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

Object

Representation ID: 6293

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client objects to paragraph 1.14 as written on the basis of soundness concerns with the proposed approach (not effective; not positively prepared).
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).
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.
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.
his 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.
What this means in practice is that prioritising 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.
The Council’s proposed strategy 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.
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.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Object

Representation ID: 6294

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client objects to paragraph 1.5 as drafted on the basis of soundness concerns with the proposed approach (not consistent with national policy; and not effective).
The 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
imescales for development are also likely to result in delays to meeting needs in full between 2030 and 2040.
Those parts of the Council’s Preferred Options relying on larger-scale development should be profiled to look further ahead to 2050.
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 and enable this through the prioritisation of suitable and deliverable sites as part of a
‘hybrid’ strategy.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Support

Representation ID: 6295

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client makes the following comments in respect of paragraph 7.13.
Chapter 7 looks at new or replacement development management policies with policy SB1 focussing on self-build and custom housing. Paragraph 7.13 recognises that whilst the nature of some proposals, for example, high density sites of predominantly apartments or conversions of existing buildings, might mean individual self-build plots may not be available or practical, such dwellings do provide opportunities for custom build. Our client welcomes the approach that the Council recognise it may not be practical for such type of schemes to be unable to deliver self-build opportunities.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Support

Representation ID: 6296

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client has the following comments to make in respect of paragraph’s 3.15 to 3.17.
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. Our client supports the identification of additional capacity for growth with a focus on the urban area as a component of the Council’s testing of strategy options. For the avoidance of doubt, support for additional growth in the urban area is not dependent on selecting any of the Council’s specific Preferred Options.

Object

Representation ID: 6297

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

It is, however, noted that at this stage there are significant gaps in the Council’s evidence base, particularly in terms of infrastructure delivery, viability, and development timescales. The Council’s own Preferred Options substantially rely upon large-scale strategic sites which are particularly affected by these gaps in evidence.
In order to provide choice and flexibility as part of an appropriate strategy it is therefore critical that sites selected for development in the urban area secure the benefits of early delivery. This will help to address the risks of non- delivery from the other components that the Council relies upon in the emerging Local Plan 2040 and distinguishes additional urban sites (such as our clients’ Peacocks site) from existing Town Centre sites that have been subject to significant and historic delays. This renders support for growth in the urban area an important part of any approach to the strategy.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Object

Representation ID: 6299

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client objects to paragraph’s 3.26 – 3.28 on the basis of soundness concerns with the proposed approach (not consistent with national policy; and, not justified).
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 NPPF2021 and undermine the government’s objectives to support inter alia SME builders and measures to address affordability.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 6300

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

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 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 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.
There are some positive aspects to the Council’s evidence base to support growth on available/deliverable small sites, such as the 136 units’ capacity identified in urban areas. It is presently unclear whether our clients’ site forms part of this total as the Council has not released details of any potential site allocation options as part of this consultation. These representations demonstrate that the former Peacock’s Auction site would satisfy the criteria for supporting development on small sites as set out in national policy and at a location that is suitable, available and achievable.
In reality, we consider that this total could be increased in order to achieve the Council’s Preferred Options to provide for a further 1,500 units within the urban area. It will be therefore necessary to maximise the potential contribution from small sites.
The Council’s total of 1,500 is over-and-above extant development plan allocations within the Town Centre that are and will remain significantly constrained. Failure to diversify urban supply without support through the development plan will result in this component of the spatial strategy being unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 6301

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The opportunity for the Local Plan 2040 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.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Object

Representation ID: 6302

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client objects to Policy SB1 as drafted on the basis of soundness concerns with the proposed approach (not effective; not justified).
Further clarification is required as to the evidence that would be required to be submitted where an expression of i nterest in a plot has been rejected by the developer as to why it was not suitable. It is also not clear from the policy as to how plots for custom build will be determined and where the relevant applicant can obtain registered evidence of demand as the register is not publicly available.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.

Object

Representation ID: 6303

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Messrs A Porter, H Fowler, W Salsbury Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Our client has the following comments to make on the draft vision.
The draft Vision sets out:
“Additional town centre living will encourage sustainable methods of travel, enhance vitality and viability of the town centre and support for local businesses”.
This aspect of the Vision is supported by our client; however, it is not proposed to allocate small housing sites in the plan and the concern is expressed that this will delay housing delivery in the early part of the plan period.
Theme 4 (Better Places) of the Council’s proposed Objectives for the Local Plan 2040 sets out:
“Where it is viable and sustainable to do so, encourage the re-use of land that has been previously developed.
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.”
The principle of these objectives is supported particularly in relation to the re-use of land that has been previously developed.
Please refer to our supporting representations for further information.