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

Object

Representation ID: 8519

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

This section of the representations should be read alongside the separate Delivery Assessment included at Appendix 5. This addresses the ability of the Council approach to
maintain a rolling five year supply of deliverable sites (including as part of its proposed use
of a ‘stepped trajectory and upon proposed adoption of the Local Plan 2040). The Delivery
Assessment also illustrates that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites based on its own published position (at a base date of 1 April 2019) or when
this is rolled forward to 1 April 2021.
In summary, the Council’s proposed approach to managing the delivery of housing over the
plan period is unsound. The Council indicates a proposed 20-year plan period (2020 to 2040) for the Local Plan Review. The Local Plan Review must meet minimum annual local housing
need calculated in accordance with the standard method. Planning Practice Guidance ID: 68-031-20190722 answers the question ‘how can past shortfalls in housing completions
against planned requirements be addressed’? and states:
“Where the standard method for assessing local housing need is used as the starting point in forming the planned requirement for housing, Step 2 of the standard method factors in past under-delivery as part of the affordability ratio, so there is no requirement to specifically address under-delivery separately when establishing the minimum annual local housing need figure. Under-delivery may need to be considered where the plan being prepared is part way through its proposed plan period, and delivery falls below the housing requirement level set out in the emerging relevant strategic policies for housing.”
Based on the emerging proposals the performance of delivery in the period 2020 to 2023 will be relevant to assessing the soundness of the Local Plan 2040. Performance for this period
will therefore be substantially informed by the Council’s current evidence of deliverable supply against the Local Plan 2030 housing trajectory (and extant consents).
The Council’s Preferred Options consultation proposals also indicate that it is likely to rely on a ‘stepped trajectory’ for the plan period to 2030 (retaining an annual requirement of 970
dwellings per annum). The Preferred Options principally rely on large-scale strategic sites
with limited prospects for delivery within five years from adoption (2023 to 2028). The
Council’s supply for this period will therefore also substantially be informed by the Local Plan 2030 trajectory (and characteristics of sites identified in Neighbourhood Plans).
The evidence for sites identified in the Local Plan 2030 trajectory, as of 1 April 2021, reviewed
in the separate Delivery Assessment, demonstrates that these do not achieve an early prioritisation of housing delivery. This reflects issued raised throughout the Local Plan 2030
Examination relating to constraints to viability and availability of the sites identified,
particularly within the Town Centre.
Regarding Town Centre sites identified in the Local Plan 2030 and the associated longstanding delays to development there is no mention of a Development Corporation in
either the Council’s consultation document or consultation on a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Spatial Framework. The Council has previously indicated that this may be the
route to unlocking sites and overcoming barriers to development for which there is currently
no clear solution.
In these circumstances the Council’s proposals to pursue a stepped trajectory are contrary
to national policy and guidance. PPG ID: 68-021-20190722 answers the question ‘when is a
stepped requirement appropriate for plan-making’? and sets out:
“A stepped housing requirement may be appropriate where there is to be a significant change in the level of housing requirement between emerging and previous policies and / or where strategic sites will have a phased delivery or are likely to be delivered later in the plan period. Strategic policy-makers will need to identify the stepped requirement in strategic housing policy, and to set out evidence to support this approach, and not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs. Stepped requirements will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period. In reviewing and revising policies, strategic policy-makers should ensure there is not continued delay in meeting identified development needs.
Where there is evidence to support a prioritisation of sites, local authorities may wish to identify priority sites which can be delivered earlier in the plan period, such as those on brownfield land and where there is supporting infrastructure in place e.g., transport hubs. These sites will provide additional flexibility and more certainty that authorities will be able to demonstrate a sufficient supply of deliverable sites against the housing requirement.” (SPRU emphasis)
There are four key issues to highlight with the Council’s proposed use of a stepped trajectory:
 The change in housing requirement cannot be considered significant. The Council was fully aware of these circumstances when the Local Plan 2030 was adopted with the requirement for early review. Planning for a difference in the annual requirement of around 305 dwellings per annum (LHN of 1275 vs OAN of 970) is a relatively modest change in the context of a recently adopted Local Plan that should maintain a minimum rolling supply against the OAN figure
 The Local Plan 2030 unnecessarily sought to delay meeting needs in accordance with the government’s latest policy. Pursuing a stepped trajectory simply perpetuates that problem
 The current Local Plan 2030 housing trajectory provides for no flexibility or certainty (particularly given issues with Neighbourhood Plans and Town Centre sites). The Council’s Preferred Options provide no resolution to this.
 The use of a stepped trajectory will not ensure needs are met in full. There will be a substantial shortfall against the stepped requirement of 970dpa to 2030 (based on the latest information regarding supply). A reliance on large-scale strategic sites beyond 2030, for which there is a poor record of success in the borough in terms of timescales and rates of delivery, does not provide a reasonable prospect of development in accordance with PPG ID: 68-019-20190722)
Those issues relating to the current Local Plan 2030 mean that there is no prospect whatsoever that extant commitments and allocations alone would allow the Council to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites based on the calculation of minimum annual local housing need upon adoption of the Local Plan 2030.
Our analysis demonstrates that the Council’s proposed approach to rely on a stepped trajectory is also flawed. This will not achieve a five year supply of deliverable sites upon adoption of the Local Plan 2040 without significant support to prioritise the early delivery of additional sites.

APPENDIX 5 OF ATTACHMENT IS A LOCAL PLAN 2030 DELIVERY ASSESSMENT

Object

Representation ID: 8568

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

APPENDIX 6 OF ATTACHMENT CONTAINS REVIEW OF DRAFT SA

Object

Representation ID: 8707

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.2 Definition of the proposed plan period underpinning the Council’s Preferred Options has been rendered inconsistent with national policy following publication of the 2021 version of the NPPF.
Reasoning
3.3 The larger-scale approaches to development (including new settlements) that the Council has identified as part of its Preferred Options accord with the circumstances that national policy identifies for considering a minimum 30-year horizon, to take account of longer timescales for development.
3.4 Paragraph 1.2 of the ‘Creating a Vision for the Ox-Cam Arc’ consultation document also confirms that the Spatial Framework will extend to 2050 and beyond. Preparation of the Bedford Local Plan 2040 should be undertaken consistently with this aim.
3.5 The proposed plan period of 2020 to 2040, particularly when read in the context of the Council’s Preferred Options resulting in a further delay to meeting development needs in full (until at least 2030) will generate a requirement for further, successive, reviews and is setting the plan up to fail.
Remedy
3.6 Bedford Borough Council should not wait for transitional arrangements upon introduction of the Framework to have to undertake yet another review that will need to consider the shortfall in meeting needs and addressing strategic priorities to 2030. Realistically, as a result of the scale and pattern of the Preferred Options proposed, delays to timescales for development are also likely to result in delays to meeting needs in full between 2030 and 2040.
3.7 Those parts of the Council’s Preferred Options relying on larger-scale development should be profiled to look further ahead to 2050.
3.8 This reemphasises that in terms of the soundness requirements for preparation of the Local Plan 2040 the Council’s proposed approach must also fully embrace those sustainable opportunities to meet the increased requirements for growth in the immediate term. This can be enabled through recognising the increased benefits of Preferred Option 2d. This enables the prioritisation of suitable and deliverable sites within the ‘east’ corridor parishes (including Great Barford) and more widely recognising village-related growth as part of a ‘hybrid’
strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 8711

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.9 The Council’s Preferred Options published for consultation contend that they draw heavily on the ‘pillars’ of economic development and the natural environment from the emerging Spatial Framework. The representations identify that the Council’s published consultation proposals fail to embrace the comprehensive approach to supporting sustainable development anticipated in the Spatial Framework. Paragraph 1.10 of the consultation document ignores altogether the place-making ‘pillar’ of the Framework while the Preferred Options as a whole are overly reliant on assumptions regarding improvements in strategic- level connectivity. This fails to embrace local opportunities for sustainable development.

Reasoning
3.10 It is surprising, and inconsistent with national policy and the emerging objectives of the Arc Spatial Framework, that the consultation proposals make no mention of the connectivity or place-making pillars of the Spatial Framework. Each should be considered of equal importance.

3.11 Specifically, paragraph 4.1 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford- Cambridge Arc places significant emphasis on reducing the need to travel. Connectivity is not just about strategic road/rail links - it means:

“improving communities’ access to the services they need – like a good quality, sustainable water supply and broadband, schools, cycle lanes and healthcare, as part of a great approach to place-making.”

3.12 Paragraph 4.4 also states the importance of recognising the needs of an ageing population


in terms of service delivery. At Paragraph 4.5 the document goes on to explain:

“the policies of the Framework will be used to create a clear infrastructure plan giving communities access to the public services they need – including education and health”

3.13 The settlement hierarchy in Bedford Borough means that Key Service Centres across the authority have a key role in delivering these requirements for sustainable communities and serving a wider rural hinterland – both in terms of immediate needs and their role throughout the plan period. The strategy in the Local Plan 2030 has deferred important decisions relating to these priorities in terms of placing the requirement to allocate sites upon Neighbourhood Plans. Priorities have therefore not been addressed and in any event the current strategy has only sought to address a foreshortened period to 2030.

Remedy
3.14 The Council’s Preferred Option 2d delivers scope to fulfil local requirements for effective place-making and enhancements to connectivity through support for growth in the ‘east’ corridor parishes and specifically at Great Barford. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the approach to this component of the strategy is underpinned by the Council’s site assessment and site selection process and that this seeks to specify levels of development that maximise opportunities for growth. This is particularly the case at Great Barford (the only Key Service Centre within the ‘east’ corridor) where the majority of development under this part of the strategy would be expected to take place.

3.15 The Council’s indicative figure of 750 units in the ‘east’ corridor parishes in the strategy distribution options is not based on any site-specific testing. Firstly, this represents a risk to securing the opportunities and benefits from this part of the Plan Area as part of the approach, once finalised. Secondly, the current evidence base also takes no account of those opportunities that would embrace opportunities both in the period to 2030 (to address the immediate uplift in the need for growth) and across the entire plan period. Our client’s Willoughby Park proposals comprising a self-contained scheme for 500 units accord closely with the Council’s indicative figures for distribution and incorporate a positive response to the emerging Plan’s place-making objectives (particularly in terms of provision for health and green infrastructure). It is therefore essential for soundness that our client’s site is confirmed as part of the final selected strategy subject to future consultation in order to provide a significant local contribution towards the emerging priorities of the Spatial Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 8712

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.16 Paragraph 61 of the NPPF2021 confirms that minimum annual local housing need calculated in accordance with the government’s standard method provides the starting point for assessment of the number of homes to be provided through plan-making. Positive plan- making should address those circumstances where it may be appropriate to make provision for a higher number of new homes than indicated by the result of the standard method (with a non-exhaustive list of potential reasons summarised in the Planning Practice Guidance at ID: 2a-010-20201216.

3.17 It is apparent from paragraphs 1.11 and 3.1 to 3.3 of the Council’s consultation proposals that the Council has not considered potential reasons to plan for a higher housing number as part of the current process. Instead, it has only tested an arbitrary 10% uplift to the calculation of LHN within the draft Sustainability Appraisal process. This approach is contrary to material considerations (including the Council’s own evidence base) that require more detailed assessment before selecting options for the submission draft Plan and setting the housing requirement in the Plan.

Reasoning
3.18 Paragraph 3.4 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ refers to the importance of the role of the NPPF to deliver the economic pillar of objectives for the corridor. In principle this reflects use of the standard method as the expected starting point to identify housing needs within the Arc but further reflects observations in the initial consultation and the role of the PPG that may necessitate delivery of higher levels of housing, setting out considerations such as:

□ “developing an Economic Strategy, supported by strong economic evidence, to identify the policies, locations and investment needed to deliver the Arc’s potential for sustainable and green economic growth; and
□ setting policies to make sure growth is felt by all communities and the Arc becomes a better place to live and work for all, such as by providing more housing in the right places, making sure people can move around by public transport and other infrastructure, and enhancing the Arc’s natural capital”

3.19 The main implication of this component of the Arc Spatial Framework reflects circumstances where the calculation of local housing need will not result in sufficient workers in the right locations to achieve the full potential of sustainable patterns of economic development.


3.20 In relation to the Council’s evidence base there appear to be significant issues with their assumptions for labour demand and labour supply techniques to forecast future changes in jobs and the requirement for additional workers.

3.21 In-particular, the Council’s Employment Topic Paper:

□ Does not use a range of economic forecasts (utilising only the East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM2019) baseline scenario only)
□ Does not consider a past take-up scenario for jobs growth and delivery of employment floorspace
□ It is likely to significantly over-estimate the number of jobs associated with the increased working-age population based on the LHN (the Council’s employment land scenarios set out no assumptions on economic activity rates or commuting - the baseline EEFM assumptions are not dissimilar to LHN in terms of additional dwellings and persons required to meet the jobs forecast).
□ It takes no account of engagement with the LEP or forecast Spatial Framework scenarios (that may result in a higher demand for labour)


Remedy
3.22 Failure to take account of these factors means that the Local Plan 2040 is more likely to result in conflict with the emerging priorities of the Arc Spatial Framework and it is recommended that a range of jobs-led scenarios are tested prior to determining the housing requirement for the Local Plan 2040 and selecting an appropriate strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 8713

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.16 Paragraph 61 of the NPPF2021 confirms that minimum annual local housing need calculated in accordance with the government’s standard method provides the starting point for assessment of the number of homes to be provided through plan-making. Positive plan- making should address those circumstances where it may be appropriate to make provision for a higher number of new homes than indicated by the result of the standard method (with a non-exhaustive list of potential reasons summarised in the Planning Practice Guidance at ID: 2a-010-20201216.

3.17 It is apparent from paragraphs 1.11 and 3.1 to 3.3 of the Council’s consultation proposals that the Council has not considered potential reasons to plan for a higher housing number as part of the current process. Instead, it has only tested an arbitrary 10% uplift to the calculation of LHN within the draft Sustainability Appraisal process. This approach is contrary to material considerations (including the Council’s own evidence base) that require more detailed assessment before selecting options for the submission draft Plan and setting the housing requirement in the Plan.

Reasoning
3.18 Paragraph 3.4 of the consultation document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ refers to the importance of the role of the NPPF to deliver the economic pillar of objectives for the corridor. In principle this reflects use of the standard method as the expected starting point to identify housing needs within the Arc but further reflects observations in the initial consultation and the role of the PPG that may necessitate delivery of higher levels of housing, setting out considerations such as:

□ “developing an Economic Strategy, supported by strong economic evidence, to identify the policies, locations and investment needed to deliver the Arc’s potential for sustainable and green economic growth; and
□ setting policies to make sure growth is felt by all communities and the Arc becomes a better place to live and work for all, such as by providing more housing in the right places, making sure people can move around by public transport and other infrastructure, and enhancing the Arc’s natural capital”

3.19 The main implication of this component of the Arc Spatial Framework reflects circumstances where the calculation of local housing need will not result in sufficient workers in the right locations to achieve the full potential of sustainable patterns of economic development.


3.20 In relation to the Council’s evidence base there appear to be significant issues with their assumptions for labour demand and labour supply techniques to forecast future changes in jobs and the requirement for additional workers.

3.21 In-particular, the Council’s Employment Topic Paper:

□ Does not use a range of economic forecasts (utilising only the East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM2019) baseline scenario only)
□ Does not consider a past take-up scenario for jobs growth and delivery of employment floorspace
□ It is likely to significantly over-estimate the number of jobs associated with the increased working-age population based on the LHN (the Council’s employment land scenarios set out no assumptions on economic activity rates or commuting - the baseline EEFM assumptions are not dissimilar to LHN in terms of additional dwellings and persons required to meet the jobs forecast).
□ It takes no account of engagement with the LEP or forecast Spatial Framework scenarios (that may result in a higher demand for labour)


Remedy
3.22 Failure to take account of these factors means that the Local Plan 2040 is more likely to result in conflict with the emerging priorities of the Arc Spatial Framework and it is recommended that a range of jobs-led scenarios are tested prior to determining the housing requirement for the Local Plan 2040 and selecting an appropriate strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 8714

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.23 The Council’s Preferred Option consultation proposals indicate that the purpose of updates to the Local Plan following the requirements of the review policy (Policy 1) are to outline a development strategy to 2040 and meet national policy requirements for the delivery of growth. This fails to fully reflect the reasons for first introducing the requirement for immediate review and in-particular the pattern and scale of housing growth necessary to achieve sound outcomes for plan-making (particularly with regards paragraphs 20 and 74 of the NPPF2021).

Reasoning
3.24 As set out in the Spatial Framework consultation document (paragraph 5.5) the Arc demonstrates poor affordability where development has not kept pace with need. That is exactly the position in Bedford resulting from the approach adopted in the Local Plan 2030.


3.25 This means (at paragraph 5.7) it is an aim of the Framework to ensure that the Framework sets policies to enable housing needs to be met in full, including much-needed affordable housing

3.26 This sits alongside strategic decisions where direction will be provided by the Framework e.g., implementation of East-West Rail, identification of Opportunity Areas and support for the delivery of previously developed land.

3.27 What this means in practice is that prioritizing opportunities to meet full development needs is an important component of the place-making pillar as part of a joined-up approach providing for sustainable communities.

3.28 The Council’s proposed in its Preferred Options consultation proposals would sustain a very substantial shortfall against minimum annual local housing need until at least 2030. Due to only considering a horizon to 2040 and as a result of likely timescales for the characteristics of larger-scale development (including new settlements) it is furthermore highly likely a significant shortfall against full development needs will persist until 2040 and beyond.

3.29 The Council’s proposed strategy offers no flexibility and choice to address the current and persistent failure to meet needs in full. Our assessment indicates that current levels of development are likely to become significantly constrained substantially before any of the longer-term solutions proposed as part of the Preferred Options achieve significant delivery. Realistic assumptions must also be made in relation to new larger-scale developments.

Object

Representation ID: 8715

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.30 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.

3.31 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 might be provided for in an effective and positively prepared manner.


Reasoning


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

3.32 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. There are outstanding objections to several of the emerging Neighbourhood Plans at Key Service Centres (in particular at Great Barford).

3.33 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.

3.34 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.

3.35 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. 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.

3.36 In the context of Great Barford these representations recommend that the allocation of additional sites is confirmed within the Bedford Local Plan 2040, rather than deferred to a review of Neighbourhood Plans. The particular advantage of this approach in the context of


our client’s Willoughby Park proposals reflects the ability to confirm support for a comprehensively planned village extension which is in one single ownership and to set out through the policies of the development plan the opportunity to contribute towards a number of the Plan’s objectives (including delivery of a new Countryside Park and GP Surgery).

Object

Representation ID: 8716

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

3.37 This section addresses two main themes. It firstly sets out the shortcomings of the Vision in terms of reflecting comprehensive opportunities for sustainable development across the borough. Secondly, it addresses that while there are many positive aspects of outcomes sought under the vision these will not be addressed as part of the strategy due to the Council’s selected Preferred Options.

Reasoning
3.38 The draft Vision sets out:

“Well-planned growth supported by appropriate infrastructure and avoiding areas of high flood risk will enable the creation of strong, safe and resilient local communities in environments that facilitate healthy and independent living for all.”

3.39 This aspect of the Vision will not be achieved in the context of the Council’s Preferred Options without specifying a further contribution towards the increased need from development at Great Barford.

3.40 The Vision further states:

“Rural communities will embrace appropriate development, in many instances through the preparation of their own neighbourhood plans.”

3.41 This would imply a requirement for additional growth, which the preferred options exclude for a significant number of centres. The draft Vision fails to address that it is part of the role of the Local Plan review (and resulting updates) to address strategic priorities deferred as a consequence of the Local Plan 2030 (for example expansion of primary healthcare and green infrastructure).

3.42 The Vision also fails to reflect that the proposed development strategy is not looking to provide for any additional growth in rural areas as part of an uplift to meet housing needs in full before 2030.


3.43 The Vision makes limited reference to specific benefits that the Local Plan 2040 will secure in relation to the natural environment, including Country Parks north of Brickhill and west of Bedford.

3.44 The Vision is artificially constrained as a result of the Council’s current position on Preferred Options. There is no reason that other sustainable developments cannot achieve complementary and significant advantages for Green Infrastructure provision (e.g., specifically the provision for a Countryside Park within our client’s Willoughby Park proposals).

3.45 Theme 4 (Better Places) of the Council’s proposed Objectives for the Local Plan 2040 sets out:

“Provide appropriate amounts and types of housing to meet the needs of the borough’s urban and rural communities over the lifetime of the Plan making the housing stock more adaptable and resilient

Achieve a borough where everybody has appropriate access to high quality health and social care, as well as everyday essential services and community facilities where social and cultural wellbeing are supported, enabling all residents to lead healthy and independent lives.”

3.46 The principle of these objectives is supported but in the case of Great Barford is reliant on confirming support for the allocation of additional growth given that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan will not deliver these aims.

Object

Representation ID: 8717

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

4.1 The section of the representations provides observations on the soundness of the Council’s overall approach towards preparation of the Local Plan 2040 and identification of the strategic priorities it is required to address. Comments specifically relate to Chapter 3 of the consultation document.

4.2 Notwithstanding these comments, the next section (Section 5) of these representations deals with our client’s in-principle support for those components of the Preferred Options that include growth within the ‘east’ transport corridor parishes and principally Great Barford.

4.3 Issues relating to the ability of the Council’s approach to maintain a rolling five year supply of deliverable sites (including as part of its proposed use of a ‘stepped trajectory) are dealt with separately in Section 6.

Paragraphs 3.10 and Preferred Options 2a-2d: Component of Rail-Based Growth ‘Pink’ Growth Strategy Options)–Object
4.4 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).

4.5 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.


4.6 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
4.7 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.

4.8 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)”

4.9 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.

4.10 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.”

4.11 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.”

4.12 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.

4.13 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.

4.14 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.

4.15 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.

4.16 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.”

4.17 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.

4.18 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).


4.19 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.

4.20 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.

4.21 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).

4.22 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).

4.23 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
4.24 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.