Local Plan 2040 Draft Plan - Strategy options and draft policies consultation

Object

Representation ID: 8393

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived, inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the Framework and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.

Reasoning
The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the Development Plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.

The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the Development Plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.

The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the Development Plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.

The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply of small sites from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.

Remedy
The Local Plan 2040 should offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the Borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support suitable growth of those sites which are considered appropriate.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to Framework paragraph 69.

The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle.

For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.

While our client’s land at Felmersham notionally exceeds the 1 hectare referred to in national policy the details summarised in Section 3 of these representations demonstrate suitable and deliverable opportunities to make provision for development that would satisfy the policy criteria for growth on small sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8394

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The emerging preferred options put forward by the Council continue to have an urban focus and the four variations all focus development on the urban area, A421 corridor, and existing and planned rail stations. This approach relies heavily on rail investment and also focuses growth to the south of the town, with very little growth planned to the north of the Borough.
2.26 Representations addressing our client’s interest elsewhere in the Borough endorse a ‘hybrid’ approach making provision for village-related development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. Reassessment of Option 3c provides an appropriate starting point for such an approach.
2.27 Within this strategy option the Council has applied arbitrary ‘one size fits all’ totals to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres but made no provision for a contribution towards the strategy totals from locations outside these settlements.
2.28 This is inconsistent with the approach to other strategy components where a more flexible approach is applied e.g., non-specific estimates of urban capacity. Utilisation of other appropriate sites would add flexibility to the strategy and reduce any of the harmful effects that the Council associates with testing non-specific levels of village-related growth. This includes incorporating defined settlements such as Felmersham within the testing of site options.

Object

Representation ID: 8643

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 1.47-1.48 (Neighbourhood Planning) – Object
2.2 The Council’s consultation document considers the role for development allocations to be identified in Neighbourhood Plans (as a result of the strategy in the Local Plan 2030) in the context of updates to the development strategy explored via the Preferred Options.
2.3 These representations identify that the consultation fundamentally fails to assess the role and ability of Neighbourhood Plans in meeting the requirements for sustainable development (including housing delivery) in the period to 2030. The consultation proposals also provide no clarity on the impact of meeting additional requirements for growth in terms of whether the policies in ‘made’ Plans will remain in general conformity with the development strategy nor how further allocations in other defined settlements such as Souldrop might be provided for in an effective and positively prepared manner.
Reasoning
(i) Relationship with Delivery of the Area’s Strategic Priorities
2.4 At paragraph 1.48 the Borough Council only provides vague indications of where further engagement might take place with Parish Councils to meet additional requirements for growth where a range of suitable sites are identified.
2.5 This paragraph is inconsistent with the intentions for a stepped trajectory and the NPPG for reviewing NDPs (which should encourage early review when strategic policies have changed). That is an inevitable consequence of the development plan in Bedford given its current failure to address levels of growth in accordance with the Standard Method. The Borough Council’s own evidence indicates the strong likelihood of sites where early delivery can be prioritised. This does not demand that meeting increased requirements for growth should extend beyond 2030.
2.6 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF2021 reaffirms the role for Neighbourhood Plans in providing for non-strategic allocations. Paragraph 29 confirms this must be within the context of Neighbourhood Plans that do not promote less development than set out in adopted strategy policies (which in this case will be replaced in the Local Plan 2040). Paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021 outlines that strategic policies should set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations. This is an important distinction from the 2012 version of the Framework.
2.7 The Council’s options test no distribution of requirements to other defined settlements whatsoever, which continues to overlook opportunities for sustainable settlements such as Souldrop to make a commensurate contributions towards the increased needs for development in the period to 2030 and beyond.
2.8 This fundamentally fails to accord with the current requirements of national policy and guidance and, importantly, has currently precluded the Council from considering ‘hybrid’ alternatives to the spatial strategy that would allow appropriate levels of sustainable development to be prioritised across the settlement hierarchy.
(ii) Identification of Housing Requirements for Designated Neighbourhood Areas
2.9 The Council’s proposed approach is contrary to paragraphs 66 and 67 of the NPPF2021. For Souldrop, these provisions apply in the context that there is currently no designated Neighbourhood Area, and the defined settlement is not included within the scale and distribution of growth to be met through Neighbourhood Plans as part of the strategic policies of the LP2030 (Policy 4S).
2.10 Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the NPPF2021 should form part of positive discussions between qualifying bodies and the local planning authority, recognising the ability of Neighbourhood Plans to sustain and increase housing delivery. Any indicative requirement figure would take into consideration relevant policies such as an existing or emerging spatial strategy, alongside the characteristics of the neighbourhood plan area and should minimise the risk of Neighbourhood Plan figures being superseded when new strategic policies are adopted (ID: 41-102-20190509). Rolling forward the distribution of growth in Policy 4S as suggested by the Council in its testing of strategy options for village-related growth is a flawed approach:
• The figures were determined arbitrarily, without reference to the OAN in place at the time or strategies for individual settlements;
• In any event the Council’s OAN knowingly represented a significant shortfall against the government’s policy for calculating housing need, culminating in this immediate review;
• The figures are applicable only in the context of a foreshortened plan period to 2030; and
• Figures are provided only for certain settlements, with no requirement indicated for levels of the settlement hierarchy below Rural Service Centres (despite these having been considered in earlier rounds of plan-making for the LP2030).
2.11 By extension this means that any evidence produced by groups preparing Plans (for example assessments of local rural housing needs and whether relating to settlements listed in Policy 4S or not) would need to be considered in the context of the overall result of the Standard Method to 2040.
Remedy
2.12 The solution to issues identified in these representations necessitates the Council complying with the requirements of paragraphs 66 and 67 of the NPPF2021. In doing so, we consider that a ‘hybrid’ development strategy must remain supported throughout the plan period, including recognition of the contribution that this would make towards the shortfall against local housing need for the period 2020 to 2030 i.e., through ‘top up allocations’.
2.13 Outside of the approach to identification of a housing requirement for Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres the Council should adopt a flexible approach to supporting development opportunities at other defined settlements such as Souldrop in order to sustain and enhance their role. This is necessary to reflect the longer-term plan period to 2040 and that such settlements were omitted from provision towards the scale and distribution of growth required to support the LP2030.

Object

Representation ID: 8644

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.26 – 3.28 (Small Sites) –Object
2.14 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived and inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the NPPF2021 and undermine the Government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.
Reasoning
2.15 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
2.16 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.
2.17 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.
2.18 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one-off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.
Remedy
2.19 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:
• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the Borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support the re-use and redevelopment of sites with built form in the wider rural area, such as our client’s land at Town Farm, Souldrop.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to NPPF2021 paragraph 69
2.20 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle. Our client’s land at Souldrop would comfortably satisfy the 1 hectare threshold and assist in addressing the requirements of national policy to support small sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8645

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.15 – 3.17 (Spatial Strategy Options) – Object
2.21 The emerging preferred options put forward by the Council have an urban focus and the four variations all focus development on the urban area, A421 corridor, and existing and planned rail stations. This approach relies heavily on rail investment and also focuses growth to the south of the town, with very little growth planned to the north of the Borough.
2.22 Representations addressing our client’s interests elsewhere in the Borough endorse a ‘hybrid’ approach making provision for village-related development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. Reassessment of Option 3c provides an appropriate starting point for such an approach.
2.23 Within this strategy option the Council has applied arbitrary ‘one size fits all’ totals to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres but made no provision for a contribution towards the strategy totals from locations outside these settlements.
2.24 This is inconsistent with the approach to other strategy components where a more flexible approach is applied e.g., non-specific estimates of urban capacity. Utilisation of other appropriate sites would add flexibility to the strategy and reduce any of the harmful effects that the Council associates with testing non-specific levels of village-related growth. This includes incorporating defined settlements such as Souldrop within the testing of site options.

Object

Representation ID: 8738

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

2.2 The Council’s consultation document considers the role for development allocations to be identified in Neighbourhood Plans (as a result of the strategy in the Local Plan 2030) in the context of updates to the development strategy explored via the Preferred Options.

2.3 These representations identify that the consultation fundamentally fails to assess the role and ability of Neighbourhood Plans in meeting the requirements for sustainable development (including housing delivery) in the period to 2030 and beyond. The consultation proposals also provide no clarity on the impact of meeting additional requirements for growth in terms of whether the policies in ‘made’ Plans will remain in general conformity with the development strategy nor how further allocations might be provided for in an effective and positively prepared manner.

Reasoning
(i) Relationship with Delivery of the Area’s Strategic Priorities

2.4 Paragraph 1.47 of the consultation proposals repeats the strategy outlined in Policy 4S of the adopted Local Plan. This does not confirm a realistic prospect that all 2,260 units will be delivered before 2030.

2.5 At paragraph 1.48 the Borough Council only provides vague indications of where further engagement might take place with Parish Councils to meet additional requirements for growth where a range of suitable sites are identified.

2.6 This paragraph is inconsistent with the intentions for a stepped trajectory and the NPPG for reviewing NDPs (which should encourage early review when strategic policies have changed). That is an inevitable consequence of the development plan in Bedford given its current failure to address levels of growth in accordance with the Standard Method. The Borough Council’s own evidence indicates the strong likelihood of sites where early delivery can be prioritised, which includes our client’s site proposed for allocation in Milton Ernest. This does not demand that meeting increased requirements for growth should extend beyond 2030.


2.7 Paragraph 28 of the Framework reaffirms the role for Neighbourhood Plans in providing for non-strategic allocations. Paragraph 29 confirms this must be within the context of Neighbourhood Plans that do not promote less development than set out in adopted strategy policies (which in this case will be replaced in the Local Plan 2040). Paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021 outlines that strategic policies should set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations. This is an important distinction from the 2012 version of the Framework. However, the Council’s testing of options for the Local Plan 2040 rolls forward a ‘one-size fits all’ distribution of potential levels of growth in Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres.

2.8 This fundamentally fails to accord with the current requirements of national policy and guidance and, importantly, has currently precluded the Council from considering ‘hybrid’ alternatives to the spatial strategy that would allow appropriate levels of sustainable development to be prioritised across the settlement hierarchy.

(ii) Identification of Housing Requirements for Designated Neighbourhood Areas

2.9 The Council’s proposed approach is contrary to paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Framework. Paragraph 66 sets out that 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. The Council’s suggestion of rolling forward the contribution from the scale and distribution of growth identified in Policy 4S of the LP2030 is not justified and not positively prepared.

2.10 This is an important component of national policy and guidance in terms of seeking to avoid conflict between existing and emerging Neighbourhood Plans and the strategic policies of the development plan. This should form part of positive discussions between qualifying bodies and the local planning authority, recognising the ability of Neighbourhood Plans to sustain and increase housing delivery. Any indicative requirement figure would take into consideration relevant policies such as an existing or emerging spatial strategy, alongside the characteristics of the Neighbourhood Plan area and should minimise the risk of neighbourhood plan figures being superseded when new strategic policies are adopted (ID: 41-102-20190509).

2.11 The figures in Policy 4S of the LP2030 are a flawed basis for rolling forward potential


requirements against which Neighbourhood Plans are prepared for the following reasons:

• The figures were determined arbitrarily, without reference to the OAN in place at the time or strategies for individual settlements;
• In any event the Council’s OAN knowingly represented a significant shortfall against the government’s policy for calculating housing need, culminating in this immediate review;
• The figures are applicable only in the context of a foreshortened plan period to 2030; and
• Figures are provided only for certain settlements, with no requirement indicated for levels of the settlement hierarchy below Rural Service Centres (despite these having been considered in earlier rounds of plan-making for the LP2030).

2.12 It follows that the process for calculation of any indicative requirement would therefore materially and significantly exceed the evidence base for the LP2030 and the figures in Policy 4S. By extension this means that any evidence produced by groups preparing Neighbourhood Plans (for example assessments of local rural housing needs and whether relating to settlements listed in Policy 4S or not) would need to be considered in the context of the overall result of the standard method to 2040.

2.13 Any impacts upon the evidence base for emerging Neighbourhood Plans must be read alongside NPPG ID: 41-084-20190509, which answers the question ‘when will it be necessary to review and update a Neighbourhood Plan’ and states in relation to the above issues:

“There is no requirement to review or update a Neighbourhood Plan. However, policies in a Neighbourhood Plan may become out of date, for example if they conflict with policies in a Local Plan covering the neighbourhood area that is adopted after the making of the Neighbourhood Plan. In such cases, the more recent plan policy takes precedence.”

Remedy
2.14 The solution to issues identified in these representations necessitates the Council complying with the requirements of paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Framework. In doing so, we consider that a ‘hybrid’ development strategy must remain supported throughout the Plan period, including recognition of the contribution that this would make towards the shortfall against local housing need for the period 2020 to 2030.

2.15 Without prejudice to any specific conclusions from this work this would support inclusion of ‘village-related’ development as a component of future growth. There may be scope to alter


the distribution of the housing requirement to Rural Service Centres upwards or downwards from the arbitrary figure of 25- 50 units adopted by the Council, depending on the capacity and other potential benefits for development in these settlements relative to their overall potential contribution to LHN.

2.16 For Rural Service Centres (with the exception of the reclassification of Oakley) it appears proportionate in the first instance to apply a pro-rata addition to levels of development envisaged in Policy 4S of the current LP2030 (i.e., a minimum 25-50 dwellings to 2030). Proportionate additional development in these settlements has the greatest potential to increase the pace of development and diversify supply and any increase could be achieved before 2030 in many cases.

2.17 The benefits of such an approach would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any harms given the potential to support the most appropriate locations for growth in each settlement from a range of site options. In the case of our client’s interests at Marsh Lane, Milton Ernest this could be achieved through realising additional capacity within sites already selected as part of the process of Neighbourhood Plan preparation.

Object

Representation ID: 8739

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

2.18 The Council’s proposed approach to enabling the development of small sites as a source of flexibility in supply and to provide diversity within the construction sector is misconceived, inconsistent with national policy, ineffective and not justified. The Council is simply seeking to ignore the requirements at paragraph 69 of the Framework and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders, prosperous rural communities, and measures to address affordability.

Reasoning
2.19 The Council seeks to rely on evidence of past and expected future trends in windfall development in place of the requirement in national policy to identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.

2.20 The reasoning for the approach in national policy is simple: the development plan is the most appropriate vehicle to set out positively prepared policies to support the delivery of small sites and enable small and medium developers (who often face the greatest barriers to entry


in the sector) to secure implementable planning permissions more easily.

2.21 The Council’s own evidence in the Small Sites Topic Paper demonstrates a year-on-year fall in trends in the completion of small windfall sites against the Local Plan 2030 requirement of 970dpa. This is illustrative of issues affecting the sector. The Council must also be mindful of the fact that more recent policies in the development plan (particularly those within Neighbourhood Plans) provide a further barrier to bringing forward appropriate proposals on unidentified sites.

2.22 The evidence from past trends fails to support the Council’s contention that windfall supply will provide for 10% of the higher requirement based on minimum annual local housing need for the period 2020 to 2040. The Council relies on expected future trends but the justification for its proposed approach fails for the following reasons:

• The Council’s reference to extant commitments takes no account of any potential lapse rate or double-counting with assumptions of future supply
• Expected trends take no account of changes to Permitted Development Rights (including restrictions upon office-to-residential conversions and a reduction in the number of potentially suitable sites)
• Extant small-site commitments take no account of those that are effectively ‘one- off’ schemes that would not be accessible to the SME sector (e.g., backland plots or subdivision)
• The likely supply from Neighbourhood Plans, which is a tiny proportion of the 2,260 dwellings required from this source and illustrative of these Plans often focusing development on a limited number of challenging sites, is dwarfed by the resulting restrictions on additional growth.

Remedy
2.23 There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas.

2.24 The Local Plan 2040 should also offer substantially greater support for the delivery of small sites in rural areas. This advances the case for the strategic policies of the Local Plan 2040:

• Setting out indicative requirements for all settlements within the borough’s hierarchy (outside of Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres) to encourage provision for appropriate levels of smaller-scale growth
• Proactively support the delivery of rural exception sites
• Proactively support suitable growth of those sites which are considered appropriate.
• Where Policy 4S of the Local Plan 2030 is superseded in terms of the scale and distribution of growth required at Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres


ensure that any increased need for development to be provided through reviews of Neighbourhood Plan also has regard to Framework paragraph 69

2.25 The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 and any Neighbourhood Plans to be prepared taking a more flexible approach towards the requirements of national policy is supported in principle.

2.26 For example, where any allocations proposed would offer the opportunity for early delivery and the potential to introduce multiple developers to relevant sites it would be appropriate to treat the 1 hectare threshold pragmatically, recognising that the revised strategy will itself provide substantial opportunities for diversification.

2.27 In the case of our client’s land at Marsh Lane, Milton Ernest a further contribution towards the additional housing needs in the period to 2030 and beyond could be achieved through realising additional capacity within the site as already selected as part of the process of Neighbourhood Plan preparation. The additional developable area required to achieve this is unlikely to materially exceed the 1 hectare threshold in national policy and guidance, thus satisfying the requirements of national policy in relation to small sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8740

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

2.28 The emerging preferred options put forward by the Council continue to have an urban focus and the four variations all focus development on the urban area, A421 corridor, and existing and planned rail stations. This approach relies heavily on rail investment and also focuses growth to the south of the town, with very little growth planned to the north of the borough.

2.29 Representations addressing our client’s interest elsewhere in the Borough endorse a ‘hybrid’ approach making provision for village-related development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. Reassessment of Option 3c provides an appropriate starting point for such an approach. Within this strategy option the Council has applied arbitrary ‘one size fits all’ totals to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres

2.30 A number of KSC’s and RSC’s have sites which have been identified as potentially suitable through the Councils Call for Sites (Summer 2020) and have been assessed as such by the Council through Local Plan Site Assessments. Milton Ernest is one of those RSCs which is in the process of producing a Neighbourhood Plan and was apportioned a housing target through the Local Plan 2030. The MENP is currently at examination stage with the Examiners


report recently being published which has recommended the Plan proceed to referendum subject to modifications.

2.31 Milton Ernest was identified in the Local Plan 2030 Policy 4S as a centre suitable for the delivery of between 25 to 50 dwellings. Local Plan 2030 Policy 4S also states that “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”.

2.32 The Neighbourhood Plan currently includes one housing allocation Policy ME H1: Rushden Road comprising our client’s interests. The land has been promoted through various Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan consultations.

2.33 Policy ME H1 was originally published stating the proposed delivery of a “maximum of 25 dwellings”. However, this point has been addressed through the Examiner’s suggested modifications in that it is advised that maximum be replaced by minimum to reflect policy and potential future housing need.

2.34 Our client intends to bring the scheme forward for residential development within the amended Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as set out in the MENP policy ME H1. This does not preclude the Borough Council, within its assessment of site options, considering the potential for additional growth within the wider site area outside of the Neighbourhood Plan’s proposed amendments to the SPA boundary, at this sustainable location. Similarly, the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner’s Report does not preclude a sensitive extension of the site area outside of the proposed SPA boundary amendment in order to provide for additional built or non-built uses (e.g., open space) associated with residential development upon the site.

2.35 Given the above, we would ask that Bedford Borough Council, reconsiders their proposed development strategy to test a ‘hybrid’ approach including ‘village-related’ development outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes. This could readily be achieved through allocating an additional amount of development to those northern parishes previously considered suitable for additional housing development, thus addressing the substantial risks to non-delivery associated with the Council’s Preferred Options and helping to sustain and enhance the role of the most sustainable settlements in the hierarchy.

Object

Representation ID: 8874

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.15 – 3.17 (Spatial Strategy Options) – Comment
2.2 The identification of growth in the ‘south’ corridor as part of the Council’s Preferred Options 2a, 2b and 2d is welcomed in principle. This is considered to form an important component of any appropriate strategy option albeit this will require recognition of the benefits of ‘village-related’ growth across the settlement hierarchy.
2.3 The identification of Kempston Rural parish within this corridor is also welcomed. This is considered to reflect the excellent links between the development pattern within the parish (particularly at Green End) and services and facilities within the urban area. Where the Council identifies figures of 2,000 and 1,500 respectively for ‘south’ corridor parishes in Options 2a and 2b without specifying any settlement-specific or site-specific distribution it is assumed that this recognises the capacity to sustainably support growth at Green End.
2.4 Reservations are expressed, however, in terms of the Council’s treatment of Kempston Rural for the purposes of apportioning village-related growth, where the parish is excluded from the relevant total of 4,280 units as a result of not comprising a designated Rural Service Centre. Further reservation is expressed in terms of the distribution of growth in the Council’s Preferred Options where this refers only to dwellings and not the approach required to deliver the housing needs of different groups, including specialist housing for older people.
2.5 The Council’s own evidence base identifies a substantial need for housing for older people, including a net demand for over 1,500 units of Extra Care accommodations (owned and rented) over the Plan period. However, the Council’s Sustainability Framework (Appendix 1 of the draft Sustainability Appraisal findings) indicates that the positive effects associated with meeting particular housing needs will only be weighed when testing site-specific development options.
2.6 The implication of this is that the Council intends to reject altogether strategy options providing for ‘village-related’ growth outside of the ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes and may opt for lower levels of development in the ‘south’ corridor prior to assessing all site
specific reasonable alternatives.
2.7 Our client’s land at Green End, Kempston, is a good illustration of why a flexible approach to testing needs to be adopted and why the parish has correctly been identified as an area with overall potential for development. At this stage the Council’s evidence has no regard to whether its Preferred Strategy options - heavily reliant on large-scale strategic growth with potential constraints to land availability, viability, and development timescales – would be capable of meeting specialist housing needs for older people over the Plan period.
2.8 In contrast, our client’s land at Green End (in-keeping with other opportunities in the rural area) satisfies the key characteristics of sites suitable to provide for retirement village schemes in terms of its scale, location, and accessibility. The benefits of the potential to provide specialist housing for older people in this location should remain subject to further assessment (alongside general needs housing) due to the ability to contribute towards overall development needs. This is irrespective of the strategy options selected by the Council to meet the minimum need for new residential allocations. Recognition of this underpins our clients broader argument that meeting the requirements for preparation of the Local Plan 2040 must rely upon a flexible, ‘hybrid’ approach.

Object

Representation ID: 8875

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Paragraphs 3.10 and Preferred Options 2a-2d: Component of Rail-Based Growth ‘Pink’ Growth Strategy Options) – Object
2.9 The opportunity for transformative change resulting from the delivery of East-West Rail within Bedford Borough is not disputed. However, the Council’s own evidence demonstrates that the level of rail-based growth at Kempston Hardwick/Stewartby and Wixams relied upon as part of its Preferred Options is unsound. National Planning Practice Guidance ID: 68-020-20190722 states that a pragmatic approach should be taken when considering the intended phasing of sites, where the authority may need to provide a greater degree of certainty than those in years 11-15 or beyond. The PPG expands on this by stating that where longer-term sites are relied upon evidence must be available to demonstrate that they will come forward within the timescales envisaged and at a rate sufficient to meet needs over the plan period (ID: 68-019-20190722).
2.10 While these sections of the PPG post-date the NPPF2012 it is the case that the Council has historically failed entirely in setting out realistic timeframes for the development of complex sites. These shortcomings have particularly affected Town Centre sites in the past, which the Council will now unsuccessfully rely upon to sustain completions against the housing requirement in the Local Plan 2030. We argued at the previous Local Plan Examination that such sites should be identified as developable no earlier than the 11-15 year period.
2.11 These issues with existing sites will be compounded in the Council’s trajectory for the Local Plan 2040 (meaning that even its proposed ‘stepped approach’ against a requirement of 970dpa to 2030 will not be effective). These representations further demonstrate the lack of evidence to consider rail-based growth in the A421 corridor as developable any earlier than years 11-15 of the plan period (if not beyond) thus rendering the Council’s Preferred Options entirely unsound.
Reasoning
2.12 The Council’s own Development Strategy Topic Paper identifies multiple risks to the rail-based component of growth in the A421 corridor, including:
• Delivery of new rail stations is proposed, but not yet confirmed.
• Lead in times for remediation of the Kempston Hardwick area and delivery of new rail stations mean that development in this part of the transport corridor will occur later in the plan period.
• Detailed analysis of context and density / storey heights to establish appropriate place making for the rail based growth at Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby has yet to be undertaken.
• The land at Kempston Hardwick is currently being promoted for employment development.
2.13 These points confirm that the Council’s extremely wide range of potential quanta for the development of rail-based growth are not currently informed by evidence of site-specific opportunities assessed as suitable, available, or achievable. This means that there is no justification whatsoever for the levels of development summarised at paragraph 3.12 of the Council’s Topic Paper:
“Transport corridor – rail based growth: land within the parishes of Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby and Wixams. On the assumption that new rail stations will be delivered at Wixams and Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick, ambitious growth is assumed at both Wixams and Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick in the range of 1,500-3,000 dwellings at Wixams and 2,500-5,000 dwellings at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick by 2040. Within the options two levels of development are tested: a lower option total figure of 5,500 dwellings (2,000 at Wixams and 3,500 at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick) and a higher option of 7,500 dwellings (3,000 at Wixams and 4,500 at Stewartby / Kempston Hardwick)”
2.14 There is no evidence to indicate these totals as developable in the period to 2040. In the absence of site-specific testing the Council can have no grounds to suggest how constraints might be overcome, when infrastructure will be provided and whether the extremely high levels of development required to meet these totals over a very short period between sometime after 2030 and 2040 can be achieved.
2.15 The extent of this uncertainty is summarised in footnote 1 on pp.8 of the Development Strategy Topic Paper:
“East West Rail are currently consulting on two options for the Marston Vale Line; one which retains the current stations at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, and another that replaces them with a new station (tentatively named “Stewartby Hardwick”) at Broadmead Road. This component of growth is based on development around the new or existing stations in conjunction with development around the new station at Wixams. These stations could provide a focal point for higher density growth supported by the sustainable travel options offered by new and enhanced rail services.”
2.16 The consultation referred to recently closed in June 2021 and final decisions on the ‘Concept’ for stations on the Marston Vale line are awaited. For the avoidance of doubt, the expected timeframes set out in the most recent Consultation Document indicate that a Development Consent Order may be obtained by 2024 and construction on the rail works may commence in 2025. However, this does not provide a clear timetable for the delivery of individual projects and upgrades. Stage 05 (‘Construction’) is summarised as follows:
“Once we’ve complied with any initial conditions or requirements included in the Development Consent Order, the government will consider the full business case for the Project to make the final decision to proceed. Following further conversations with the public and stakeholders, can start to construct your new railway.”
2.17 The potential for residential development to occur in conjunction with the delivery of new stations as intended by the Council is likely to require a substantially longer lead-in timeframe.
2.18 The Council has previously acknowledged that longer lead-in timeframes must be allowed for as part of redevelopment of the Stewartby Brickworks (Policy 25) Development Plan allocation as it exists in the LP2030. The Local Plan trajectory anticipates delivery of only (at most) 100 units in 2029/30 before the end of the current plan period. The scheme is in effect accepted as an 11-15 year developable site.
2.19 Application proposals under reference 18/03022/EIA (validated November 2018) benefit from
an Officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement. In practice, this does not alter any conclusions regarding the deliverability/developability of the site and likely timescales. Discussions surrounding the draft S106 obligation would be anticipated to be extensive. This is reflective of the constraints of the site and gaps in the evidence base for the LP2030, notably:
• Around 19ha of the site falls within Flood Risk Zone 2. Furthermore, a small proportion (around 1ha) is located within Flood Risk Zone 3a/3b.
• A requirement to confirm costs and timescales for the requisite link from the new development across the railway could be achieved (notwithstanding ongoing deliberations regarding East-West Rail). whilst Network Rail is identified as a key stakeholder for preparation of the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (December 2018) no project associated with the rail crossing is identified, costed, or phased over the course of the plan period.
• The Council’s Local Plan Viability Assessment (BNP Paribas, November 2017 (paragraph 6.16)) notes the requirement for significant investigations to assess on-site constraints for this complex site, with a view to preparation of a development brief, all prior to detailed viability work taking place.
2.20 It is our experience from monitoring the delivery of the nearby Wellingborough East Urban Extension that the construction of crossings over rail lines can take significant periods of time and are unpredictable.
2.21 The Officer Report in relation to the current position on securing a policy-compliant (and CIL122-compliant) package of contributions towards the site’s ability to enhance use of rail-based transport states:
“Policy 25 iv. Sets out a need for enhancements to the existing railway station environment including accessibility, provision of facilities and security. If the railway station stays in its current location the increased permeability of the site will improve connections from the village to the station. The Railway Station however does not fall within the application site and is under review as part of the wider East West Rail scheme, details of which are not confirmed at this time.”
2.22 Given this uncertainty we would anticipate it is highly likely that a S106 obligation may not be entered into until these uncertainties are resolved or that otherwise it would be expected that this would be subject to future Deeds of Variation or revisions to the scheme resulting in delays to the delivery of housing.
2.23 The Council’s Preferred Options also identify a contribution of around 2,000-3,000 further units to be allocated at Wixams, to correspond with eventual delivery of a further new station
as part of the wider scheme. These units will be additional to the remaining capacity identified in the Bedford Local Plan 2030 trajectory and units to be delivered as part of committed development in Central Bedfordshire’s Local Plan (which already includes a Southern Extension to the scheme).
2.24 The longstanding issues with delivery of the Wixams New Station are illustrative of the impacts upon rates of development likely to be experienced at Stewartby/Kempston Hardwick. Evidence presented at LP2030 Examination demonstrated that the build-out rate of Wixams within Bedford Borough has been 96 dwellings per annum over the 10-year period to 2018. Development has since commenced in Central Bedfordshire, increasing the overall build-rate but corresponding with a reduction of activity in Bedford Borough.
2.25 Delivery of the Station has been delayed by over 11 years with the project still not expected to commence construction until 2023 at the earliest. Commissioning of a detailed design scheme for the proposed station was able to progress earlier in 2021 contingent on the basis of consultation on the proposed northern alignment of East-West Rail.
2.26 While any final decision is awaited on the outcome of the Bedford-Cambridge phase of East-West Rail there remains a risk that the time-limited period for funding available from the lead developers of the Wixams scheme will expire and result in the project not being delivered (or requiring additional monies to address the shortfall in project costs).
2.27 In the context of the above delays and uncertainty and in the absence of a clear timeframe for delivery of the station the Council’s Preferred Options present no site-specific evidence of how the additional capacity at Wixams could be achieved over the plan period and at an appropriate build-out rate (in addition to the delivery of extant commitments).
2.28 The characteristics of any potential increase in allocations at Wixams also represents an issue of cross-boundary strategic importance, given that the scheme is being delivered across local planning authority boundaries and the requirement for partial review of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015 to 2035. This could lead to any potential for additional development being required to address the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (or affecting the administrative boundaries within which the most appropriate land should be identified).
Remedy
2.29 These representations demonstrate that the rail-based growth component of the Council’s Preferred Strategy Options requires substantial further refinement and site-specific testing. This is likely to substantiate a significant reduction in assumptions regarding the potential for development within the plan period, which can be effectively mitigated through pursuing a ‘hybrid’ strategy for development in sustainable locations across the Borough.