Plan for submission evidence base

Object

Representation ID: 10437

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the SA process and outcomes; The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and fails all four soundness tests.

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

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

Our main submissions concern the proposed Plan and the methodology and conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations of 2004 (SEA Regulations) are not satisfied. The Council has not adequately accommodated the requirements mandated by Policy 1 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the need for an immediate review in terms of assessing a full range of reasonable alternatives to the same level of detail as the selected option, namely fully assessing the potential effects of detailed site options for allocations across the settlement hierarchy and at the urban edge.

Circularity in the site evaluation and Sustainability Appraisal processes highlight the basic faults in the Council’s strategy. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process was used to determine the suitability of sites, according to paragraph 9.13 of the 2022 Sustainability Appraisal, whereas Table 2.2 of the SHLAA document justifies the exclusion of sites at Stage 1 of the assessment where they are not thought to fit the Council’s chosen strategy.

This might be taken as confirmation that the Council has already decided on its preferred strategy before conducting further testing. It has also chosen not to consider all other growth options out of a perceived pure conflict and has thus severely limited the potential contribution from the urban edge component of the spatial strategy.

The SA confirms that our clients land at Green End, Kempston has been considered within the context of a site adjacent to the urban area. Paragraph 9.9 of the SA confirms that the majority of sites within the definition have been considered inconsistent with the Council’s preferred strategy, despite two sites being selected for allocation from this component including land adjoining our client’s site (HOU13).

The Council’s own evidence base does not justify this conclusion following an objective assessment of site options to the same degree of detail. Appendix 4 of the SHELAA, which shows that at Stage 2 almost no sites have really been rejected based on the Council's definition as "suitability" (e.g., inability to secure suitable mitigation for matters such as coalescence). Appropriate sites at the urban edge, and specifically our client’s land Green End (ID: 1247), have been arbitrarily rejected at Stage 1 without any assessment of their relationship with the urban edge or impact on separation and irrespective of the conclusions against the Stage 3 Sustainability Appraisal Indicators (which were in fact established prior to the Council ruling out sites using its Stage 1 criteria).

Just two sites adjacent to the urban area have been deemed suitable, available, or feasible under the SHELAA process, therefore further testing of the other sites is prohibited on this basis even if the SA partially recognises the option of additional urban edge growth (i.e., it is not only a "reasonable alternative" but a component of the selected strategy). The sites have merely been rejected due to what seems to be a contradiction with the spatial approach; they have not been evaluated for suitability under Stage 2 or subjected to any other thorough examination of their relative benefits, dis-benefits and scope for mitigation of any adverse effects. Accordingly, the assessments do not provide a robust justification for the approach taken to site selection and supporting growth.

It should be noted, as described in the Regulation 18 representations and the supporting Site Analysis Document, that development of this site would provide for sustainably located development at the urban edge whilst also maintaining separation and the townscape and landscape character of Bedford and Kempston Rural parish. The Council has already acknowledged on several occasions that the A428 bypass does not provide a significant obstacle to the expansion of development west of Bedford. Numerous construction projects have penetrated the bypass, including new employment west of the A428 that has encroached into the Green Infrastructure corridor. Our client's land would continue to be a suitable place for expansion that is reachable from the major urban area while avoiding any further detrimental effects in this respect.

All but two sites adjacent to the urban area are judged similarly as being in conflict with the spatial approach and hence undesirable, according to the SA's position, which appears to be the advocated position of the Council. This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that the suitability of site options should not be further evaluated, nor should strategy options for levels of growth in these areas be tested in greater detail or through more iterations than were done prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage.

Whether or not the Council will unjustifiably claim it has ‘run out of time’ to look at matters in the greater detail, the Council’s position is directly at odds with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper informing the Regulation 18 Draft Plan:
“For the purpose of defining the options, assumptions need to be made about the potential capacity of each broad location for housing and employment growth. It is very important to note at this stage that these assumptions are for the purpose of testing only. They are informed by the quantum of development put forward through the call for sites process but they are not based on specific site appraisals (which will form the basis of further testing following this consultation).”

The distinction between the proposed allocation at Gibraltar Corner (HOU13) and our client’s land arises where the draft allocation is subject to separate Sustainability Appraisal in Appendix 9 assessing the policies within the Plan for Submission. However, the findings of this part of the assessment do not indicate why the site should not be considered alongside other reasonable alternatives to the same degree of detail. Specifically:
• For Objective 8 the HOU13 assessment only identifies uncertain effects regarding protecting and enhancing landscape character
• For Objective 7 (encouraging and supporting physical activity) minor positive effects arise only because the location is ‘close to open space’.

The conclusions against these objectives, which are essentially critical for site selection, therefore do not distinguish the site from other reasonable alternatives. In relation to Objective 8 the SHELAA Stage 3 assessment for our client’s land ID: 1247 records the same ‘uncertain’ position for landscape and townscape. For objective 7 the assessment conclusions for our client’s ID: 1247 (potential negative effects for open space) are disputed where the submitted Site Analysis Document clearly shows scope for provision of open space within the site boundary including specifically opportunities for new planting along its eastern edge to maintain separation with the main urban area.

Other parcels within the HOU13 location (e.g., Site ID: 636) record potential negative effects for objective 7. The HOU13 Appendix 9 assessment cites “development of this site together with others will have positive cumulative and synergistic effects on the provision of green infrastructure”. While this may indeed be the case to support the Council’s position for site selection, the same position is also true in relation to our client’s Land at Green End where had the land been assessed in the same degree of detail as other options it would make a valuable contribution towards wider Green Infrastructure objectives.

As demonstrated by our client’s updated Site Analysis Document we fundamentally object to the Council’ proposed changes to the Policies Map no longer indicating the boundaries of Policy AD24 regarding the Marston Vale GI Opportunity Zone. Our client’s land has ostensibly the same relationship with this area as parts of the area identified for allocation at Gibraltar Corner (see Analysis Document (pp.11). It is relevant to note that this is an element assessed favourably in the Council’s SA conclusions for Site ID: 1333 and the assessment of draft allocation HOU13 and which the Council utilises to justify further consideration of the specific urban edge location at Gibraltar Corner. It cannot, therefore, be justified to exclude our client’s land as inconsistent with the selected strategy when it achieves ostensibly the same assessment conclusions and provides the same potential benefits, set out under Objective 2d of the Stage 3 SHELAA SA Indicators as: “adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network”.

We therefore have some significant concerns relating to the legal compliance of the SA sitting behind the submission version of the Local Plan. We do not consider that there has been sufficient testing of reasonable alternatives and even within the preferred approach, there appears to be a significant number of sites adjacent to the urban areas that have been dismissed without justification or sufficient evidence.

Therefore, as draft we consider that the SA is not legally compliant or meets any of the four tests of soundness.