Policy DS5(S) Distribution of growth

Support

Representation ID: 9102

Received: 14/07/2022

Respondent: Wymington Parish Council

Wymington Parish Council support the development of land on the South side of Bedford- current infrastructure is far better, and can be more easily improved than that North of Bedford

Object

Representation ID: 9437

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Prologis

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Please see attached report

Object

Representation ID: 9466

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. Representations from Landcrest would help contribute to achieving a plan fit for borough - particularly in demonstrating that there are suitable and sustainable sites in locations other than new settlements and the urban area - such as Bromham - that should be allocated. Landcrest's site in particular has previously been recommended for a proposal of 80 dwellings by officers and members at the time had resolved to grant permission also.

Object

Representation ID: 9488

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The current approach of setting an overall target of 1,500 dwellings across the strategic locations adjacent to the urban area lacks clarity on what is anticipated from each site. For BRVP the target should be approximately 1,000 dwellings to reflect the work undertaken by the BRVP Landowners on site capacity, having regard to constraints and appropriate densities across the allocation area. That indicative figure is also included in Table 9 of the Development Strategy Topic Paper (May 2022) and should be included in the Policy. The final quantum of housing can then be determined by the detailed master planning .

Comment

Representation ID: 9489

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Graham Mills

There is a pressing need for much more affordable housing to rent in the Borough. For the Local Plan to be sustainable, there needs to be a much higher proportion of new social housing to rent, versus new owner-occupied or privately rented housing, compared to the present trends. The cohesiveness of our local community depends on suitable housing being provided to meet the needs of all of the population. Many social and healthcare issues arise from a shortage of social housing to rent and from housing costs consuming too much of people's budgets when they're on low incomes.

Object

Representation ID: 9512

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Colmworth Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS5(S) fails to set out full extent of growth
2.2. Paragraph 4.31 of the Local Plan states that Policy DS5(S) “…sets out where growth will be located”. However, the policy presents an incomplete picture of the quantum and location of growth that the Local Plan makes provision for between 2020-2040.
2.3. For example, the overall quantum of housing that the policy makes provision for is 13,550 dwellings. This is only 50% of the 27,100 dwellings that Policy DS3(S) sets as the housing requirement figure. This provides a lack of clarity about the location and quantum of all the growth that is being planned through this Local Plan. BBC should not assume that users of the Local Plan have up to date knowledge of the remaining allocations from the
2030 Local Plan and that the assumptions about the housing BBC considers will come forward during the 2040 plan period should be clearly set out in this policy.
No inclusion of small sites
2.4. The policy should clearly set out the number and location of ‘small site’ dwellings it has identified through the development plan and brownfield register in order to comply with paragraph 69 of the NPPF. This requirement of the NPPF is that the LPA must identify at least 10% of its housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare, unless it can show that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved.
No inclusion of windfall allowance:
2.5. BBC’s ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ (April 2022), includes provision for a total windfall allowance of 2,630 from 2021-2040. This is an important component of BBC’s housing supply, yet it is not set out anywhere in policy within the Local Plan. CPC considers that
the windfall allowance should be set out within Policy DS5(S) to ensure soundness.
Urban Area Supply is Inadequate
2.6. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development5. Plans and decision should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF explains what this means for plan-making with making effective use of land in urban areas at the heart of mitigating climate change stating that (our emphasis added):
“all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to:
• meet the development needs of their area;
• align growth and infrastructure;
• improve the environment;
• mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”6
2.7. Section 11 of the NPPF is called ‘Making effective use of land’. There are a number of important requirements set out in this section of the NPPF for plan-makers including the following:
• “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield land”7
• “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land”8
• “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is
constrained and available sites could be used more effectively (for example converting space above shops, and building on or above service yards, car parks, lock-ups and railway infrastructure)”9
• “Local planning authorities, and other plan-making bodies, should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs, including suitable sites on brownfield registers or held in public ownership, using the full range of powers available to them. This should include identifying opportunities to facilitate land assembly, supported where necessary by compulsory purchase powers, where this can help to bring more land forward for meeting development needs and/or secure better development outcomes.”10
2.8. Given that the NPPF places such great weight and emphasis on the need to make the most effective use of previously developed land and land within settlements it is surprising how little the Local Plan and its evidence have to say about how the Council intends to comply with the NPPF as part of its plan-making.
2.9. BBC’s Development Strategy Topic Paper explains that one of the five ‘components of growth’ it has tested is ‘within the urban area (sites within the urban area boundary)’.
BBC explains that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) concluded that the ‘within the urban area’ component performed the best of all of the potential components:
“In relation to the broad components of growth, the sustainability appraisal found that the first component - within the urban area component performed best. It was likely to have a more positive effect than the other components, particularly in relation to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, promoting town centres, encouraging physical activity, providing for residents’ needs and
access to community services, and reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable modes of travel. It was likely to have fewer negative effects than any of the other components of growth, although the limited availability of
land within the urban area could act as a constraint on business growth.
5 NPPF (2021) paragraph 11
6 NPPF (2021) paragraph 11
7 NPPF (2021) paragraph 119
8 NPPF (2021) paragraph 120
9 NPPF (2021) paragraph 120
10 NPPF (2021) paragraph 121
2.10. Regarding the ‘urban component of growth’ BBC explains that given that it performs most strongly “the assumption for the urban and adjoining areas is “deliberately ambitious” explaining that: “Development at scale in some parts of the urban area will be challenging and will require comprehensively master planned proposals and may require land assembly powers and significant investment in the infrastructure necessary
in order to deliver the development”11.
2.11. In the following section of the Development Strategy Topic Paper it summarises the development assumptions for options generation with ‘sites within urban area’ showing 1,500 dwellings. How is the assumption of 1,500 dwellings in the urban considered by
BBC to be “deliberately ambitious”?
2.12. Referring to the ‘Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper’ it sets out in Appendix 1 the ‘Urban’ sites that are new allocations in the Local Plan. The total amount of development capacity assumed for these sites is 1,178 over the plan period which falls considerably short of
the 1,500 dwelling assumption made by BBC in determining the amount of urban land that can be delivered in the Local Plan through Policy DS5(S).
(Figure 2.1 is extract from the Stepped Trajectory paper - the urban rows / sites section of the spreadsheet)
2.13. In relation to employment land that is potentially available for alternative uses (housing), the Local Plan makes no provision for this as a potential source of housing over the life of the Local Plan. This is despite the Council’s Employment Land Study (2022) identifying 15 employment sites within the Bedford / Kempston Urban Area as sites that should be ‘Monitored and Managed’ according to the Study. ‘Monitor and Manage’ is defined in the Study as “sites that may not continue to meet the needs of businesses in future”12.
2.14. The total land area of these sites is 65.77 hectares of land which should be at the very least tested for potential release for housing and to determine the potential capacity for housing on these sites should they become available. BBC should also include a policy in its Local Plan setting out how it will ‘monitor and manage’ these employment sites and under what circumstances it would permit the release of employment sites for housing.
11 Development Strategy Topic Paper (May 2022) paragraph 3.11
12 Bedford Employment Land Study (May 2022) paragraph 6.6
(figure 2.2 is an extract from Employment Land Study page 40)
Sites Adjacent to the Urban Area
2.15. The Sustainability Appraisal states that it has decided that “in most instances” sites adjoining the edge of the urban area should not be part of the local plan. This is due to the gap between the town and surrounding villages being too narrow. Whilst this may indeed be the case, CPC considers that such an approach which rejects more growth at the edge of the town in favour of selecting a ‘new settlement’ strategy requires greater evidence and justification than what BBC has presented to support its preferred development strategy.
“The Council has decided that sites adjoining the edge of the urban area in most instances should not be part of the local plan strategy because, in many locations, the gap between the edge of the town and villages surrounding it is very narrow and the strategic expansion of the urban area in recent years has already reduced that separation”13
13 Sustainability Appraisal paragraph 9.9

Object

Representation ID: 9521

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

2.36 Emerging policy DS5 sets out where growth is to be located. It takes into account existing commitments together with the additional growth required to meet needs to 2040.
2.37 Emerging policy DS5(S) sets out the following distribution of housing growth: (table included in the original)
2.38 As detailed in response to Policy DS2 it is considered that the Council’s preferred strategy is over reliant on strategic sites and new settlements and is not sound. The approach proposed risks the delivery of the Plan as it is highly vulnerable to delayed or non-delivery. If one of the strategic sites does not deliver than the Plan will fail. Further, the approach adopted by the Council does not provide for choice and competition in the housing land market, which is likely to result in land price inflation given most the new housing is under the control of a limited number of landowners. Moreover, it largely rules out developments being brought forward by SME housebuilders, instead creating a monopoly of sites which can likely only be delivered by the larger housebuilders who will benefit from the economies of scale. As a result, there will also be a limited variety of houses realising to the market concurrently, slowing market absorption which will have high consequences in the latter years of the Plan period in terms of satisfying the Housing Delivery Test or demonstrating a five-year housing land supply.
2.39 The Plan states that there will continue to be growth in villages as a result of policies in the Local Plan 2030 which allocate growth to some Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres however, no new/additional allocations are made in these villages in the Local Plan 2040.
2.40 The Plan instead advises that some Parish Councils may choose to allocate further sites for development in their Neighbourhood Plan; there is no requirement for this.
2.41 This absence of small and medium growth in the rural villages misses an opportunity to delivery some of the housing requirement earlier on in the Plan period, rather than relying on some 10,000 dwellings to be delivered through new settlements which are significantly reliant on the delivery of large-scale infrastructure. As detailed in response to PolicyDS3 it is not an appropriate strategy to place such a reliance on strategic infrastructure to deliver such a large proportion of a housing need.
2.42 The evidence base which supported the previous Local Plan 2030 and initial drafts of that Local Plan confirmed that there is capacity within the smaller settlements to deliver a higher quantum of growth than was adopted through the Plan (up to 150 dwellings in each settlement rather than the 25 – 50 dwellings detailed within the Plan). The Plan states that it is not possible to provide additional housing in the early years of the Plan period, but this is not justified. Its own evidence has clearly demonstrated that settlements such as Willington are suitable for a higher quantum of growth than currently being delivered under the adopted Plan.
2.43 The distribution of growth within the LP2040 is not effective. As detailed in response to Policy DS3, such a reliance on strategic sites is not be deliverable over the Plan period (it is already noted in policy DS5(S) that 400 dwellings will be delivered beyond the plan period, before accounting for any delays in site assembly, unlocking and delivering the required infrastructure, and actually delivering homes on sites included within the plan period).

Comment

Representation ID: 9574

Received: 20/07/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Draft Policies DS2(S) and DS5(S) sets out the proposed distribution of growth in the Borough.
L&Q broadly support the growth strategy, which seeks to focus new residential development within the main Bedford urban areas, and at strategic urban extension locations where new development can contribute to the objectives of the Oxford – Cambridge Arc, and be delivered alongside appropriate infrastructure.
However, we would highlight the viability challenges associated with brownfield, urban town centre development, for example addressing ground contamination and utilities. For residential development, the need to optimise housing delivery in these locations is essential to making schemes viable and deliverable and flexibility around key, competing policy requirements is required. Due to the national and borough housing need, we would encourage the Council to support proposals for housing delivery outside of the identified areas for strategic growth, on a site by site basis, nothing the contribution that smaller, infill site developments can make.
As indicated previously, L&Q is already investing in the South of Bedford area at Wixams. In that context, it supports the intention to deliver sustainable future urban extensions within the South of Bedford area for 7,050 new homes (alongside appropriate infrastructure), and
specifically the identification of broad areas of growth at Draft Policies HOU15 (Land South of Wixams) and Policy HOU16 (Land at East Wixams). We note that a more detailed strategic place making framework for the South of Bedford policy area will be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, but that the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper (April 2022) indicates capacity of 300 dwellings at Land South of Wixams and 1,800 dwellings at Land East of Wixams.
In our view Wixam is a sustainable location for housing growth; that is, it benefits from good access to employment centres, it located in the Oxford – Cambridge Arc growth area, it benefits from existing infrastructure, and has the potential to deliver additional new infrastructure where required.

Support

Representation ID: 9603

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: North Northamptonshire Council

There is not a considerable amount of change from previous iterations of the plan. In terms of spatial options put forward in previous versions of the Plan and how these have developed into site allocations within the Submission Plan, BBC has maintained growth centred around Bedford town and the A421 with nothing presented further north towards the North Northamptonshire (NN) boundary in the vicinity of the A6, as can be seen in Section 4 of the Plan and Policy DS5(S) – Distribution of growth. Growth around Bedford town and the A421 has significantly less cross-boundary impacts on NN in comparison with the other previously considered growth areas presented in the Issues and Options consultation. This is also the case in relating to impacts on the highway network, coalescence with Wymington, sustainable transport routes, Green Infrastructure corridors and the SPA, which releases pressure on all these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 9638

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9708

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

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

Object

Representation ID: 9783

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 and DS3(S) Amount and Timing of Housing Growth.
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 provide an explanation of the individual sites forecasted for delivery or the overall amount. There is no clarity or transparency on the dwelling numbers. For example, there is a figure of 1,200 dwellings within the urban area but no break-down of
what is included within this. This means the reader has to look in detail at the individual sites being proposed to see if it is possible to work-out what the quantum is, although this is not possible for all of the sites.
There is no explanation of a buffer within the table under Policy DS3(S) i.e. where does any buffer sit and there is no statement that all of the dwellings are minimum.
There is no figure or break-down given for the remaining rural area/villages and not explanation of the development beyond the plan period. Development beyond the plan period should not be in a table which is meant to provide a breakdown of sites intended to deliver at least the minimum housing requirements within the 2040 plan period. The table within the policy is not user-friendly and it does not pass the tests of soundness under the NPPF.
We question whether the number of dwellings identified for sites is achievable for example whether the potential dwelling yield at Little Barford and south of Bedford are achievable. The potential delivery estimates within the table under Policy DS3(S) is ambitious at least and
possibly not deliverable. This is noted in further detail within the response to Policy DS2(S).

Comment

Representation ID: 9877

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Policy DS5(S) sets out how the level of growth set out in policy DS3 will be distributed across Bedford Borough. Notwithstanding the points made above about the housing requirement and the overall development strategy, we have particular concerns about the distribution of growth.
The main issue is that the distribution does not appear to factor in any buffer on the supply side. The inclusion of a 10% buffer, as a minimum, should be factored into the supply of housing in order to act as a contingency for under-delivery on identified sites. This is a fairly standard approach taken with Local Plans in order to ensure that housing targets are met and that plans have flexibility built in. This would help to ensure that the requirements of paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021), which stipulates that council’s should plan for a deliverable supply of land for years 1-5 of the plan plus an appropriate buffer to be identified, will be achieved.
Given the reliance on strategic scale sites, it is suggested that a larger buffer may be appropriate given the risk to the delivery of homes that is associated with a limited supply of large sites.
As noted above, we have a fundamental concern that by not allocating any development to sustainable rural settlements, such as Wilstead and Willington, the ability of the plan to meet its housing need in a timely manner is unduly affected. In considering the strategy in the adopted Local Plan, it was deemed appropriate and sustainable to focus growth on certain settlements. The proposed approach goes away from this without a proper justification and our view is that to be sound, further consideration needs to be given to the role that settlements such as Wilstead and Willington pay in the Local Plan.
Site Assessment Process
We would also like to re-iterate our concerns, as expressed in our Regulation 18 representation prepared by Bidwells, regarding the shortcomings of the Council’s Call for Sites Assessment Process which fed into the development strategy.
The site assessment forms lack any detailed assessment and have not been underpinned by a review of all the evidence available to the Council; colleagues in other departments (such as heritage, highways, etc.) do not appear to have been consulted as part of this process, including the development management team. When looking at the assessment of our own sites in both Wilstead and Willington, the information stated conflicts with information provided by ourselves and the conclusions reached by Council Officers on recent planning applications (on important matters such as previously developed land, heritage, etc). These forms also do not consider the potential benefits that sites could offer which should be a consideration in the suitability and sustainability of sites.
Given our aforementioned concerns in relation to the development strategy, we are concerned that a large number of sites were discarded on the basis of their conflict with the development strategy as part of this assessment process. The site assessment work should feed into the formulation of a development strategy - it should be a two-way process. However, from the Sustainability Appraisal and Topic Paper, it instead seems that the site assessment work was undertaken in a bubble and the information was only used to fit an independently developed strategy.
General Compilation
The Council have failed to properly collate previous planning policies into a single, clear planning document and instead simply save policies from previous Development Plan documents.
The emerging development plan comprises policies from the document itself (Local Plan 2040), the Local Plan 2002, Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005, the Allocations and Designations Local Plan 2013 and the Local Plan 2030.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF is clear that plans should ‘contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals’, as well as ‘be accessible through the use of digital tools to assist public involvement and policy presentation’.
With how the plan is currently drafted, the requirements of paragraph 16 have not been met in that this document is not accessible to the public; relevant information is spread over six development plan documents and an individual will have to find a table included in an Appendix to understand what policy to apply. The plan is not accessible and it therefore conflicts with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 9897

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

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

Support

Representation ID: 9941

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Bromham Parish Council

The Parish Council welcomes Policy DS5(S) in so far as it outlines the distribution of growth by location, and takes into account existing commitments. This factors in the growth envisaged by adopted neighbourhood plans in rural areas, and it recognises that some Parish Councils may choose to allocate further sites for development in their neighbourhood plans to meet particular local needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 9947

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS5 (Distribution of Growth) sets out where housing and employment growth will be located, which is as follows:
[table from policy DS5(S) inserted]
As set out in further detail above, it is considered that in order to be ‘sound’, further housing growth should be directed to already accessible locations in urban areas other than Bedford, in order to ensure the needs of the Borough are met.
Paragraph 69 of the NPPF states that medium sized sites such as Land at Rushden Road can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, as they are often built out relatively quickly. The Site at Rushden Road would not rely upon the delivery of any major infrastructure in order to be considered a sustainable / suitable location for new development. The Site therefore provides the Council with the opportunity to deliver growth in accordance with the needs of Bedford relatively early on in the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 9976

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS5(S) Distribution of Growth
This policy sets out the components of the spatial strategy. The Local Plan 2040 makes allocations for up to 13,550 new homes within the plan period, with 400 homes expected beyond the plan period.
Gladman has already submitted detailed commentary on the spatial strategy to policy DS2 and the SA and so will not rehearse these points again here.
The 13,550 new homes combined with commitments, windfall allowance and completions of 14,824 dwellings this is a total of 27,834 against the requirement of 27,100. This only represents a flexibility factor of 2.7% above the minimum housing requirement, or just over one year’s delivery at either Garden Settlement.
To safeguard any slippage in the anticipated trajectory of these large strategic sites the over-provision in the plan period should be increased. There is no hard and fast rule for what this over-provision should be but, Gladman supports the Home Builders Federation’s recommendation that local plans should seek to identify sufficient deliverable sites to provide a 20% buffer between the housing requirement and supply.
Without identifying further small and medium sites to deliver in the early part of the plan period there is a real risk that the minimum housing requirement of the Local Plan will not be met.
The Councils Local Plan strategy as currently set out has insufficient flexibility to be considered sound. A minor change to the delivery timescales of one of the new settlements would see the whole plan (already significantly backloaded in terms of delivery) fail to achieve its targets.

Object

Representation ID: 9988

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.

Aligned to our representation of the spatial strategy (Policy DS2(S), the 'village-related' growth component relating to settlements both inside and outside the 'east' and 'south' corridors would only be thoroughly tested if a 'hybrid' approach were applied to the spatial strategy informing the distribution of growth and used to inform site assessment and site selection under Policy DS5(S). This has not been undertaken, meaning that the distribution of growth identified in Policy DS5(S) is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

When village-related growth has been tested under the Sustainability Appraisal process, it has been done so with the presumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages).

Furthermore, the Council has not attempted to discriminate between settlements that are included in the A421 "transport corridor" as indicated by its own strategy choices (including, for example, Great Barford).It is not evident from the Council's assessment whether it genuinely feels these locations perform any differently against the objectives of the Local Plan or inform any differences in capacity for growth across the settlement hierarchy when considered in the context of the spatial strategy.

The SA for the Submission version Plan which appears to contradict the Council’s view that all village sites in all settlements should be treated in the same way and viewed as inconsistent with the spatial strategy (see Table at Para 9.13). In this table, ‘excluded’ ‘village’ sites do not include those in settlements such as Great Barford (where these form part of the identified transport corridors). It is not, however, clear from the Council whether it genuinely considers these perform any differently for the purposes of the spatial strategy or settlement hierarchy and the conclusion in the SHLAA is that sites in any village are ‘inconsistent’ with the strategy.

As a result, the spatial strategy and assessment of effects under the SA may in fact have distinct relationships with village-related growth in various settlements. Policy DS5(S) should therefore also reflect the distinction between ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes in terms of the distribution of growth.

The planned growth distribution only permits the completion of existing rural allocations; it does not place additional demands or opportunities on rural settings. In spite of this, the SA at paragraph 7.23 claims that housing development in rural regions might significantly contribute to satisfying housing needs and goes on to specify specific locations recommended for consideration, which seems to directly contradict the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the selected strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, specific rural locations are mentioned as viable choices without further detailed testing or allocation of growth.

Strategic policies should provide a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas that reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and size of growth and any applicable allocations, according to paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021. This is a significant change from the Framework's 2012 iteration. The testing of options by the Council for the Local Plan 2040, however, advances an arbitrary distribution of anticipated levels of growth in Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres and fails to provide a housing requirement for specific rural settlements.

The potential benefits of village extensions in the east and south corridor parishes should be considered within this context as specifically complementing the distribution of growth within the selected strategy rather than restricting any opportunities outright. Despite this, options in these locations have not been subject to any further iterative testing prior to completion of the Plan for Submission.

The necessary iterative methodology is not evident in the Council's SA. Concerns highlighted by our client during earlier consultation rounds, particularly the requirement to evaluate "hybrid" possibilities for levels of expansion within the settlement hierarchy, have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Council. To expand further, a new "Option 8" that swaps Little Barford's "new settlement" growth for village-related development has been assessed and "rejected" in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal for the Submission version Plan. This conclusion, however, was made without thoroughly examining the potential for growth in specific settlements or individual site options.

The SA confirms that Great Barford and specific site options within village locations have only been the subject of early testing against a number of SA indicators. There has been no attempt to apply the identified combination of effects to any revised strategy option or against conclusions of the potential suitability (including provision of specific benefits) from individual site options.

We also have a number of concerns about the site assessment procedure, as is detailed in our Regulation 18 representations. In particular, we have previously raised serious concerns about the Council's assessment of our client’s land at Great Barford after submission as part of the Summer 2020 Call for Sites exercise. The site assessment pro-forma neglects to document or acknowledge the advantages connected with site development, such as the provision of green infrastructure. Concerns about the site's assessment in connection to ecology, BMV, and heritage assets have also been raised in the past.
Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 9990

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy is unsound as it has not been justified.
18. As set out in our representations on DS2 the level of development over the plan period expected from the new settlement at Little Barford and at Kempston Hardwick (HOU14) are not justified.

Support

Representation ID: 10040

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy DS5(S) specifies the amount of housing and employment development directed to different locations within the plan area. The two parcels of land owned by the Southill Estate and identified as draft allocations, on land at Abbey Field West of Elstow (Policy HOU 5) and land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow (Policy EMP 5), are consistent with the proposed distribution strategy. The Abbey Field West of Elstow site falls within the urban area. The Pear Tree Farm Elstow site falls within a strategic location adjacent to the urban area. The proposed distribution is consistent with Paragraph 105 of the NPPF, which expects the planning system to actively manage patterns of growth to support the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, with significant development directed to locations that are or can be made sustainable.

As set out in the Southill Estate’s representations to Policy HOU 5, the Abbey Field West of Elstow site could accommodate more dwellings than currently indicated in the housing trajectory. It is requested that the number of dwellings proposed for the urban area within Policy DS5(S) is increased to reflect the additional dwellings that could be delivered from the Abbey Field West of Elstow site i.e. an additional approximately 200 dwellings (and a total of approximately 400 dwellings).

It is noted that the proposed science and innovation park allocation at Pear Tree Farm Elstow is excluded from the employment land figures in Policy DS5(S) on the basis that as an existing employment allocation it is categorised as a commitment. The draft allocation at the Pear Tree Farm site (Policy EMP 5) is slightly smaller than the adopted allocation at Medbury Farm (Site Ref. AD11), and it is proposed in PSBLP that Policy EMP 5 would replace Site Ref. AD11. It is suggested that, for clarity and for future monitoring purposes, the land at Pear Tree Farm should be included within the employment land figures for Policy DS5(S) i.e. within the figures for the strategic locations adjacent to the urban area.

The proposed distribution strategy in Policy DS5(S) is supported. It is requested that proposed number of dwellings for the urban area is adjusted to include additional dwellings at the Abbey Field West of Elstow site, and that the employment land figures for the strategic locations adjacent to the urban area includes the Pear Tree Farm site.

Comment

Representation ID: 10049

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Howbury Hall Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The plan to 2040 does not seek to direct any new development to the Boroughs smaller settlements / villages but rather seeks to rely upon existing allocated sites in the plan to 2030 and development coming forward through neighbourhood plans.

This element of the plan is unsound as it will not be ‘effective’ (paragraph 35 of the NPPF) in ensuring that a reasonable mix of housing sites are delivered across the plan as a whole. It will similarly ensure that little or no housing comes forward within or adjoining the villages.

The NPPF, paragraph 79 states:

“79. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby”

The failure to distribute some small scale growth to the villages runs contrary to paragraph 79 and will reduce choice and flexibility in the housing market.

Comment

Representation ID: 10070

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Emerging policy DS5 sets out where growth is to be located. It takes into account existing commitments together with the additional growth required to meet needs to 2040.
2.35 Emerging policy DS5(S) sets out the following distribution of housing growth:
Location - within the urban area, dwellings - 1200, Employment land (ha) - 5
Location - Strategic locations adjacent to the urban area which contribute to delivering the Forest of Marston Vale
incorporating the Bedford Milton Keynes Waterway Park and the Bedford River Valley Park, dwellings - 1500, Employment land (ha) - 7

Location -Growth locations on the A421 transport corridor and with the potential for rail based growth
- South of Bedford including new settlement (land parcels at Wixams, Shortstown and Elstow) - dwellings - 7,050, employment land (ha) 70
- Little Barford new settlement, dwellings 3,800, employmnet (ha) 4
- Other employment sites (50ha)

Location - Some development will take place beyond the plan period - dwellings - 400

location - Remaining rural area / villages (including Tuvey)
dwellings - Completion of sites previously allocated in local plans and neighbourhood plans

As detailed in response to Policy DS2 it is considered that the Council’s preferred strategy is over reliant on strategic sites and new settlements and is not sound. The approach proposed risks the delivery of the Plan as it is highly vulnerable to delayed or non-delivery. If one of the strategic sites does not deliver than the Plan will fail. Further, the approach adopted by the Council does not provide for choice and competition in the housing land market, which is likely to result in land price inflation given most the new housing is under the control of a limited number of landowners. Moreover, it largely rules out developments being brought forward by SME housebuilders, instead creating a monopoly of sites which can likely only be delivered by the larger housebuilders who will benefit from the economies of scale. As a result, there will also be a limited variety of houses realising to the market concurrently, slowing market absorption which will have high consequences in the latter years of the Plan period in terms of satisfying the Housing Delivery Test or demonstrating a five-year housing land supply.
2.37 The Plan states that there will continue to be growth in villages as a result of policies in the Local Plan 2030 which allocate growth to some Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres however, no new/additional allocations are made in these villages in the Local Plan 2040.
2.38 The Plan instead advises that some Parish Councils may choose to allocate further sites for development in their Neighbourhood Plan; there is no requirement for this.

absence of small and medium growth in the rural villages misses an opportunity to deliver some of the housing requirement earlier on in the Plan period, rather than relying on some 10,000 dwellings to be delivered through new settlements which are significantly reliant on the delivery of large-scale infrastructure. As detailed in response to PolicyDS3 it is not an appropriate strategy to place such a reliance on strategic infrastructure to deliver such a large proportion of a housing need, particularly when the Council’s own evidence (Bedford Local Plan 2040 – Borough Wide Viability Study, April 2022) confirms that strategic sites will not be able to deliver the policy requirements, including affordable housing. Allocating small to medium sites, will ensure that the Borough’s housing needs are delivered, quickly, at policy compliant levels, delivering homes for all need which will not be achieved through the new settlements.
2.40 The evidence base which supported the previous Local Plan 2030 and initial drafts of that Local Plan confirmed that there is capacity within the smaller settlements to deliver a higher quantum of growth than was adopted through the Plan (up to 150 dwellings in each settlement rather than the 25 – 50 dwellings detailed within the Plan). The Plan states that it is not possible to provide additional housing in the early years of the Plan period, but this is not justified. Its own evidence has clearly demonstrated that settlements such as Turvey are suitable for a higher quantum of growth than currently being delivered under the adopted Plan.
2.41 The distribution of growth within the LP2040 is not effective. As detailed in response to Policy DS3, such a reliance on strategic sites is not deliverable over the Plan period (it is already noted in policy DS5(S) that 400 dwellings will be delivered beyond the plan period, before accounting for any delays in site assembly, unlocking and delivering the required infrastructure, and actually delivering homes on sites included within the plan period).

Comment

Representation ID: 10076

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Countryside Partnerships Plc

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Please refer to our representations in respect of proposed policies DS2(S) and
DS3(S) of the Local Plan 2040 – Plan for Submission. We raise objection to the soundness of the plan due to a reliance on stepped housing trajectory, reliant on
strategic settlement delivery in 2030, underpinned by the need to have
significant infrastructure in place before 2030. This is a high risk strategy and our
representations are that additional housing should be identified in the search
area, consistent with the spatial strategy, that will offer additional capacity; could
be delivered in phases in the late 2020s, or are held as strategic reserve sites to
be released for development should it become clear that delays in the delivery of
strategic infrastructure in the form of east-west Rail and improvements to the
A421 will delay or reduce the delivery of the identified new settlements on Land
South of Bedford and Little Barford.
On the basis of the above representations, Policy DS5(S) does not identify
sufficient allocations to mitigate for this scenario, nor does it take the
opportunity to identify strategic reserve sites that could be brought forward if
and when necessary to meet the shortfall in delivery rates.
Without adequate insurance through further allocations or identification of
strategic reserve sites, policy DS5(S) – Distribution of growth has not been
adequately justified by the evidence base and will not 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: 10083

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ownership and Legal Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

Technical and Environmental Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delivery rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions on soundness

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 10134

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roebuck Land and Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

See attached statement.

Object

Representation ID: 10159

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: J C Gill Developments Ltd

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Distribution of Growth (DS5(S))
The approach to rely on new settlements to deliver homes in the latter part of the plan is flawed as has been addressed, as it holds back 88% of the new allocations for the second half of the plan placing incredible burden on the first 10 years to deliver no less than might be needed.
Whilst it is noted that the distribution of growth identifies an excess of 1,274 dwellings above the requirement this does not go far enough to counter the very likely under supply from the new settlement strategy.
The distribution of growth policy reinforces the absence of any site’s proposed on the edge of sustainable settlements. It also relies on the allocation of brownfield site’s, some of which will be identified on the brownfield register. As indicated by the NPPF (para 23) these site’s should not be allocated in the plan where they are identified in the register. Potentially this allows a redistribution of up to 1,200 units to the rural areas or the edge of the Urban Area to deliver vital homes in the first ten years of this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10208

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Trustees of the Lawton Pension Scheme

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Distribution of Growth (DS5(S))
2.26 Through application of the Standard Method for calculating housing need, a total of 27,100 new homes are required in the borough over the plan period 2020-2040. The Local Plan Review, therefore, needs to facilitate the provision of a further 12,275 residential units through allocations beyond those previously allocated in the Local Plan 2030, adopted in July 2021, and Neighbourhood Plans. This comprises a total increase of 40% in comparison to the housing growth outlined in the Local Plan 2030.
2.27 Draft Policy DS5(S) of the emerging Local Plan 2040 sets out proposals for a total of 13,550 residential units through proposed allocations in line with the Spatial Strategy, resulting in an over delivery of 1,274 units throughout the plan period. The over provision outlined implies shortfalls in delivery with the identified approach are already anticipated and this does add some flexibility, but it is unclear what this is based on. Nonetheless, 1,274 units will not be sufficient in overcoming the potentially significant delays in the delivery of new settlement because of identified risks pertaining to infrastructure delivery and delays in the planning process.
2.28 The draft Policy also refers to the remaining rural areas and villages, however, identifies no additional residential land in these locations. As such, it is not considered relevant to note this within the policy as it does not relate to the distribution of growth as set out in the emerging Local Plan.
[see attachment for Wixams a pertinent case study – Figure 2]
3.0 A Flawed Approach to the Rural Area
3.1 Although reference is made to the role of the rural area in the Spatial Strategy, no formal allocations are made for further development in these locations, other than by reference to new settlements and the two strategic sites at Gibraltar Corner and Willington/Cople. Draft Policy DS2(S) states that development in rural areas will comprise the completion of allocations outlined in the Local Plan 2030 and Neighbourhood Plans. No further development is proposed in these areas as part of the emerging plan. Not only is this a missed opportunity it fails to recognise that the review is intended to apply up to date housing figures from the revised housing needs assessment under the standard methodology and that this applies to 2020 - 2040; not just post 2030. Fundamentally the Council’s position is a political one and affords too much protection to existing communities, at the cost of a misconceived approach to sustainable deliverable development. This needs to be reassessed before the plan is tested at an Examination in Public, because there is a serious risk that the plan is found to be unsound.
3.2 To add to this point, there is no recognition in the plan that the Neighbourhood plans are only projected to 2030 and therefore there is no reason given as to why allocations in the rural areas cannot be identified for post 2030, through a phased approach to delivery. This concept is discussed below.
3.3 The Vision and Objectives seek to promote sustainable growth, and this should be similar to the concept in previous Local Plans in Bedford as the context of the Borough has not changed. It remains a Town and Country Borough with a principle Urban Area and a range of settlements that have different levels of facilities that dictates in a clear hierarchy which are the most sustainable locations for growth.
3.4 The Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (2022) supports the emerging Local Plan 2040. The addendum notes that the Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres identified to deliver growth as set out in the Local Plan 2030, will not change. The Settlement Hierarchy confirms that 6 settlements in the administrative area comprise Key Service Centres. Most of them have allocated around 500 dwellings to be developed in the plan to 2030, all through Neighbourhood Plans. Only Wilstead with zero dwellings and Wootton with 105 dwellings are lower. Wilstead is affected by the role of Wixams whilst Wootton is arguably underprovided given its scale.
3.5 Based on the Standard Method for calculating housing need a total of 27,100 new homes are required in the borough over the whole plan period 2020-2040, therefore only 7.8% of housing allocated through the Local Plan 2030, Neighbourhood Plans and the emerging Local Plan 2040 is to be delivered in some of the most sustainable settlements in the borough. Yet allocations in these rural areas would be immediately sustainable, would not be subject to significant infrastructure projects and could be delivered quickly to provide housing in response to current housing need.
3.6 The same conclusion can be drawn for Rural Service Centres in the borough, of which there are 10. Whilst it is acknowledged that these settlements are smaller, the settlement hierarchy confirms they still score reasonably high on the rankings. They have good road and public transport links and reasonable levels of service provision. Milton Ernest is the 12th most sustainable rural settlement in the Borough and yet it has an allocation of 25 dwellings through a Neighbourhood Plan, amounting to just over 1.25 dwellings to be delivered per annum over the entire plan period. This is a significantly underprovided for the local need of Milton Ernest as well as its important role in the Borough as a whole.
3.7 More recognition of the importance of rural settlements in meeting housing need over the entire 20-year period is required in this plan. The strategy proposed places emphasis on the use of large strategic sites located in isolated countryside locations, in some cases near to or adjacent to settlements that are in the lower rural settlements and are simply not sustainable.
3.8 The allocation of housing on the edges of existing sustainable rural settlements presents a multitude of benefits both to the settlement and the borough through ensuring quick delivery of housing contributing to housing supply and bolstering the sustainable nature and vitality of smaller settlements in the borough. National Policy recognises 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.”

Object

Representation ID: 10218

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ben Pile

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Distribution of Growth (DS5(S))
The approach to rely on new settlements to deliver homes in the latter part of the plan is flawed as has been addressed, as it holds back 88% of the new allocations for the second half of the plan placing incredible burden on the first 10 years to deliver no less than might be needed.
Whilst it is noted that the distribution of growth identifies an excess of 1,274 dwellings above the requirement this does not go far enough to counter the very likely under supply from the new settlement strategy.
The distribution of growth policy reinforces the absence of any sites proposed on the edge of sustainable settlements. It also relies on the allocation of brownfield sites, some of which will be identified on the brownfield register. As indicated by the NPPF (para 23) these sites should not be allocated in the plan where they are identified in the register. Potentially this allows a redistribution of up to 1,200 units to the rural areas or the edge of the Urban Area to deliver vital homes in the first ten years of this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10224

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Anwyl Land

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS5(S) Distribution of Growth
2.38 Emerging Policy DS5 sets out where growth is to be located. It takes into account existing commitments together with the additional growth required to meet needs to 2040.
2.39 Emerging Policy DS5(S) sets out the following distribution of housing growth:
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

2.40 As detailed in response to Policy DS2 it is considered that the Council’s preferred strategy is over reliant on strategic sites and new settlements and is not sound. The approach proposed risks the delivery of the Plan as it is highly vulnerable to delayed or non-delivery. If one of the strategic sites does not deliver than the Plan will fail. Further, the approach adopted by the Council does not provide for choice and competition in the housing land market, which is likely to result in land price inflation given most the new housing is under the control of a limited number of landowners. Moreover, it largely rules out developments being brought forward by SME housebuilders, instead creating a monopoly of sites which can likely only be delivered by the larger housebuilders who will benefit from the economies of scale. As a result, there will also be a limited variety of houses realising to the market concurrently, slowing market absorption which will have high consequences in the latter years of the Plan period in terms of satisfying the Housing Delivery Test or demonstrating a five-year housing land supply.
2.41 The Plan states that there will continue to be growth in villages as a result of policies in the Local Plan 2030 which allocated growth to some Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres however, no new/additional allocations are made in these villages in the Local Plan 2040.
2.42 The Plan instead advises that some Parish Councils may ‘choose’ to allocate further sites for development in their Neighbourhood Plan; there is no requirement for this.
2.43 This absence of small and medium growth in the rural villages, particularly Sharnbrook, misses an opportunity to deliver some of the housing requirement earlier in the Plan period, rather than relying on some 10,000 dwellings to be delivered through new settlements - which are significantly reliant on the delivery of large-scale infrastructure. As detailed in response to Policy DS3 it is not an appropriate strategy to place such a reliance on strategic infrastructure to deliver such a large proportion of a housing need.
2.44 The distribution of growth within the LP2040 is not effective. As detailed in response to Policy DS3, such a reliance on strategic sites is not deliverable over the Plan period (it is already noted in Policy DS5(S) that 400 dwellings will be delivered beyond the plan period, before accounting for any delays in site assembly, unlocking and delivering the required infrastructure, and actually delivering homes on sites included within the plan period). Moreover, the failure for Sharnbrook to deliver any new housing, with all growth being funnelled to a free-standing new settlement is entirely at odds with the adopted Local Plan and also fails to utilise a key sustainable settlement with latent capacity for growth (as demonstrated by the allocation of 500 units to Sharnbrook itself in the adopted Local Plan). As such capacity exists and should be recognised and utilised for housing growth in Sharnbrook itself.

Object

Representation ID: 10227

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Ben Pile

Agent: Optimis Consulting

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Distribution of Growth (DS5(S))
2.26 Through application of the Standard Method for calculating housing need, a total of 27,100 new homes are required in the borough over the plan period 2020-2040. The Local Plan Review, therefore, needs to facilitate the provision of a further 12,275 residential units through allocations beyond those previously allocated in the Local Plan 2030, adopted in July 2021, and Neighbourhood Plans. This comprises a total increase of 40% in comparison to the housing growth outlined in the Local Plan 2030.
2.27 Draft Policy DS5(S) of the emerging Local Plan 2040 sets out proposals for a total of 13,550 residential units through proposed allocations in line with the Spatial Strategy, resulting in an over delivery of 1,274 units throughout the plan period. The over provision outlined implies shortfalls in delivery with the identified approach are already anticipated and this does add some flexibility, but it is unclear what this is based on. Nonetheless, 1,274 units will not be sufficient in overcoming the potentially significant delays in the delivery of new settlement because of identified risks pertaining to infrastructure delivery and delays in the planning process.
2.28 The draft Policy also refers to the remaining rural areas and villages, however, identifies no additional residential land in these locations. As such, it is not considered relevant to note this within the policy as it does not relate to the distribution of growth as set out in the emerging Local Plan.