 sets out a total affordable housing requirement for 1 bedroom affordable dwellings of 1,218.

The Council’s delivery timeframes and capacity assumptions in relation to our client’s site are incorrect. We do not, as a matter of principle, support the Council relying on a stepped trajectory as it delays meeting the identified minimum annual local housing needs for the Borough, particularly those relating to affordable housing. Suitable sites in the urban area such as our client’s site at Bedford Heights should be prioritised. This is mandated by Planning Practice Guidance ID: 68-021-20190722. In the Council’s circumstances it is essential that its assumptions regarding housing land supply are informed by developer engagement and reflect realistic details in relation to lead-in and build out rates (ID: 3-022-20190722). Fundamental shortcomings in the Council’s evidence base relating to our client’s site mean we must object to Supporting Document 27 – Stepped Housing Trajectory Topic Paper.

This shows an estimated capacity for the site of 15 units to be delivered in 2026/27 which is not justified, positively prepared and not consistent with national policy.

The site for the draft allocation HOU10 is shown on the revised Map 1 (Supporting Document 52 – Changes to Policies Map) however no evidence has been provided to justify the capacity of the site based on site area. Supporting Document 9 – Development Strategy Topic Paper May 2022 sets out that Bedford Heights draft allocation HOU10 is allocated as it is within the urban area. It is acknowledged that some urban sites are complex and may therefore result in a later delivery but these related constraints are not applicable to our client’s land, as outlined below.

Supporting Document 14 – Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment and Site Assessments includes within Appendix 5 the Bedford Heights Call for Sites report extract (ID:7412). This highlights comments from key consultees but raises no significant issues that would restrict delivery of the site for residential development before 2026/27.

Details of the 15no. unit capacity estimate are unsourced. The Council’s estimates does not utilise the Council’s standard density multiplier of 30dph, based on the approx. 0.2ha site area, notwithstanding that our client would not agree with this assumption as it would fail to make best use of land within the urban area.

The ‘proposed use’ details within the Council’s HELAA Assessment Form (ID:7412) for the site does recognise the suitability of flatted development in this location (30 units) and the evidence base is therefore inconsistent with details of capacity within the Housing Trajectory or Plan for Submission, albeit the HELAA fails to fully reflect the unit mix and associated capacity for emerging proposals at the site.

A planning application is currently being prepared and all required technical reports being undertaken to meet all policy requirements. The application is to be submitted in Q3 of 2022/23 and it would be likely that development could commence on site in 2023. With a modular construction methodology and due to the limited scale of the development this site could realistically deliver the units in 2023/24.

Object

Representation ID: 9774

Received: 22/07/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS1(S) has many positive elements to it and we support the Council’s aim to be carbon neutral and deliver climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The development strategy (paragraphs 4.3 and 4.7) explains that to meet assessed needs to 2040, there has been an uplift of the housing requirement of 40% from 970 dwellings per annum (2030 plan) to 1355 dwellings per annum. We have reviewed sections 5.3 Potable Water and 5.4 Wastewater of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan dated May 2022. We are concerned that the IDP doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed growth put forward by the plan can be delivered sustainably, and not place further pressures on a water environment (notably rivers and groundwater) which is already under pressure from abstraction for public water supply and wastewater discharges. We are therefore concerned that Policy DS1(S) ‘Resources and Climate Change’ and potentially Policy DS3(S) ’Amount and timing of growth’ are unsound as they are not consistent with paragraphs 20 and 153 of the NPPF. Paragraph 20 sets the baseline in requiring that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for (b) infrastructure for water supply and wastewater (amongst other strategic issues). Paragraph 153 is requiring that plans take a pro-active approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for (amongst various issues) water supply.

Section 5.3 (Potable Water) of the IDP describes the predicted deficits in future water supply faced by Anglian Water as detailed in their Water Resources Management Plan (2019). A draft update to the company’s WRMP is about to be published in Autumn 2022, with the final plan expected in 2024. The Council at the earliest opportunity should seek advice from Anglian Water on how relevant the 2019 WRMP remains as a long-term planning tool. This particularly relates to the figures quoted in 1.4.12 and 5.3. We advise extreme caution in using the figures quoted in the 2019 WRMP unless they are demonstrated to remain relevant in the context of the company’s forthcoming WRMP24. The 2015 Anglian Region River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) that current levels of water abstraction are causing, or risk causing, environmental damage in various river catchments across East Anglia and measures have been identified in the RBMP to address this. We have recently undertaken abstraction licence reviews to ensure waterbodies comply with the Water Framework Directive objectives. Given the water resource pressures in the region, we cannot rule out further reductions in the supplies available to Anglian Water to prevent deterioration of water related ecology. Any resultant loss in available supplies will need to be addressed in the company’s WRMP24. It should be noted that replacement supplies are likely to require strategic supply options (for example, reservoirs and long-distance transfers) that could have significant delivery times. This should be an important consideration and inform Policy DS3(S) which sets out the amount and timing of growth. The stepped trajectory noted in Local Plan paragraph 4.25 refers to ‘critical infrastructure’ and paragraph 4.27 alludes to transport infrastructure. However, for the plan’s policies to be effective and deliverable, it needs to be proven that water supplies can be delivered sustainably and review the trajectory of growth accordingly.

Whilst section 5.3 of the IDP notes that Bedford is not the only local authority supplied by the Ruthamford Water Resource Zone, the effects of growth need to be considered at the company/regional scale and in combination with the other authorities’ local plans to assess the overall effect on the ability to supply water whilst meeting environmental obligations. Spare capacity in the Ruthamford resource zone may already be allocated to 1. Growth in resources zones elsewhere in the company’s network, 2. Transfers to other companies in the region, or 3. To offset supply reductions to protect the environment. The local plan needs to take account of the combined effect of growth across the region, including in neighbouring authorities, and therefore the overall increase in demand for water and not just that of Bedford Borough area.

For wastewater we are concerned that the IDP relies on Anglian Water’s now out-of-date Water Recycling Long Term Plan 2018 which will be reviewed as part of the forthcoming Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan due in Autumn 2022. It’s not demonstrated whether the proposed level of growth in the 2040 (or indeed 2030) plan has been accounted for in the water companies plans and the in-combination effects of proposed growth in neighbouring districts whilst utilising infrastructure in Bedford has been accounted for. It needs to be demonstrated that the delivery of the 2040 plan will not result in a breach of environmental legislation due to the increase in foul drainage generated (and discharged via sewerage infrastructure into local watercourses). Assessments carried out should highlight locations where upgrades to the foul water infrastructure are necessary and identify measures, including phasing new development, so that wastewater infrastructure will be in place to avoid creating local environmental problems.

There also doesn’t appear to be an assessment of whether there are likely to be significant effects from the plan’s proposed growth on habitat sites or features from a reduction in water quality because of increased discharges of sewage and surface water drainage. Although the existing Local Plan 2030 policies 33, 34 and 48 do provide a means of protecting the local water environment from increased volumes of wastewater generated from new development, the strategic assessment to ensure growth can be accommodated by wastewater infrastructure is insufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 9782

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: BDW Trading

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Our comments should be read within the context of our responses to the vision and objectives and Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy.
Policy DS3(S) provides insufficient explanation as to the proposed minimum number of new dwellings and it does not a clear or accurate explanation.
We consider that Policy DS3(S) is not sound on the following tests under paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
a) Positively prepared – the plan does not propose a strategy which contains sites within a strategy capable of delivering the area’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum.
b) Justified – the strategy in the plan is not appropriate taking into account the reasonable alternatives which is more of a focus on Bedford Town and Kempston and sites that can be well-connected to these existing urban areas.
c) Effective – the strategy is not effective due to the uncertainty over deliverability of proposed allocations.
d) Consistent with national policy – we simply consider that the plan is not capable of being considered to deliver sustainable development as required under the NPPF because of the proposed spatial strategy and the proposed site allocations.
The proposed policy does not demonstrate that it has satisfied paragraph 61 of the NPPF which requires strategic policies to determine the minimum number of homes needed, 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.
Paragraph 4.7 of the emerging local plan states that as a result of the government’s recent revisions to the standard method, the housing figure for Bedford Borough is 1,355 dwellings per year, giving a total of 27,100 dwellings for the 20 year period from 2020 to 2040. The proposed policy is only to plan for this minimum, nothing more and hence there is no flexibility in this due to the absence of an appropriate buffer. We would expect to see a 10-15% buffer put in place, as this is often the accepted buffer for such matters. The strategy is not sound because it relies entirely on all of the strategic and non-strategic sites delivering within the plan period as envisaged, despite there being critical decisions yet to be made on masterplanning, infrastructure delivery, etc in the surrounding areas.
There is no explanation as to the options assessed for preparation of a local plan which includes a housing delivery figure above a minimum required under the standard method. Housing delivery in the Borough has already exceeded the annual minimum provision proposed under Policy DS3(S) in the periods 2020/21 to 2024/25 and 2025/26 to 2029/2030. Therefore this is a proposed local plan, which in respect of housing growth, shows a reduction in growth. It is a slowing-up in growth and this will be reflected in terms of investment including in infrastructure in comparison to recent delivery.
This is not a sound approach to take. Much is made of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc within the draft local plan but not when it comes to planning for the amount and timing for housing growth which seems to want to slow-up delivery and push it back later into the proposed plan period, by which time there would have to have been at least one further partial or full review of this emerging local plan.
Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states 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. Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery. The proposed local plan includes new settlements but it does not look ahead over the longer timescale.
The policy and the plan overall does not provide for the paragraph 69 NPPF requirement for land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare or else shown through policy why there are strong reasons why this target cannot be achieved. We mention this because it is a matter for examination into the plan under the tests of soundness being consistent with national policy.
The table under Policy DS3(S) is not accurate in that the numbers within the rows do not add up to the total. This might be a typographical error but either way it needs to be accurate.
There is no justification given for the proposed stepped trajectory and insufficient explanation of a trajectory. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF requires strategic policies to include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period, and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites. We consider it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for all proposed specific sites within the emerging local plan because without this the process is not transparent or measurable. This approach means they will not be meeting their housing need (including affordable housing) in the early years of the plan because of the stepped trajectory.

Comment

Representation ID: 9876

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

In terms of the amount of housing, we have a concern that the Council are relying on the standard method housing figure as the housing requirement without considering in more detail if a higher target would be appropriate.
The PPG at several points, including paragraph 10 (reference ID: 2a-010-20201216) is clear that the standard method provides the minimum starting point for determining how many homes are needed in an area – it does not set the requirement. It lists a number of circumstances where housing need in the future may be higher than the standard method indicates, including where there are strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the demand for homes. This is the exact situation in Bedford with East West Rail and the highway improvements to the east of Bedford, which will massively improve access to Cambridge.
The Sustainability Appraisal does briefly consider alternative numbers, immediately ruling out a lower number. When discussing a higher alternative housing figure it states: ‘In the absence of any methodology for calculating a higher alternative figure, a 10% uplift to the local housing need assessment is proposed. This would give a requirement for 29,810 dwellings over the plan period. After commitments are deducted, 14,986 dwellings would need to be allocated.’
This matter is then revisited at Section 9.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal where it briefly states that the Council have adopted the Government’s Standard Methodology housing figure. The decision not to use a higher alternative housing requirement is justified on that basis that:
“A higher level of growth that exceeds housing needs would result in a number of negative effects on sustainability appraisal objectives which exceed the benefit of the identified positive effects. Such higher growth is not a reasonable option. It would not be deliverable and would not be supported by the Council because of the lack of evidence to show that a higher level of growth is required and the perceived negative effects on existing communities and the environment. A growth option which meets the assessed housing need for growth (including a buffer) is the only reasonable option.”
We contend that this is insufficient analysis to consider if a higher requirement could be appropriate and that this needs to be revisited for the Plan to be sound.
The use of a stepped trajectory as proposed is consistent with the National Planning Practice Guidance (reference ID: 68-021-20190722). However, this should only be on the basis on the relationship with planned infrastructure and should not unduly delay the delivery of housing to meet local needs, as is made clear in the PPG.
We have a concern that the stepped approach set out in DS3 will conflict with this requirement by unnecessarily delaying the delivery of homes. As is set out in our comments on policy DS5 below, to rely solely on existing commitments in the rural area and villages is a fundamental error of the plan is it negates the important contribution the small and medium sized sites in the larger villages can make to meeting short term housing need without a need for significant infrastructure investment. Therefore, whilst we agree that a stepped trajectory may be capable of being justified in the Plan, the way it is currently drafted is unsound as it unnecessarily delays the delivery of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 9885

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

3.1 The Plan states that the result of the standard method is 1,335 new homes per annum between
2020 and 2040. The total for the plan period is 27,100 dwellings. Paragraph 4.7 states that after taking account of 14,824 dwellings committed, the new local plan will need to allocate land to provide a minimum of 12,276 new dwellings. The evidence base does not provide a critical assessment of the committed 14,824 dwellings and that will be necessary as the Plan is examined
as many may have lapsed or not be considered deliverable under the new definition in NPPF 2021.
3.2 Based on the latest affordability ratio we calculate the standard method figure to be Step 1 which is 985 dwellings per annum, with Step 2 increasing it to 1,369 dwellings.
3.3 Paragraph 7.3 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report states a higher growth figure should be considered of LHN plus 10%. It states:
“In considering reasonable alternatives for the amount of housing growth to be provided in the local plan, a lower figure than 12,276 dwellings (or no growth) is not a realistic option because of the National Planning Policy Framework requirement for local plans to meet assessed needs in accordance with the standard method. However this is a minimum number and a higher growth
figure has been considered for the purposes of sustainability appraisal testing although the Plan’s objective is to meet the Standard Methodology requirement. In the absence of any methodology for calculating a higher alternative figure, a 10% uplift to the local housing need assessment is proposed. This would give a requirement for 29,810 dwellings over the plan period. After commitments are deducted, 14,986 dwellings would need to be allocated.”
3.4 We endorse a buffer of at least 10%2, but it has not been carried forward into the Plan. Whilst we agree that there should be a minimum 10% flexibility, we consider there should be a buffer of 20% which is based on the Local Plans Expert Group report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning in March 2016. The report recommends at paragraph 11.4 that the Framework should make clear that local plans should be required to demonstrate a five year land supply but also focus on ensuring a more effective supply of developable land for the medium to long term, plus make provision for, and provide a mechanism for the release of, sites equivalent to 20% of their housing requirement, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework.
3.5 As the plan moves forward a buffer of 20% is essential given that some of the growth is reliant on new settlements and significant extensions, made neighbourhood plans and from experience across the county issues arise on the timing of delivery on allocated sites. As we set out below it would also assist with the economic aims of the Arc and deliver much needed affordable homes in Bedford to meet a significant need.
Stepped Requirements
3.6 Paragraphs 4.25 to 4.27 of the Plan proposes a stepped requirement. It states:
“4.25 The significant increase in the housing requirement alongside the focus on new settlements and the infrastructure delivery challenges described above
mean that housing provision across the plan period will need to be “stepped”; continuing at the same rate as it is for Local Plan 2030 for the first five years, with more significant growth post-2030 once critical infrastructure is delivered 28 and the benefits for the local economy start to be felt.
4.26 Taking account of the infrastructure delivery challenges a stepped trajectory is proposed. The following policies set out the amount and timing of
the delivery of growth to meet identified needs.
4.27 In the years up to 2030 housing supply is provided by sites allocated in Local Plan 2030 and early delivery on additional sites allocated in Local Plan 2040. 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. Furthermore, development on some other urban sites also becomes increasingly viable. Given that the higher development rates in the second half of the plan period are primarily related to the provision of major
infrastructure and strategic sites from 2030 onwards which is required to deliver them, there will be limited scope to bring forward sites to address any shortfall which may arise in the early years of the plan.”
3.7 A number of points arise.
3.8 Firstly, the proposed phasing is not consistent with real housing needs now and there is no evidence to suggest that the need will be less in the early years of the plan. Indeed, Policy 1 (Reviewing the Local Plan 2030) states:
“The plan review will secure levels of growth that accord with government policy and any growth deals that have been agreed. The planning and delivery of strategic growth will be aligned with the delivery of planned infrastructure schemes including the A421 expressway, Black Cat junction, East West Rail link and potentially the A1 realignment.”
3.9 The evidence and the need for this early review both demonstrate the highest levels of housing need being present now, due to persistent failure to meet housing needs in previous years and a very significant backlog of affordable housing.
3.10 Figure 42 and paragraph 5.18 of the ORS LHNA states:
“Based on a detailed review of both the past trends and current estimates our analysis has concluded that 2,119 households are currently living in unsuitable housing and are unable to afford their own housing. This assessment is based on the criteria set out in the PPG and avoids double counting as far as possible.”
3.11 The affordability ratios also demonstrate an increasing affordability issue in Bedford.
GRAPH IN ATTACHMENT
3.12 Meeting this need should not be delayed further by a stepped trajectory which would reduce supply against an increasing demand with the effect of higher house prices and worsening unaffordability.
3.13 Secondly, the proposed phased approach is contrary to paragraph 60 of the Framework, which
requires the Council to support the Government’s objective of ‘significantly boosting’ the supply of homes by bringing forward a sufficient amount and variety of land where it is needed. The origins of the current Framework can be found in the previous Government’s 2017 White Paper:
Fixing our Broken Housing Market, which made it very clear that the cause for the broken market is simple: for too long, not enough homes have been built. The current Government’s ambition is to increase the supply by 300,000 new homes annually which is, as explained in the current Government’s 2020 White Paper: Planning for the Future, a figure which far exceeds the cumulative targets in adopted development plans (187,000 homes per annum) and current delivery (241,000 homes were built in 2018/19). The messages are clear: there is a national housing crisis and boosting the supply of housing now is a critical objective for the Government.
3.14 There are three stepped requirements across the plan, with the first step continuing the existing outdated requirement of 970dpa and the second step barely increasing the requirement. Most of the unmet needs are pushed to the end of the plan period. The Plan is effectively proposing that unmet needs should not just persist for a longer period, but that they will continue to
accumulate for the first 5 years of the plan which when combined with the requirement in the adopted local plan will mean some 10 years of not meet the starting point for housing need in Bedford 3 . This is wholly unacceptable and clearly contrary to the national imperative to significantly boost supply. There is no other provision within national policy or guidance which supports the use of a stepped requirement nor any evidence to suggest the housing market is not capable of delivering significant growth required. If prospective purchasers or those in need of an affordable home are not provided with a home it will exacerbate the housing crisis and/or result in out migration.
3.15 Thirdly, at the Examination the Secretary of State can have no confidence that the higher levels of delivery in later years will ever be applied as a housing requirement. Paragraph 74 of the Framework states:
“Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need where the strategic policies are more than five years old.”
3.16 Therefore, when the plan is more than five years old, housing land supply will be assessed against local housing need. On this point, footnote 39 of the Framework clarifies:
“Unless these strategic policies have been reviewed and found not to require updating. Where local housing need is used as the basis for assessing whether a five year supply of specific deliverable sites exists, it should be calculated using the standard method set out in national planning guidance.”
3.17 There is therefore no guarantee that the Council will ever apply the higher stepped housing requirement. Indeed, our experience is that LPAs with a planned housing requirement that is higher than local housing need will simply not undertake a ‘footnote 39 review’ or will determine through that review that the policies do not need updating. To name a few these include East Riding, Horsham, Ribble Valley, Hinkley & Bosworth, Cheshire East, Fylde and Wyre. For Bedford, this could mean prior to the higher stepped requirement in the later part of the LP2040, the LPA may decide to not undertake a ‘footnote 39 review’ so that housing land supply is calculated under the lower standard method. In the event of allocations not delivering as expected at that point, this approach would undermine the NPPF’s objective to allow sustainable windfall sites of all sizes to be brought in to meet needs.
3.18 The fourth is that the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (April 2022) and the Plan states that a reason
for the stepped trajectory is that “to support the level of growth required there will be a significant infrastructure need across social, environmental and physical infrastructure. It will require significant investment in health, education and the provision of other public services, as well as green spaces to support healthy lifestyles and transport infrastructure for all modes”. This is a consequence of the chosen development strategy and an alternative would be for extensions to existing settlements which can use the existing services and facilities. There is no evidence that existing settlements do not have the capacity to support new housing. As we set out under DS5(S) those existing communities should continue to have development so that those communities can maintain or improve their sustainability and are not fossilised.
3.19 Therefore, the requirement should not be reduced in the early years of the plan period. The proposed approach is contrary to national policy, in particular paragraph 60 of the Framework, and it is not an appropriate strategy based upon the evidence base. It would compound issues of housing under-delivery at a time when the backlog of needs should be being met as urgently as possible and contrary to the reasons for this early review. Instead of phasing the requirement,
the correct approach is to boost supply in the early years of the plan.
3.20 The allocation of additional sites which are deliverable in the short term could significantly boost supply in the early years of the plan, eradicating the need to employ phasing. Insufficient consideration has been given to this potential strategy through the preparation of the plan and in particular the selection of site allocations. Such small and medium sized sites which are not reliant on strategic infrastructure that can deliver early in the plan period as sustainable extensions to towns and villages. If a stepped requirement is required, then it should be based on a trajectory that factors in early delivery on small and medium sized sites and larger allocations which so not require that new infrastructure. The imperative should be to meet the housing needs sooner and any stepped requirement should be for new settlements only if they form part of the strategy going forward. The Plan should allocate land
for at least 1,369 dwellings per annum on adoption with monitoring provisions to allow for sites to be brought forward earlier if delivery does not keep pace with requirement. With a sufficient mix of the right sites housing completions in the recent past suggest that delivery in excess of 1,335 is achievable in the market with 1,350 dwellings and 1,359 dwellings being completed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively which from the AMRs were from small sites through to large sites. This shows that a mix of sites is necessary to meet the standard method. Therefore, the Council needs to employ an appropriate strategy to deliver the housing needs that have existed for the last 4 years and going forward as set out by the standard method.

Should there be an uplift of Housing Requirement?
3.21 Paragraph 61 of the Framework states:
“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.”
3.22 Paragraph 2a-010 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states:
“When might it be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure than the standard method indicates?
The government is committed to ensuring that more homes are built and supports ambitious authorities who want to plan for growth. The standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.
This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable, for example where funding is in place to promote and facilitate additional growth (e.g. Housing Deals);
• strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• an authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground;
There may, occasionally, also be situations where previous levels of housing delivery in an area, or previous assessments of need (such as a recently produced Strategic Housing Market Assessment) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. Authorities are encouraged to make as much use as possible of previously-developed or brownfield land, and therefore cities and urban centres, not only those subject to the cities and urban centres uplift may strive to plan for more home. Authorities will need to take this into account when considering whether it is appropriate to plan for a higher level of need than the standard model suggests.”
3.23 As set out above, the minimum local housing need figure under the standard methodology is 1,369 new homes a year for the period 2020-2040. This is a total of 27,380 homes. After taking account of the existing commitments, the Plan seeks to make provision for 12,500 homes over the plan period to 2040. However, there should be a critical assessment of the supply undertaken to ensure that the Submission Plan allocates sufficient land to meet the housing requirement and that over-estimation of existing commitment delivery does not result in under-estimation of new allocations. That assessment has not been consulted upon prior to the Submission Plan being prepared. It will be for the Examination to critically assess the existing and new supply as a whole.
Arc Spatial Framework and East West Rail
3.24 As noted in paragraph 1.9 of the Plan, in February 2021 the Government published a policy paper entitled ‘Planning for sustainable growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc: an introduction to the spatial framework’. A consultation titled “Creating a vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc” ended on 12th October 2021. The consultation states that its purpose is:
“Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’, sets out the government’s first public consultation on the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework. We are seeking views to help us create a vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework, and in doing so guide the future growth of the area to 2050.”
3.25 A number of points arise.
3.26 Paragraph 5.5 of the Arc Spatial Framework states:
5.5 We are concerned about the affordability and availability of housing in the Arc, and what this will mean for the Arc’s communities, economy and environment. Development of new homes is already happening in the Arc, but in the main centres this has not kept up with need. We also know people are being priced out of the area, increasing the need to make more polluting journeys for work and leisure, and making home ownership less likely for many.
And we have heard concerns about the quality and sustainability of new development.
3.27 Paragraph 5,7 states:
5.7 We will also seek to set policies to enable:
• new development to come forward at the scale and speed needed, in sustainable locations, with a focus on brownfield redevelopment;
• new development to support the recovery of nature, new green space that can be accessed by all, resilience to climate change, and protection of highly valued existing green space; and
• housing needs to be met in full, including much-needed affordable housing.
3.28 Paragraph 5.8 states:
“5.8 In parallel to the development of the Spatial Framework, the government is also exploring options to speed up new housing and infrastructure development in the Arc to help meet its ambitions, where evidence supports it.
This includes examining (and where appropriate, developing) the case for new and/or expanded settlements in the Arc, including options informed by possible East West Rail stations between Bedford and Cambridge and growth options at Cambridge itself. The government will undertake additional Arc consultations on any specific proposals for such options as appropriate. The Spatial Framework will guide the future growth of the Arc to 2050, including on the question of new housing and infrastructure and will, as part of its development, take into consideration any significant new housing and infrastructure coming forward to meet the Arc‘s ambition.”
3.29 It is clear that the Arc Spatial Framework will impact on Bedford and the scale of housing. Bedford is at the heart of the Arc. Whilst it is too early to give significant weight to the Arc Spatial Framework as the emerging LP2040 is being prepared in parallel with it and “shares many of the overarching principles relating to economic growth and the natural environment”. The East West Rail is in progress and Stage 2 will extend the service from Oxford to Bedford. The full route to Cambridge is expected to be operational by 2030. This is included in the Vision (para 2.1). Given both the Arc and EWR, then planning for an additional 20% of housing not only provides the necessary flexibility required but will also provide homes to meet the economic ambitions of Bedford Borough.

Census 2021
3.30 Paragraph 8 of the ORS Report states:
"The latest official figures from the 2018-based projections show 73.1 thousand households in 2022 and suggest that this will increase to 80.6 thousand households over the period to 2032 based on the 10-year migration trend variant scenario (Fig 1); a growth of 7.5 thousand, equivalent to 10.3%”.
3.31 Figure 58 of the LNHA also uses a starting point of 71,361 households as part of the housing need assessment. However, the 2021 Census figures are now available and for Bedford the total “Number of households with at least one usual resident” at 2021 is 74,900, some 1,800 more households than predicted by the 2018 household projections. This is a materially different starting point and that underestimation should not be carried forward. Rather, the migration trends should apply to the Census figure.

Affordable Homes
3.32 In the case of Bedford, paragraph 5.52 of the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) states that the affordable needs is 691 dwellings per annum which “represents a substantial proportion of the annual growth of 771 households per annum identified by the ONS 2018-based household projections for the LHN period 2020-2030 (10-year variant, Figure 33)”4. It represents 54% of the standard method figure. This is also a clear indication as to how much of Bedford Borough’s housing growth is (and will continue to be) unaffordable.
3.33 The Standard Method does not assess the affordable housing needs in each LPA area as the PPG5 confirms where it states:
“An affordability adjustment is applied as household growth on its own is insufficient as an indicator of future housing need because:
household formation is constrained to the supply of available properties – new households cannot form if there is nowhere for them to live; and people may want to live in an area in which they do not reside currently, for example to be near to work, but be unable to find appropriate accommodation that they can afford.
The affordability adjustment is applied in order to ensure that the standard method for assessing local housing need responds to price signals and is consistent with the policy objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The specific adjustment in this guidance is set at a level to ensure that minimum annual housing need starts to address the affordability of homes.” (our
emphasis)
3.34 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20190220 states:
“Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable, for example where funding is in place to promote and facilitate additional growth (e.g. Housing Deals);
• strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• an authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground;
There may, occasionally, also be situations where previous levels of housing delivery in an area, or previous assessments of need (such as a recently produced Strategic Housing Market Assessment) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. Authorities will need to take this into account when considering whether it is appropriate to plan for a higher level of need than the standard model suggests.” (our emphasis)
3.35 In the case of Bedford, Step 1 of the Standard Method is 985 dwellings per annum, with Step 2 increasing it to 1,369 dwellings. The affordability uplift is therefore 384 homes, which is significantly below the 691 affordable homes in the LHNA. This is because the affordability ratio as a long-term adjustment to house prices which can only be seen at the end of the plan period and is not meeting those 691 households in need per annum now and throughout the plan period. Therefore, we consider the Council should apply an uplift to meet affordable housing needs.
3.36 To conclude, our position is that the requirement should be treated as a minimum and a flexibility percentage should be considered and in the order of 20%. This would give a reasonable degree of security that should sites not deliver at the rates anticipated it will:
• Help ensure there is a robust five-year housing land supply;
• deliver a greater level of affordable housing in line with the LHNA; and,
• deliver homes to meet the economic ambition of the Arch Spatial Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 9929

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9942

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Bromham Parish Council

The Parish Council does have some concerns and, in particular, in relation to the timing of housing growth. In this regard, policy DS3(S) identifies that over 62% of growth is profiled in the period from 2030. Whilst the reason for the late profiling of growth, due to dependency on the delivery of infrastructure is recognized, it is a concerned that delay in realising the development potential could affect the five-year land supply position with obvious consequences. A second concern is that the proposed growth in the urban area often relies on multiple stakeholders and land interests and this could possibly frustrate more immediate delivery and also affect scheme viability. It is hoped that growth in and around the town centre will be designed sympathetically to the historic nature of the market town.

Comment

Representation ID: 9946

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS3 (Amount and Timing of Housing Growth) states that a provision of 27,100 new dwellings will be stepped as follows:
[table in local plan policy DS3(S) inserted]
In order to support the policy, a stepped trajectory topic paper has been published as part of the Council’s evidence base, which seeks to illustrate why a stepped trajectory is justified. The paper states that the BBLP2040 requires a stepped trajectory as a result of the Standard method, which requires a 40% increase in the Borough’s housing delivery rate, when compared to the Local Plan 2030. The local plan strategy of an urban focus with rail-based growth is also set out as a factor, as it necessitates the delivery of large strategic sites with longer lead in times.
Whilst these factors are acknowledged, the principle of a stepped housing trajectory is not accepted. The Council should be ensuring that the housing needs are met at a consistent rate throughout the plan rather than deferring until later in the plan period, particularly when the resultant impact will be delivery later in the plan period of a scale which has not been achieved in the Borough in the recent past.
We agree that larger sites take significant lengths of time before development commences and optimum rates of housing delivery are achieved. The PPG provides further information on when a stepped housing requirement may be appropriate for plan-making (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722). Whilst it acknowledges the reasons set out within the background paper, it states that stepped requirements will still need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period, in order to avoid delays in meeting identified development needs.
Due to the uncertainties which surround the delivery of the major infrastructure on which the large strategic sites depend and given the viability challenges highlighted on some of the allocated ‘urban’ sites, the Local Plan should allocate sufficient smaller non-strategic sized sites in locations other than Bedford urban area to complement larger sites and to ensure HLS in the early to mid-term. In order for the strategy to be ‘sound’, the Council should consider sustainable sites (without extensive infrastructure requirements) that can come forward earlier in the plan period and take pressure off the delivery of a high number of sites and homes between 2030 and 2040 (especially those reliant on the delivery of infrastructure or a high level of enabling works that still have uncertainties and may be subject to delay). The Council recognises that meeting an increased minimum requirement of housing (compared to the adopted Local Plan 2030) will bring with it considerable challenges, and therefore must ensure that they also bring forward suitable and sustainable sites with less reliance on large scale infrastructure projects which are less likely to come froward within the timescale envisaged.

Object

Representation ID: 9974

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS3(S) Amount and Timing of Housing Growth
The Local Plan is proposing to set a housing requirement of 27,100 between 2020 and 2040. This equates to an annual housing target of 1,355 using the standard methodology for calculating housing needs.
PPG clearly states that the standard methodology is merely the starting point for calculating housing need and only provides the minimum number of homes needed to meet the demographic baseline of housing needs. It is important that the housing needs of Bedford are not under-estimated.
Further consideration of the local circumstances of the area and the aspirations the Council wishes to achieve should be considered in determining the number of homes needed. This can include resolving historic housing under delivery, increasing economic output of the area, boosting affordable housing supply and the delivery of key infrastructure projects. Consideration should also be given as to whether the local authority is able to assist neighbouring authorities with their unmet housing needs. All of these factors should ultimately inform the final housing requirement for the Plan.
In the context of Bedford, the aspirations and implications of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc should not be under-estimated. Sitting centrally within the arc the potential economic boost of two planned new stations along the East West Rail (EWR) could have significant implications for economic growth and housing need. It is important that employment growth and housing growth are aligned so as to ensure unsustainable commuting patterns are not formed. However, it must also be noted that at the time of writing there are emerging doubts about the EWR proposals through the borough.
Stepped Trajectory
The Council are proposing to use a stepped trajectory for the delivery of housing. Continuing the housing target (970) of the Local Plan 2030 for the first five period, a minimal increase to 1,050 for the second five year period and a significant increase from 2030 onwards to 1,700 dwellings per annum when the strategic infrastructure, that a number of allocations are reliant on, is scheduled to be completed. Doubts have recently emerged around the Government’s commitment to this infrastructure and this could have serious implications for the plan as a whole.
Gladman strongly object to this approach. Whilst we recognise that the increase from the adopted housing target to the use of the standard methodology is a large increase, this is mainly due to the affordability adjustment of the calculation due to the inherent unaffordability of the borough. Seeking to defer meeting the needs established using the standard methodology is only likely to compound affordability issues and does not represent a positively prepared local plan. More should be done to address this increase in the short term. The apparent need for the stepped trajectory is a due to a deliberate choice from the Council to favour a strategy of two Garden Settlements, expected to deliver in the later stages of the plan period. Whilst these Garden Settlements are linked to large scale strategic infrastructure projects the rate of delivery expected on these sites is very ambitious in the latter part of the plan period and there is scope for this to roll on beyond the plan period.
Delivery rates reaching up to 600 dwellings on a single development for, a number of years is highly unlikely to be achievable, the Local Plan trajectory proposes this across two sites at the same time. Evidence from Lichfield’s second edition of the Start to Finish report3 on build out rates indicates that the average build out rate for sites larger than 2,000 dwellings is 181 dwellings per annum on average across the whole life of the development. Whilst recognising that build out rates can vary due to a number of conditions, 7 continuous years of delivery in excess of these figures and in 4 of years over double this rate is unprecedented.
Most of the housing delivery is proposed on these two sites in the latter stages of the plan period and by this stage it will be Impossible to address the failures of the strategy. Using a more realistic expectation around delivery rates on these sites would mean that the Council will not meet the minimum housing requirement. A significant failing of the proposed strategy.
This would also be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing settlements and result in a lack of housing choice in the market. It would also be difficult to accommodate changes in demand for certain types of development/services required over the very long period being committed to within the current strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 9985

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is unsound as it not consistent with the requirements of national policy
13. As mentioned above the Council’s assessment of housing needs, which is set out in DS3, is consistent with the approach set out in Planning Practice Guidance and results in a minimum housing need across the plan period of 27,100 homes. However, on the basis of the necessary adjustments to land supply the local plan is unsound as it will not meet those needs in full.
14. Within this policy the Council are proposing that a stepped requirement is adopted on the basis that the infrastructure necessary to deliver the spatial strategy will not be in place until later in the plan period. PPG is clear in paragraph 68-021 that stepped trajectories may be required where strategic sites have phased delivery or will be delivered later in the plan period. This would appear to be the case for the spatial strategy being proposed.
15. However, even with the proposed stepped requirement it appears from the Councill’s estimates of supply that they will not a five-year housing land supply on adoption, or indeed across the majority of the plan period. Our estimates of the five-year land supply are set out the rolling trajectory in appendix 1. This assessment uses the Council’s proposed approach to shortfalls and applies it to surpluses which we have assumed as being delivered across the remaining plan period. There is an argument that surplus should be ignored but given that national policy is silent on these matters we have taken a proportionate approach. Using this approach, it would appear that if the Council were to adopt this local plan in 2023/24 there will be land supply of 4.84 years. Looking beyond adoption it is also notable that on the basis of their estimates the Council would not have a five-year land supply until 2033/34.
16. One approach to this situation would be to amend the trajectory to engineer a five-year land supply on adoption. However, PPG is clear at paragraph 68-021 that strategic policy makers should “… not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs” and as such the only appropriate response is to allocate smaller sites that will come forward earlier in the plan period. Indeed, such a response would also be consistent with addressing our concern above with regard to the over estimates of supply on the two largest strategic allocations and the Council’s failure to identify sufficient small sites to meet the requirements of paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 9986

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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

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

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, as it is currently envisioned, will exacerbate current problems with the slow and delayed delivery of allocated sites, rendering even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirement ineffective. This is due to an overreliance on strategic scale development. The Council's position is seriously undermined by the lack of sufficient data to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible, deliverable, or developable before years 11 through 15, if not sooner (and at the delivery rates indicated).

This creates a problem with supply that arises very immediately and can only be sensibly managed by dispersing development via small- to medium-sized sustainable sites throughout the rural area. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth plan, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist in preventing market saturation and improve rural vitality.

We believe that greater levels of village-related growth, such as that at Great Barford, must be encouraged from the start of the 2020–2040 plan period in order to accomplish the goals of the forthcoming Local Plan 2040. The settlement of Great Barford as an example, and in particular the determination that our client's land holding is suitable, available and achievable to support expansion, would provide contributions to sustainable development as favourably assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (including new green infrastructure, community facilities and opportunities for recreation).

The Council's suggestion to adopt a stepped trajectory is a response to prior failures to accurately estimate the deliverability and developability of sites within the adopted development plan as well as general worries about the suggested spatial strategy and reliance on large strategic areas for expansion.

In order to continue with the annual requirement in the adopted Local Plan 2030 for the purposes of ostensibly demonstrating a Five-Year Supply upon adoption (at least under the Council's figures), the proposed approach represents a mathematical sleight of hand. It does not make a fundamentally unsound plan "sound." The stepped trajectory represents an admission that the Council’s current planned strategy (and identified provision) cannot achieve a boost in housing supply and does nothing to overcome the legitimate concerns that constraints to the deliverability and developability of sites identified beyond 2030 will substantially preclude achievement of the housing requirement in the plan period.

Without prejudice to the opportunity for our client to submit a further detailed review of the Council’s assumptions for deliverability and developability of sites as part of the information it intends to rely upon at Examination, we submit that the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing throughout multiple 5-year intervals in accordance with NPPF2021 paragraphs 73 (large-scale sites) and 74 (housing land supply) is fundamentally compromised. It is considered that the Council will be unable to present a 5-year supply from adoption in 2023, taking account the non-deliverability of currently allocated sites. We also assume that the Council will remain in deficit against minimum five-year requirements from 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2040.

This is directly related to the Council's trajectory and its extreme overdependence on large-scale strategic locations for growth, which are known to produce results at a far slower rate than small and medium scale growth. The assumption that new-settlement scale proposals at Little Barford and Kempston will exceed 300 units per annum from 2035/36 (and 600 units per annum from 2037/38) is wholly unprecedented particularly in terms of two locations delivering in combination at this rate.

Taking this background into account, the Council’s proposed reliance on a stepped trajectory directly contravenes national planning practice guidance where any such approach should not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs and where stepped requirements will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period (ID: 68-021-20190722). The starting point for this information must be provided from the Council’s assessment of deliverability and developability in the SHELAA, where PPG recognises that there is a requirement to provide a reasonable prospect that large-scale sites can be delivered within the timescales envisaged, taking account of known constraints (ID: 68-019-20190722). Evidence should also be presented on the timescales and rates of development to be assessed (ID: 3-022-20190722).

The Council’s evidence base is fundamentally deficient in this regard, with no evidence of engagement with agents or developers. This particularly affects the Council’s assumptions for large-scale growth but is also evident where in the absence of any detailed information and noting delays to the Local Plan 2030 trajectory the Council identifies a vast number of existing or proposed allocations in the urban area commencing in the same year in 2030/31 (generating an unjustified increase in forecast completions from 1,128 in 2029/30 to 1,641 the following year) which would be unprecedented.

Because the Council have not given enough thought to reasonable alternatives or the related concern of ensuring that all sites are objectively assessed in terms of their suitability rather than excluded on general grounds of inconsistency with the chosen strategy, the Council is unable to adequately defend its reliance on a stepped trajectory. This is because the strategy is based on the use of a stepped trajectory, and the Council has not given enough thought to reasonable alternatives or the related concerns in terms of dis-benefits of a strategy where growth is deferred until later in the plan period.

At paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report is severely constrained in its content and assessment of the proposed stepped trajectory. The cross-references within this paragraph appear to be incorrect, with paragraph 8.29 specifically relating only to assessment of the Kempston-Hardwick new settlement. Elsewhere the SA only sets out the reasons that a stepped approach has been considered at para 7.24 and paragraph 8.33 specifically deals with the selection and testing of a ‘stepped’ option (with details provided at Appendix 8 of the report, incorrectly referenced in this paragraph as Appendix 9). Although paragraph 8.33 indicates both options have been tested and identifies no negative effects from a stepped approach this does not appear to be justified by the scenarios assessed. Appendix 8 contains only a ‘stepped’ scenario, which would imply all other strategy options have been considered on the basis of being ‘un-stepped’. This is plainly incorrect and contrary to the Council’s generation of strategy options, where it has been clear throughout that Options 2a-2d (rail-based growth and A421 corridor) are only feasible using a stepped trajectory. These options would not otherwise comprise reasonable alternatives for meeting requirements within the plan period (although may do so under a hybrid strategy if complemented by further growth in the rural areas).

On this basis, paragraph 9.14 only looks to reinforce the Council’s previously identified justification for a stepped trajectory. The expanse of blank space following this conclusion indicates that the Council has provided no specific justification to reject an un-stepped approach, which is what is required to justify the selected option and comparing the benefits and dis-benefits of the alternative approaches. Specifically in relation to Appendix 8 it is, for example, not justified or correct to identify that the stepped approach does not potentially give rise to negative effects in terms of failure to meet the housing requirement in full and because the selected strategy negatively effects opportunities under SA Objectives 12, 13 and 14 in terms of delivering a wider mix of housing needs and enhancing services and facilities elsewhere.

Likewise, there is no recognition that these dis-benefits can only be countered by looking at reasonable alternatives that Council has identified but excluded because it considers them ‘inconsistent’ with the selected strategy option. This would act against the Council’s reasons to reject these options and it is clear that there is a lack of meaningful assessment and rationale in relation to impacts upon the housing trajectory. It may be argued that this illustrates a strategy that the Council itself isn't totally satisfied with.
Therefore, as drafted, we consider that Policy DS3(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10003

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

6. POLICY DS3 - AMOUNT AND TIMING OF HOUSING GROWTH
6.1 Wates objects to the proposed stepped trajectory, as set out at Policy DS3. This draft policy identifies an overall housing requirement of 27,100 new dwellings, to be delivered during the Plan-period, as follows;
• 2020/21 to 2024/25 – 4,850 dwellings (970 dpa)
• 2025/26 to 2029/30 – 5,250 dwellings (1,050 dpa5)
• 2030/31 to 2039/40 – 17,000 (1,700 dpa)
6.2 It is then explained that the ‘five-year housing land supply’ (‘5YHLS’) position, as an ongoing calculation, will then be measured against the stepped requirement above, as applicable at the time of assessment.
Principle of the Stepped Trajectory
6.3 Wates understands why BBC argues for a stepped trajectory in the context of this Plan. The Council’s case is set out in the Draft Plan at pages 27 and 28 (and in the supporting evidence base reports), and references the Government’s specific advice relating to stepped trajectories in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)6. This indicates that: “A stepped housing requirement may be appropriate where there is to be a significant change in the level of housing requirement between emerging and previous policies and / or where strategic sites will have a phased delivery or are likely to be delivered later in the plan period.”
6.4 Certainly, Wates recognises that the Local Housing Need (LHN) figure of 1,355 dpa (as identified through the Standard Method), is approximately 40% higher than the annual requirement in the recently adopted Local Plan 2023 (970 dpa). Noting the particular circumstances of the early review, this uplift may also point to a potential justification for a stepped trajectory.
6.5 Likewise, as indicated in our comments of Policy DS2, the Draft Local Plan’s spatial strategy is partly predicated on the delivery of strategic-scale development and new rail-centric growth, which is associated with significant infrastructure dependencies. This is set out in the evidence base report ‘The Need for a Stepped Trajectory: Transport’ (AECOM 2022), which confirms that significant improvements to the A421 and A428 ‘Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet’ are required to increase network capacity. These works are not expected to commence before 2025. Similarly, East West Rail (to Cambridge) is currently identified for completion in 2030. The infrastructure requirements associated with key parts of the proposed spatial strategy do therefore lend support for a stepped trajectory.
6.6 However, whilst the circumstances of this Plan may justify the consideration of a stepped trajectory ‘in-principle’, the NPPF (at paragraphs 22, 60 and 61) is equally clear that housing needs should be met fully and without delay. Likewise, Section 5 of the NPPF places an overall emphasis on timely delivery. It is also relevant that the PPG7, in advising on potential stepped trajectory arrangements, also specifically stipulates that;
“…planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period. In reviewing and revising policies, strategic policy-makers should ensure there is not continued delay in meeting identified development needs.”
6.7 BBC is therefore obligated to fully explore all opportunities for achieving earlier delivery, before concluding that a stepped trajectory is necessary and justified. Wates, having reviewed the trajectory presented in the evidence base document ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (April 2022)’ does not agree that all such opportunities have been exhausted.
6.8 It must also be remarked that BBC’s most recent five-year housing land supply position statement (‘5 Year Supply of Deliverable Housing Sites, 2021/22 – 2025/26’, dated August 2021) identifies a claimed supply of 6.56 years, against an annualised requirement of 739 dwellings (with this reduced 5YHLS requirement reflecting an accrued over-provision of 1,333 dwellings). This is a relatively strong supply position.
6.9 Furthermore, over the 6-year period 2015/16 to 2020/21 a total of 7,153 completions were achieved in the Bedford Borough, equating to 1,192 dpa and significantly exceeding the identified 5-year requirement of 4,850 dwellings. The Borough does not therefore appear to have a track-record of poor delivery, at least in recent years.
6.10 Therefore, Wates objects to the stepped trajectory as proposed and does not consider it to be justified by the evidence at this time. Wates invites BBC to review the comments and analysis below, and consider the proposed alternative stepped trajectory presented on page 19 of these representations.

Opportunities to Facilitate Earlier Delivery
6.11 On review of the Draft Local Plan, there appears to be potential to facilitate earlier delivery through amendments to proposed policy requirements. In this way, timely delivery could be supported within the overall framework of the proposed vision and spatial strategy, and suite of allocations that are proposed in the Draft Plan.
6.12 For example, Policy HOU12 implies that no new development within the South of Bedford area can come forward until a ‘strategic place making framework’ has been prepared by BBC. This approach appears to represent a significant impediment to development and Wates is not clear as to why this is needed or what additional benefits will be achieved, when compared to (for example) simply requiring allocations, particularly some of the clearly standalone allocations, to be supported by individual masterplans, visions or site-specific SPDs (where their size justifies this8). Indeed, this is the approach that is taken to most of the allocations proposed outside of South of Bedford area.
6.13 Regardless, and owing to very wide geographic extent of the South of Bedford policy area, it seems likely that the envisaged strategic framework will take some time to be progressed and concluded. That is a particular concern when, consistent with BBC ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ (2019), there will be a requirement for community and stakeholder engagement and input, which will be challenging to coordinate in a timely manner.
6.14 Therefore, and as we detail more fully in Section 6 of these representations, Wates consider that Policy HOU12 and its supporting text should be modified to promote a more targeted approach. Indeed, some of the proposed allocations within the South of Bedford area clearly have the potential to be developed sustainably, without any obvious need for them to refer to the invariably high-level policies and/or guidance, which might be expected to be contained within the future strategic place making framework.
6.15 For example, Land South of Wixams (HOU15) is not directly dependent on the provision of new strategic-scale infrastructure9. The allocation is also essentially proposed as a self-contained expansion to Wixams, a new settlement where the pattern of development is well-established and understood, and where there are established cross-boundary processes for considering development proposals. Likewise, the allocation proposed at Policy HOU18, the former DVSA site at Shortstown (a site which Wates has no involvement with) appears to be similarly self-contained, such that it would seem to be capable of being brought forward in timely way. Therefore, it is not clear why these allocations should be prevented from coming forward before the encompassing ‘strategic place making framework’ is prepared and adopted.
6.16 Wates and Boyer would also add that, based on our recent experience of participating in Local Plan Examinations across the country, the Inspector for the future Examination of the Bedford Local Plan 2040 is likely to require the Plan to be modified so as to clearly specify the minimum quantum of development to be achieved at each allocation. In support of this, we strongly recommend that BBC engages with all of the relevant promoters / developers and seeks to confirm the level of development expected to be brough forward and when, and (where possible) conclude statements of common ground. Wates have this information and have provided it to BBC in relation to Land South of Wixams.
Overly Cautious Trajectory
6.17 A further concern is that the trajectory presented in the ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ (April 2022) appears to be excessively cautious in its estimations of housing delivery, across various sources of supply. This includes the allocations proposed in the Draft Local Plan, but also existing commitments and sites allocated within the Local Plan 2030.
6.18 Whilst Wates understands why BBC would rightly want to safeguard against over-optimism, some aspects of the identified trajectory are cautious to the extent that they understate what might reasonably be expected to be achieved. This is relevant, as the trajectory presented in this Topic Paper is cited as a key justification in support of the suggested stepped requirement.
Local Plan 2040 Proposed Allocations
6.19 The Draft Local Plan proposes to allocate a number of sites, from small to medium-sized sites within the existing Bedford urban area, to larger / strategic-scale planned developments. However, the trajectory generally assumes that these sites will come forward slowly and will not provide first completions until 2030/31. As noted below, Wates considers that these timelines are, in some instances, overly pessimistic.
6.20 The Draft Local Plan, at Policy HOU1, proposes to allocate Land at Greyfriars North for the development of around 100 (net) dwellings. This allocation essentially constitutes an extension to the wider Greyfriars and Midland Road regeneration / redevelopment strategy, as set out in Local Plan 2030 (Policy 11). Wates concurs that the successful masterplanning and delivery of urban regeneration projects can take time. However, to assume no completions before 2030/31 appears excessively cautious for a site within the urban area, where the principle of redevelopment is not in question. Certainly, the Call for Site’s form (ID 1246), as completed by the site’s promoter, appears to anticipate first completions much sooner (from 2024).
6.21 Policy HOU2 identified Land at Mayes Yard, between High Street and Silver Street Bedford, for a mixed-use development. This is expected to include around 115 dwellings. Again, whilst Wates acknowledges that schemes of this nature can take some time to bring forward, to assume no delivery before 2030/31 appears as a very cautious position. This is noting that the site has been confirmed as being available for development in the HELAA Appendix 5, (additional sites assessments).
6.22 Policy HO3 proposed the redevelopment of the former Camford Works and Technology House on Ampthill Road, Bedford. BBC’s trajectory suggests around 530 dwellings will be achieved through this development, with first completions taking place in 2030. The ‘Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan: The Need for a Stepped Trajectory: Transport Final Report’ (AECOM, 2022), indicates that this site is not directly dependent on new strategic infrastructure provision for its delivery. There would therefore, appear be opportunities for this site to provide first completions much earlier than 2030/31. Indeed, the information provided by the site promoter (as detailed on Call for Sites form ID 505) anticipates completions within the period 2024/25 to 2028/29.
6.23 Policy HOU4, proposes to allocate the Former Peacocks auction house (Newnham Street, Bedford) for approximately 40 dwellings, following the redevelopment of this existing commercial site. The trajectory assumes first completions will take place in 2026/27. Given this site lies within the urban area and is not reliant on new infrastructure, it is not clear why its redevelopment should be so delayed. Certainly, the site promoter information (set out in Call for Sites form ID 505) suggests redevelopment would commence by the end of 2023/24.
6.24 Policy HOU5 proposes the allocation of Land at Abbey Field, to the west of Elstow, with the trajectory expecting around 200 dwellings to be delivered at this site. The trajectory expects first completions to take place in 2030/31. However, the site is not identified (in the ‘Bedford Infrastructure Delivery Plan: The Need for a Stepped Trajectory: Transport Final Report’ or the Draft Local Plan) as requiring pre-requisite strategic infrastructure improvements. It is therefore not clear why this allocation is expected to come froward so slowly. Certainly, the site promoter (in ID 638) has indicated that development could start as soon as 2025.
6.25 Policy HOU8 identifies an allocation to the west of Policy HQ, Woburn Road and anticipates the delivery of around 100 dwellings at this site. First completions are expected in 2025/26. This is probably a reasonable assessment, noting that the site (within the urban areas) appears to be relatively unconstrained and capable of bring brough forward. It is not clear then why other comparable sites are viewed more pessimistically.
6.26 Policies HOU6, HOU7, HOU9 and HOU10 propose the allocation of a number of small sites, within the Bedford urban area. These sites all appear to have the potential to come forward relatively more quickly than has been assumed by BBC.
6.27 HOU13 proposes an allocation at Gibraltar Corner, which BBC expects will deliver around 500 homes. The aforementioned AECOM Report does not indicate that the delivery of this allocation is contingent on major strategic infrastructure programmes. There would also appear to be logical potential for phasing, to facilitate early delivery. Consequently, Wates expect that completions at this site could be achieved sooner that 2027/28, as identified in BBC’s trajectory.
6.28 Policy HOU18 proposes the allocation of Land at the former DVSA site at Shortstown, with the trajectory anticipating that approximately 150 dwellings may be provided there. BBC anticipates first completions in 2030/31. This assumption appears pessimistic, as the site does not appear to be heavily constrained. Certainly, the site has been confirmed as being available for development in the HELAA Appendix 5, (additional sites assessments).
6.29 As noted in our preceding remarks, Policy HOU15 proposes to allocate Land South of Wixams. This site is under Wates’ control and the BBC trajectory assumes that only 300 dwellings will be achieved. However, as detailed in Section 7 of these representations, Wates consider the capacity to be significantly greater, at 430 dwellings. We also expect first completions to be achieved in 2025/26, as the site is not reliant on new strategic infrastructure and noting that it is a comparatively modest extension to the existing settlement.
6.30 Table 1 overleaf presents Boyer’s updated assessment of the allocations proposed in the Draft Local Plan 2040.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

Existing Commitments ‘Approved Subject to S106’
6.31 BBC’s trajectory also appears to have applied very cautious assumptions to sites that fall under the category ‘Approved Subject to S106’. For example, the Former Hazlewood Foods site (Dallas Road, Bedford) now benefits from full planning permission for 341 dwellings (granted April 2021). Yet, the trajectory suggests completions at this site are not expected until 2026/27. It is not clear why the site which is prima facia deliverable (as per the NPPF definition), is instead regarded as only developable.
6.32 Likewise, ref. 18/03158 granted full planning permission (on 06 April 2022) for the development of Phase 2 of the Wixams Retirement Village (on Land North of The Causeway), incorporating 62 dwellings. Yet, the trajectory suggests that first completions will not be achieved until 2028/29. This appears to be overly pessimistic, given the flatted nature of the development (which is an extension to an existing built out site) and noting that commencement would have to occur before 06 April 2025 (i.e., within three years of the decision).
6.33 Similarly, the current planning application seeking the redevelopment of the Aspects Leisure Park, Newnham Avenue, Bedford (ref. 19/01624/MAF), appears to be well advanced and supported in principle. Therefore, and based on a review of the online application register and consultee comments, it would appear likely that planning consent will be achieved within the next few months. The 128 dwellings proposed are also flatted, which further suggests that first completions will occur before 2026/27, which is the date identified in BBC’s trajectory.
6.34 Outline planning permission ref. 20/02155/MAO was granted on 26th August 2021, on The Beeches, High Street, Thurleigh, Bedford. The permission grants consent for 11 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access. Whilst reserved matters still need to be submitted and conditions discharged, this appears to be a small-scale and straightforward site to deliver. This suggests that completions will take place before 2026/27, which is the timeline assumed in the BBC trajectory.
6.35 Noting the above, Boyer suggests the following indicative trajectory for these respective sites, in Table 2 below.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

Local Plan 2030 Allocations
6.36 In terms of the allocations proposed to be carried forward from the Local Plan 2030, the trajectory again appears to be excessively cautious. Wates understand that this is partly a reflection of the Plan-period for the adopted Local Plan 2030 (i.e., up to 2030) and the circumstances of the Examination into that Plan. Nonetheless, as BBC cites the trajectories for the allocations made within the 2030 Plan in support of the requirement for a stepped trajectory in the new Local Plan 2040, the assumptions for these sites must be revisited.
6.37 Policy 9 (P9) allocates Land at Duck Mill Land / Bedesman Lane for redevelopment, with BBC’s trajectory anticipating that 20 dwellings will be delivered at this site. Noting that the site is an underutilised ground level car park, within the urban area, there would appear to be potential for this land to deliver new homes prior to 2026/27, as is assumed in the BBC assessment.
6.38 Policy 11 (P11) identifies Land at Greyfriars for residential and town centre development and anticipates that around 250 dwellings will be achieved. Consistent with our previous comments, it is recognised that urban regeneration projects of the nature envisaged can take time to bring forward. However, to assume that no completions within this allocation (or the expansion envisaged in Local Plan 2030 Policy HOU1) before 2030/31, appears excessively cautious.
6.39 An outline planning application (ref. 20/00140/MAO) was submitted in January 2020 for 105 dwellings and other uses. Whilst application has yet to be determined, it does appear (from the application consultee responses) that consent will ultimately be achieved. Reserved Matters will need to be submitted following outline approval, before development can commence. However, even noting this requirement, it seems likely that first completions will be achieved prior to 2030/31.
6.40 Policy 12 (P12) allocates Ford End Road for development and the trajectory anticipates that 700 homes will be delivered at this site. Wates recognises that this site will take some time to deliver new homes, noting the need for coordination between multiple landonwners, masterplanning requirements and the obligation to achieve residential development without prejudice to the operational Eagle Brewery.
6.41 However, there are indications of progress. A Masterplan was approved and adopted in 2018. Planning approval has also been granted for remedial works (ref. 19/02446/MAF) on the gasworks site and the main condition of relevance (condition 4 ‘verification report’) was discharged in September 2020. It therefore seems plausible that redevelopment could now progress, allowing completions to occur prior to 2030/31, which is the date assumed in BBC’s trajectory.
6.42 Policy 13 allocates Land at Borough Hall and Prebend Street for development, with BBC’s trajectory identifying it as a source of supply for 225 homes, with first completions achieved in 2030/31. No planning application appears to have yet been progressed and Wates accept that this site wouldn’t meet the NPPF definition of ‘deliverable’ (i.e., completions within 5 years). Nonetheless, a masterplan was adopted by BBC in June 2018 and there do not appear to be any particular circumstances which suggest completions cannot be achieved prior to 2030/31, even if development comes forward on a phased basis.
6.43 Policy 14 allocates Land South of the River, Bedford, with the BBC trajectory anticipating that 1,000 dwellings will be provided from 2030/31. Wates recognises that this allocation incorporates several ownerships and is split across road and rail infrastructure. Nonetheless, the Local Plan 2030 Inspector’s Report at paragraphs 80 to 84 does acknowledge that some development may come forward prior to then, on a phased basis, which suggests that earlier delivery may be possible.
6.44 Policy 25 allocates Stewartby Brickworks, with the BBC trajectory in the Topic Paper suggesting that no completions well be achieved at this site prior to 2030/31. Wates does not dispute that the redevelopment of this large previously developed site presents challenges, and it is understood that the site’s owner is seeking a new development partner.
6.45 However, the site does benefit from outline approval (ref. 18/03022/EIA) for 1,000 homes and related infrastructure. Likewise, it is notable that BBC’s latest ‘Deliverable Sites Report’ (August 2021) identifies completions from 2024/25 onwards, with these completions appearing to be counted towards the claimed five-year housing land supply. Noting these factors, Wates considers that first completions could be achieved prior to 2030/31.
6.46 Policy 20 allocates Land at Mowbray Road and the trajectory assumes 124 dwellings will be delivered from 2026/27. Wates considers that this greenfield site, which does not appear to be reliant on significant new infrastructure, could come forward slightly sooner than anticipated by BBC.
6.47 Policy 21 allocates Land North of Beverley Crescent, with the BBC trajectory indicating that 150 dwellings will be delivered from 2026/27. Noting that this site is largely greenfield, adjoins an existing residential area, and does not appear to rely on significant new infrastructure for implementation. Wates therefore believes this site could come forward sooner than anticipated by BBC.
6.48 Policy 22 allocates Land at Lodge Hill, with BBC’s trajectory suggesting that 84 dwellings will come forward from 2026/27. Wates considers that this greenfield site, which does not appear to be reliant on significant new infrastructure, could come forward sooner than anticipated by BBC.
6.49 Policy 24 allocates Land at Grazehill, Bedford for residential development and the trajectory indicates that 163 dwellings will be delivered from 2022/23. Wates agrees with this estimate.
6.50 Taking account of the above, Table 3 (overleaf) presents Boyer’s updated assessment of the allocations in the Draft Local Plan 2030 (as a source of supply).
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

6.51 On the basis of the above assessment of these three sources of supply (the proposed Local Plan 2040 allocations, existing commitments listed under ‘Approved Subject to S106’ in the Topic Paper and the Local Plan 2030 allocations), we consider that the following could be delivered, as set out in Table 4 below. The table amends the overall housing supply identified by BBC, so as to reflect the adjustments made in Tables 1, 2 and 3 above.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

6.52 It should be noted that the total claimed supply, in both BBC and Boyer’s analysis, exceeds the identified Standard Method LHN figure of 27,100 dwellings. Boyer’s total identified supply (28,481) is also slightly higher than that identified by BBC (28,352). This variation occurs because we have included the additional dwellings that Wates maintain can be provided at proposed allocation HOU15 (Land South of Wixams).
6.53 It should also be noted that we have proposed an alternative stepped requirement, which equates to the total LHN figure of 27,100. The supply would therefore exceed the requirement by approximately 4.9%, which is broadly consistent with the buffer identified BBC’s analysis.

Object

Representation ID: 10009

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: North Hertfordshire District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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

Object

Representation ID: 10042

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposed housing requirement in PSBLP is a minimum of 27,100 dwellings between 2020 and 2040. A stepped trajectory is proposed with more significant growth proposed in the post-2030 period once critical infrastructure has been delivered. The Southill Estate does not object to the proposed housing requirement or the principle of applying a stepped trajectory. The Southill Estate owns the land at Abbey Field West of Elstow that is identified as a draft allocation for residential development (Policy HOU 5). This site is included in the housing trajectory for 200 dwellings and it is predicted that housing delivery would commence from 2030/31 – see Appendix 1 in Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper April 2022. As set out in the Southill Estate’s representations to Policy HOU 5, the site could accommodate more dwellings and could be delivered much earlier than currently indicated in the housing trajectory. It is requested that the housing trajectory is adjusted to include additional dwellings and an earlier delivery date from the site. This requested change would mean that additional dwellings could be delivered in the period 2025/26 to 2029/30.

Paragraph 74 of the NPPF requires a housing trajectory to be provided for development plans, setting out the expected rate of housing delivery during the plan period and if appropriate the delivery rates for specific sites. The housing trajectory for PSBLP should be included within the document, and not only shown in the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper.

Comment

Representation ID: 10068

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Policy DS3(S) outlines the Council’s preferred approach to the delivery of housing, including the housing requirement and the delivery of housing over the Plan period. This includes a ‘stepped trajectory’, with the housing requirement to increase throughout the Plan period.
2.12 The Plan utilises the baseline Local Housing Need (LHN) as the housing requirement, equating to 27,100 dwellings over the Plan period. The PPG is clear that when establishing a housing requirement “the standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area… Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.” [our emphasis] (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216). Examples of scenarios which may justify an increase of housing requirement include growth strategies, the delivery of strategic infrastructure improvements or the requirement of an authority to take on unmet need from a neighbouring authority.
2.13 It is important to note that the PPG sets out that the consideration of whether uplifts to the housing requirement from LHN are necessary should be undertaken prior to and independently of any consideration of the ability of an area to meet that need.
2.14 The Plan discusses the housing requirement at Paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the reasoned justification, albeit there is no discussion as to whether a higher housing requirement would be justified. The reasoned justification seems to challenge, informally, the LHN requirement. The Plan asserts that population would need to increase by 50,000 people with in-migration of more than 22,000 a year above existing trends to populate homes within Bedford at the standard method rate of 1,355 dwellings per year. However, it is significant to note, and acknowledged within the Plan, that Bedford Borough falls within the Oxford Cambridge Arc. Whilst there is a lack of clarity on the onwards direction of the top-down vision for the Arc, accelerated growth is likely to occur irrespective, led through economic demands which will drive an above historic trend rate of growth and migration. Furthermore, the Plan’s assumptions do not reflect a higher level of natural household formation rate, which may currently be suppressed due to a lack of housing or house prices more generally. Looking at historic rates of delivery could therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that historic suppressed growth and/or suppressed household formation rates could be used to feed into justification for any subsequent strategies and serve to further suppress latent growth.

The LP2040 is not consistent with national policy because it does not plan for sufficient housing to meet future needs and does not proactively plan for any uplift as a result of the Arc Framework. It remains our view that a higher housing figure beyond the Local Housing Need Figure (which is intended to be a minimum figure within the PPG) should be planned for within the LP2040 in order to ensure a sound Plan.
Timing of housing growth
2.16 The stepped trajectory is proposed as follows:
• 5 years 970 dpa = 4,850 dwellings during the period 20/21-24/25
• 5 years 1,050 dpa = 5,250 dwellings during the period 25/26-29/30
• 10 years 1,700 dpa = 17,000 dwellings during the period 30/31-39/40
• 20 years average = 1,355 dwellings during period 20/21-39/40
2.17 The stepped trajectory as proposed results in the delivery of 4,850 dwellings in the first 5 years, 5,250 in the next 5 years (10,100 dwellings in the first 10 years). This then dramatically steps up to 1,700 dwellings per annum over the next 10 years equating to 17,000 dwellings. This is an almost 70% increase from the requirement in the latter years. To deliver this quantum of housing, the Council is relying on delivery of 600 dwellings per annum in the two new settlements.
2.18 Paragraph 4.27 of the emerging Plan advises that there is limited opportunity to bring forward additional sites in the early years of the Plan period due to the requirements for the delivery of strategic sites and the inter reliance on new development and the completion of major infrastructure projects which is why the stepped trajectory is required with significant growth pushed back to the latter part of the Plan period.
2.19 The approach oversimplifies matters and fails to recognise the latent capacity within the wider Plan area for existing sustainable settlements to deliver growth through smaller sustainable sites; which collectively could deliver a significant quantum of supply. Crucially, this supply can be front loaded in the Plan period, as sites within the smaller sustainable settlements are generally ‘shovel ready’, essentially meaning following allocation housebuilders are able to start quickly and deliver quickly. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF confirms this stating “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly” [our emphasis]. In addition to this, the delivery of such sites ensures the Council’s overall housing portfolio is varied, appealing to both a wide range of housebuilders and housing markets, thus ensuring the greatest choice and competition in the market, which ultimately drives delivery whilst protecting the continued over inflation of house prices.
2.20 The Council’s own evidence, which supported the preparation of the current Local Plan identified that the Rural Service Centres were able to deliver up to 150 dwellings in each settlement; the only Plan progressed a target of 25 to 50 dwellings to be delivered through Neighbourhood Plans. It is clear therefore that the existing settlements have capacity to accommodate additional growth through this Plan and that there is an opportunity to allocate sustainable sites in villages such as Turvey to support the delivery of housing and importantly, support the delivery of housing in the early part of the Plan period so that housing need can be met immediately and not delayed as currently proposed. Further, the Council have not sufficiently justified that there are any adverse impacts that would preclude the delivery of more units in such settlements, the delivery of which would enable expedited growth in the early years of the Plan period. This approach would further ensure a buffer should the strategic allocations/new settlements fail to deliver as anticipated, which we consider will be the case.
2.21 It is considered that the timing of delivery from the new settlements is overly ambitious and fails to reflect past delivery rates and evidence associated with brining forward similar sites.
2.22 The Wixams is an example. The site was first identified as a location for new housing in the late 1990s through the Elstow New Settlement: Planning and Development Brief, which was adopted in September 1999. The role of the document was to provide the framework for the submission of both the outline and reserved matters planning applications for the timely delivery of the settlement. The outline planning application for the core site was submitted in November 1999. In September 2005 the Council, in consultation with the land promoters, published and adopted The Wixams Strategic Design Guide SPD, to further guide and expedite delivery of the site. At this stage, it was anticipated that the entire development would be delivered within 15 years; this would have meant that the site would have been close to being fully built out in 2022.
2.23 However, despite this and the intervening 17-year period, the most recent monitoring report, confirms that only the initial phases have been completed in full with significant development still to be brought forward, despite construction commencing as far back as 2007 (15 years ago).
2.24 The Wixam’s highlights the complexity associated with the delivery of new settlements. Whilst the continued delivery of the site is of course promising, the difficulty in reaching this stage, on a site within Bedford Borough, should act as a severe warning as to the obvious pitfalls associated with strategic delivery of new settlements and should be factored into the Plan’s strategy and its over reliance on new settlements delivering the whole of the LHN moving forward.
2.25 Despite the significant delays associated with the delivery at Wixams, and also evidenced through other Local Plans which failed due over reliance on strategic sites (Charnwood, Rushcliffe, West Northamptonshire, etc), the Council have seemingly wed themselves to a strategy which once again, places an over reliance of strategic development, including new settlements. This approach is not justified and therefore not sound.
2.26 Start to Finish (Nathanial Lichfields) reinforces the examples above and sets out that applications for schemes over 500 dwellings are unlikely to make a contribution in the first five years. This is primarily due to the complex planning issues related to both the principle of development and the detail of implementation. Where applications have been determined more quickly than the average, this is as a result of matters being substantially addressed prior to submission which, when combined with the determination period, still adds up to the same amount of time; as the report states “there is rarely a way to short-circuit planning”.
2.27 The NLP report goes on to state:
“Planned housing trajectories should be realistic, accounting and responding to lapse rates, lead-in times and sensible build rates. This is likely to mean allocating more sites rather than less, with a good mix of types and sizes, and then being realistic about how fast they will deliver so that supply is maintained throughout the plan period. Because no one site is the same – and with significant variations from the average in terms of lead-in time and build rates – a sensible approach to evidence and justification is required.”
2.28 Whilst the site promoter may point to more optimistic timescales, a far more cautious and evidenced approach is required, with smaller and more deliverable sites allocated to deliver immediately, in order to ensure a sound Plan.
2.29 In relation to the Kempston Hardwick New Settlement (Policy HOU14), it is noted that the site has no current planning status according to the Council’s online mapping. Land Registry details confirm that the site is in multiple ownership. It is not clear to what extent the landowners are in agreement as to the delivery of the site or whether there is agreement between all parties to bring the site forward. As set out above and demonstrated through the complex history associated with the Wixams, strategic scale development is difficult to deliver and takes a significant amount of time. These difficulties are compounded when the development covers multiple land ownerships.
2.30 The Little Barford proposed allocation (Policy HOU19) appears to be within a single land ownership, but will still require significant time to deliver. The site is attached to St Neots, a town within neighbouring Huntingdonshire District. It is not clear whether Huntingdonshire have commented or agreed to this proposal. Clearly by locating development here, residents are most likely to work and spend in St Neots, not within Bedford. This therefore limits the benefits provided by this housing, without any compelling justification. Bedford’s LHN should be met, and development located where the need is. There is no compelling justification for the approach adopted by the Council and this is a significant concern.
2.31 In addition to the above, the viability of both sites is considered to be “challenging” at current costs and values as identified in the Borough Wide Viability Study, April 2022 (para 1.7). Neither site is viable or deliverable having regard to the Council’s planning policy requirements, including affordable housing (para 8.15). The Viability Study seems to dismiss this advising that developers will “rely on value growth through regeneration premiums and maturity factors” to deliver the sites “particularly given the significant upfront infrastructure costs associated with their delivery” (8.18). Such funding mechanisms may address the cashflow associated with phasing but will not address overall site viability. It is clear that the new settlements will struggle to deliver the required infrastructure and are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution, if any, to affordable housing need in the Borough. Reliance on these sites to deliver the Borough’s housing need, both market and affordable is unjustified.
2.32 Not only is the delivery of the new settlements not sound, the overall approach of directing almost all of Borough’s housing need to new settlements is also unjustified and fails to reflect the housing needs of the Borough as a whole. The proposed approach to the distribution of development fails to recognise the role smaller settlements, including the Rural Service Centres play. The delivery of housing to new settlements only fails to help young people remain in the settlements where they currently live, forcing younger people and families out of villages and contributing to a lack of social diversity within existing settlements. It also fails to support the vitality and viability of existing businesses and services in rural settlements, potentially risking their ongoing operation.
The approach also fails deliver a variety of housing to the housing market, preventing choice and competition as advocated in the NPPF and in the Letwin Review.
2.33 To ensure a sound Plan allocating suitable shovel ready sites in sustainable settlements such as Turvey to deliver in the early part of the Plan period will lessen the reliance on complex sites to deliver in the latter stages of the Plan bringing delivery targets down to more reasonable and deliverable levels. This revised approach would enable the Council will deliver more homes in the short term, securing jobs and helping to slow the inflation on house prices. There will be further social benefits through the delivery of affordable housing at a time when there is an acute need. It will help maintain the viability and vitality of existing and ensure choice and competition in the market for housing assisting delivery and market absorption. It will also ensure the Council can maintain a five-year housing land supply; which currently looks to be marginal even on adoption, if it can be demonstrated at all. This approach is a fundamental risk as the Plan cannot be found sound if there is no five-year housing land supply at adoption and will weaken the plans effectiveness if Paragraph 11 is regularly engaged. Allocating sufficient sites to ensure a robust five-year housing land supply at adoption and throughout the Plan is therefore considered to be a fundamentally benefit as the Plan cannot be adopted or reasonably function without it. If the Council are to continue with the proposed strategy, a comprehensive review and monitoring policy is required to ensure an immediate response should failures to meet appropriate milestones to deliver the Plan’s proposed housing trajectory occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 10075

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Countryside Partnerships Plc

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Following on from our representation in respect of Policy DS2(S), the proposed
Stepped Trajectory under Policy DS3(S) is optimistic and carries with it a high risk
of failure, with no mechanism evident to mitigate that risk. The Council is
adopting a stepped approach to housing delivery, where the current Local Plan
2030 provides for 970 dwellings per annum to 2024/25, then a marginal uplift is
planned for 2025/26 to 2029/30 (following adoption of the Local Plan 2040), and
then the expectation of a significant increase to 1700 dwellings per annum, from 2030/31 through to 2039/40.
The Council’s strategy for increased delivery in the years 2030-40 is a risky one
because the majority of the additional circa 12,000 new dwellings, that are
needed, are coming from the two new settlements in the plan, i.e. South of
Bedford and Little Barford. Both sites are allocated to provide at least 4,000
homes and each to a large extent are underpinned in transport terms by the
delivery of the new East-West Rail route.
The stepped trajectory assumes a sudden and immediate increase in housing
delivery in the year 2030/31. This assumption is based on a further assumption
that the identified infrastructure to support this growth is in place prior to 2030,
however, in terms of East-West Rail, the plan states at paragraph 4.23:
“The potential of EWR to offer improved connectivity and create economic growth
will be a critical catalyst for delivery and pivotal to achieving the plan’s vision. The
new links and stations however will not be operational until 2030 and other
essential infrastructure (principally improvements to the A421) are expected to be
delivered on similar timescales.”
In respect of the two new settlements the plan states that in respect of “South of
Bedford”, accessibility to the new settlement relies on the East-West Rail station
but delivery is unlikely before 2030 (see the South of Bedford Area Topic Paper
(April 2022)); and in respect of Little Barford the supporting technical note states
that it is proposed to increase public transport frequency considerably to meet
demand, and that a public transport hub is necessary with the new station at the
heart of this new settlement. The Little Barford settlement appears to be highly
reliant upon significant changes to the wider infrastructure network to
accommodate the projected growth, without such improvements it is unclear that
the existing highway network could accommodate the projected growth without
significant adverse impacts in the area immediately south of St Neots.
In our opinion, there are contradictions within the plan, where it assumes a massively increased development trajectory from 2030 onwards but at the same
time states that the new East-West Rail and other key road infrastructure will not
be ready before 2030. It does not therefore appear to plan for the possibility that
the critical supporting infrastructure, that this approach relies upon, will not be
ready until into the 2030s, either on current evidence or more so if there is a
delay.
Given that the trajectory may well slip the Council should take account of this risk
and seek to mitigate through the improved use of existing identified sites, such as
Great Barford West allocation of additional sites, or the identification of strategic
reserve sites, that remain inline with the adopted strategy, and could come
forward in the late 2020s should this strategic infrastructure be delayed.
The NPPG states the following in respect of reserve sites (emphasis added):
“Where strategic policy-making authorities are unable to address past shortfalls
over a 5 year period due to their scale, they may need to reconsider their
approach to bringing land forward and the assumptions which they make. For
example, by considering developers’ past performance on delivery; reducing the
length of time a permission is valid; re-prioritising reserve sites which are ‘ready
to go’; delivering development directly or through arms’ length organisations; or
sub-dividing major sites where appropriate, and where it can be demonstrated
that this would not be detrimental to the quality or deliverability of a scheme.”
The identification of reserve sites is therefore recognised as an appropriate part
of the plan-making process. Identifying reserve sites would provide the Council
with an insurance against a fall in housing supply and will give the Council more
time to undertake a Local Plan review in the late 2020s should East-West Rail and
the improvements to the A421 be delayed. Without adequate insurance through
further allocations or the identification of strategic reserve sites, policy DS3(S) –
Amount of housing and timing of housing growth, has not been adequately
justified by the evidence base and will note be effective in meeting the Borough’s
housing needs. The stepped change in delivery is a high-risk strategy and inadequate mitigation is provided should that strategy fail to deliver due to delays
in the delivery of strategic infrastructure. On this basis the adoption of this policy
is considered to render the plan UNSOUND.

Comment

Representation ID: 10082

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

By way of background the council will be aware that our client firstly provided significant input towards the now adopted Bedford local plan 2030 which included full participation at the hearing sessions relating to housing and delivery comprising its examination in public in September 2019. Since this time, they have thoroughly tested the council's housing land supply position, including an assessment of the deliverability of some of its key strategic sites, as part of a Section 78 appeal in respect of their site at Salph End. Otherwise, on their behalf we have closely monitored the Council’s situation around it's increased local housing need figure and the adequacy of the adopted local plan to meet current needs.

In summary we consider that the council's current approach to housing delivery (that is the strategy set out in the current adopted Local Plan 2030) is entirely inadequate and one which significantly fails to meet the actual housing needs off the plan area. We made this position clear at the previous examination. However, through quirk of the transitional arrangements in place at the time of the examination the council was able to use its required compliance with the NPPF 2012 as a means to side-step any obligation to meet an escalating annual requirement which even upon the plans adoption in December 2019 was approximately 1,300 dwellings per annum (dpa).

We accept that a plan which sought to meet a locally derived housing figure as opposed to its LHN technically represented a sound strategy at the time. Accordingly, we similarly accept that a plan which only seeks to provide 970dpa as opposed to its ‘real time’ need of 1,280dpa followed national policy. However, what the plan did not, and does not, provide was a strategy which tackled head on the significant housing needs faced by current and future residents of the Borough alike.

Proposed ‘Stepped Trajectory’
Now with the council placed in a position where it has no option but to proceed with its LHN figure as the basis of the emerging plan’s housing target it is once again employing every mechanism possible to avoid having to meet the immediate and compelling housing requirements of the Borough, which now stand at 1,355dpa. Principally, and embodied by Policy DS3(S) ‘Amount and timing of housing growth’ the council is now seeking to argue the use of a stepped trajectory to avoid having to adequately address this issue during the first ten years of the plan, an approach which would result in a deficit in provision of between 300-400dpa prior to 2030. This represents a cumulative figure of 3,450 dwellings fewer than should be planned for prior to 2030.

In its paper entitled ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ (April 2022) the council seeks to justify its approach to delivery. At paragraph 2.2 of the paper, it states that the key factors that have influenced the decision to backload the majority of delivery to the final 10 years of the plan period are as follows:

• The recent adoption of the Local Plan 2030 and the process of preparing Neighbourhood Plans which flowed from this;
• The quantum of development required and the infrastructure needed to deliver that growth;
• The opportunities and constraints in relation to the delivery of infrastructure in the period to 2040, in particular East West Rail and strategic highway improvements and factors which govern their timing;
• The availability of sites and the extent to which they accord with the plan vision and spatial strategy;
• The potential timing of the delivery of identified sites having regard to infrastructure dependencies and viability issues and the need for the preparation of development briefs and design codes;
• Prospects for the local economy and the necessary economic drivers needed to deliver growth at the level required; and
• The availability of support and assistance to unlock growth from government agencies.

In our view none of these reasons justify the council’s approach which essentially seeks to defer most of the housing delivery to the 2030 to 2040 period. One of the central themes raised by the council in the paper and one which encompasses several of the bullet points set out above is that the LHN figure represents a “significant change” in the housing requirement across the Borough and one that apparently has caught the council off-guard. However, it only represents a significant change in the level of new homes to be provided by the emerging Local Plan 2040 compared with the council’s adopted strategy.

It was known from the very outset of the plan-making process that the step up in the housing requirement would be significant. Indeed, it was known at the point of the examination of the current Local Plan 2030 that the real housing need across the Borough is approximately 1,300dpa and that any replacement plan would need to grapple with this. Paragraph 40 of the Inspectors’ report into the Local Plan 2030, published on 20th December 2019 confirmed that:

“The standard method identifies an annual minimum housing need figure for Bedford of around 1,280dpa, more than 30% higher than the plan’s objectively-assessed need of 970dpa. The two housing need figures are formulated using different approaches and, thus, at the present time and given the transitional arrangements for the examination of local plans, the 1,280dpa figure does not undermine the robustness of the 970dpa objectively-assessed need figure for new housing in Bedford.”

Paragraph 1.8 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 itself then states that “due to the changes to national planning policy, in particular the need for the borough to plan for higher housing numbers beyond this local plan, the Council will undertake an early review of the local plan”. Indeed, it was known to the council as early as the adoption of the first NPPF to introduce the concept of LHN in July 2018 that eventually it would have to seek to accommodate a housing target some way in advance of the adopted position identified in its original SHMA dated October 2016. In short: the council saw this coming.

In which case it seems deeply irresponsible of the council, and an abdication of its duties under paragraph 68 of the NPPF – that is to “identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites” and to “identify a supply of specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period” which can adequately meet needs – that it has failed to do this despite full knowledge of the scale of task ahead since 2018. The council has gone through almost two full iterations of the plan-making process since first being able to appreciate the actual borough-wide need of approximately 1,300dpa and still has failed to identify a sufficient strategy capable of responding to this now urgent requirement.

It is also pertinent to consider that as required by paragraph 33 of the NPPF and the accompanying guidance set out in the PPG there is an expectation that local plans should be reviewed every 5 years to ensure they remain up-to-date. On this basis the functional reality of local plan making is that local planning authorities are mostly being asked to focus on producing a deliverable strategy that as an absolute priority meets the needs of the immediate 5-year period. The required review would then be capable of rectifying and deficiencies in the delivery of development beyond this time horizon (essentially medium to longer term needs) if the plan strategy fails in any respect.

This is now the council’s second attempt within the last 3 years to deliver a plan which is fit for purpose. Adoption of the plan as currently drafted, without any attempt to significantly step up from the delivery targets set out in the Local Plan 2030, threatens a potential 10- or 11-year period of housing need substantially outstripping supply. This is now the second plan proposed by the council which seeks to side-step meeting the actual needs of the Borough. Upon its review in 5 years time will there be a third? At some point the council has to grasp the urgent requirement to get homes built now – that point is now and it is vital that the Local Plan 2040 represents the mechanism to meet this objective.

The council clams in its bullet list set out above that it has not been able to identify sufficient deliverable sites capable of meeting needs during the first five years of the plan period. However, in one critical instance – that of our client’s land – it has overlooked an immediately deliverable site capable of accommodating up to 400 houses which is devoid of constraints, would cause limited if any demonstrable harm, and critically requires no significant off-site infrastructure. There will inevitably be others. Sufficient suitable sites exist across the Borough to meet needs – instead it is the council’s strategy which is drastically at fault.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the council’s justification for stepping the trajectory it is also critical to consider that in seeking to reduce the required level of housing delivery in the early years this will only serve to impact on those who are in acute need of a new home at the borough. The delivery of housing is not a theoretical exercise – it is not sufficient to deal with completions merely as a number on a chart. For every home fewer than the required level of supply that is delivered in each year of the plan period a household will find itself in need. Resultant of the suppression of supply against this demand house prices will escalate. In-commuting will increase and journey lengths by private car will lengthen. All these outcomes are exactly the sort of sustainability issues that the NPPF seeks to guard against.

Based on the council’s proposed trajectory, set against an agreed LHN of 1,355dpa, the shortfall in the delivery of new homes for the first decade of the plan period is startling – 3,450 dwellings in total or almost 3 entire years of supply. In fact, as demonstrated by Table 1 this shortfall will only be rectified in the final year of the plan (an outcome which is partially related to the proposed meagre 4.6% uplift on LHN – see below) with the council running a significant deficit in supply when assessed against LHN for the entirety of the plan period. There is not even an intention to step up delivery more significantly to overcome this supply more quickly in the mid-years of the plan period as you would expect from most variable or stepped trajectories. The proposed delivery rates versus need are shown overleaf:

Table 1: Local Plan 2040 Projected Delivery v LHN

20/21 to 24/25 25/26 to 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 34/35 35/36 36/37 37/38 38/39 39/40
Required (LP2040 trajectory) 4,850
(970dpa x 5) 5,250
(1,050dpa x 5) 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
LHN 6,775 6,775 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355
Surplus / Deficit (annual / periodic) -1,925 -1,525 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345
Surplus / Deficit (rolling) -1,925 -3,450 -3,105 -2,760 -2,415 -2,070 -1,725 -1,380 -1,035 -690 -345 0

On review of the council’s proposed trajectory there is another statistic that is perhaps as striking ass the plan’s performance against the council’s LHN – and that is the comparison with the basic ‘household projection’ figures for the same, as published by the Office of National Statistics (2014-based live tables). These are the natural household creation rates before any uplift is applied to account for affordability. Or to put it more simply – basic need. Over this period, it is anticipated that an average of 985 new households will be formed in the Borough per annum. In which case the performance of the council’s trajectory would result in the following outcomes:

Table 2: Local Plan 2040 Projected Delivery v Natural Household Formation Rates

20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 Total
Annual Requirement (LP2040) 970 970 970 970 970 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 10,100
‘Basic Need’ (ONS, before affordability uplift) 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 9,850
Surplus / Deficit (annual) -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 65 65 65 65 65 250
Surplus / Deficit (rolling) -15 -30 -45 -60 -75 -10 55 120 185 250 250

This inability to even meet basic need will not only exacerbate affordability but could realistically result an increased number of suppressed households with an appropriate level of supply only guaranteed in the seventh year of the plan period. This cannot be considered acceptable, responsible, or indeed an appropriate response to the council’s requirements set out in the NPPF to accommodate the needs of all household types whilst significantly boosting the supply of housing.

The Appropriate Uplift
The council’s housing target for the plan period, as set out as part of Policy DS3(S) includes no uplift at all to allow flexibility in respect of market fluctuations, problems encountered in delivering sites in the trajectory, and overall security of supply. The plan’s housing target is simply 27,100 homes or its LHN of 1,355 multiplied by 20 years (the plan period).

It is noted from the calculations at the foot of the council’s proposed trajectory that in respect of delivery the council may be able to achieve an uplift on housing supply over the plan period of 4.6% representative of 1,252 homes or approximately 60dpa. It is firstly important to confirm that the application of an uplift or buffer on top of the LHN figure was not consulted on at any stage during the Regulation 18 options testing process. Whilst it was tested as part of the Sustainability Appraisal it would be expected that a range of targets, including exceedances of the basic requirement, would have been tested through consultation to secure a holistic view on the pros and cons of over or under delivery. However, such options were not made available for scrutiny. It can only be assumed that the council did not ever intend to seek to meet anything other than its minimum housing requirement.

Even if the identified 4.6% uplift was incorporated into the plan’s housing target (this would rise to approximately 28,350 homes) this would remain unusually low and would fall significantly below the generally accepted industry standard approach of 10%. It would fall below the uplift agreed in respect of the recently adopted local plan of the council’s nearest neighbour and the one with which it shares the clearest functional link, Central Bedfordshire, and indeed that included in the council’s own adopted Local Plan 2030.

In examining the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan the Inspectors at paragraphs 74 and 75 of their report opined that “Examination Document EXAM 33 provides updated information for 2017-18 and shows that lower quartile house prices had risen to £246,500. This was 59% higher than the figure for England. The affordability ratio had also increased to 12.0. Average monthly rents had shown slower growth, but still increased to 9% above the national average. In response, the SHMA recommends a 10% uplift to the OAN for housing”.

The lower quartile house price in Bedford as of December 2018 was £225,000, so comparable. The affordability ratio at 9.67 is lower but still above the national average of approximately 9. Certainly, the market circumstances are sufficiently similar to those of Central Bedfordshire to question why the council’s proposed uplift is less than half that proposed by its neighbouring authority, one which has close interconnectivity with Bedford’s own housing market area.

It is then telling that the council’s own adopted Local Plan 2030 sought to include an uplift of 11% to account for flexibility of supply and choice in the market. In considering this issue the Inspectors at paragraph 113 of their report commented that “this 11% buffer is sufficient to ensure that the housing figure is likely to be met over the plan period as a whole, even if some of the sites listed in the Housing Trajectory do not deliver new dwellings as quickly as anticipated or at all. In any case, the plan will need to be reviewed and updated at least twice before 2030 and this will provide the opportunity to ensure that the allocation/supply of housing is sufficient to meet the identified need, which is, itself, likely to change over time”. The 11% uplift in this instance was considered appropriate due to the uncertainty of the delivery of some of the sites in the plan-period trajectory (we touch upon this matter again later in this submission) and acceptable due to the additional fail-safe of the early plan review. The only circumstance that has changed in the case of the emerging Local Plan 2040 is that the fail-safe will no longer be included. This, if anything, would be justification to raise the uplift rather than reduce it to 4.6%.

The inclusion an uplift becomes more imperative when the viability concerns of the council’s proposed town centre sites are taken into consideration. Even if they are deliverable there is a strong indication in the council’s accompanying viability assessment that they may not capably yield a policy compliant supply of affordable housing if indeed any affordable homes are viable at all. Much of the Carter Jonas modelling depends on assumptions that market values will be sufficiently high by 2030 to ensure some level of viability. However, these projections represent guesswork at best. If land values do not appreciate in the way anticipated then there is a real possibility that there will be a significant deficit in affordable housing delivery. In which case this makes the case for a greater uplift even more compelling.

On the basis of a plan which is seeking to introduce a stepped trajectory due to concerns over early years supply, includes a range of sites which have struggled or failed to deliver housing over a significant period of time due to their constrained nature, and is seeking to affect a significant step-change in delivery above and beyond the 970dpa figure of the adopted Local Plan 2030 it is clear that an uplift on the plan’s housing target should be included which should be 10% as an absolute minimum.

Conclusions on soundness

Policy DS3(S): Both the plan’s housing target and the proposal to deliver housing based on a stepped trajectory result in approach to the delivery of new homes which significantly conflicts with the requirements of the NPPF. It fails to address the challenge of the acute need for new homes across the Borough and as alighted on above will further exacerbate local issues in respect of affordability in the market. The combined approaches of stepping the trajectory and avoiding any sufficient uplift in the housing target simply prolongs the deficient approach taken by the adopted Local Plan 2030 and fails to secure the step-change in delivery expected by the Inspectors when considering the adopted plan. Indeed, the council’s key evidence paper seeking to justify the stepping of the trajectory does nothing more than identify the weaknesses in the plan’s overall development strategy. On this basis the plan should be considered unsound in that it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10098

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.