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

Support

Representation ID: 7447

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

These representations endorse the inclusion of the ‘east’ corridor parishes as part of Preferred Option 2d but in practice indicate that this is illustrative of a need for a ‘hybrid’ approach to provide for an appropriate strategy in accordance with national policy and guidance (NPPF2021 paragraph 35(b)).
These representations conclude that any selected strategy option that does not include growth in the ‘east’ corridor parishes would be unsound and fail to comprise an appropriate strategy or genuine reasonable alternative for the purposes of the Sustainability Appraisal. This is due to soundness issues identified with the delivery of large-scale strategic growth comprising other components of the Council’s Preferred Options.
The assessment of the benefits associated with Option 2d should be extended to reflect the ability to support a prosperous rural economy in this part of the corridor. The Council’s current testing of strategy options does not indicate any contribution towards the requirements for jobs growth and employment floorspace in this part of the corridor, with our client’s Land at High Barns Farm demonstrating one example of how this can be achieved.
Specifically in relation to our client’s interests at Highfield Barns national policy at Paragraphs 84 and 85 makes provisions to support a prosperous rural economy. The existing strategic policies of the LP2030 overlook this priority and provide no specific requirement to support the growth and expansion of existing floorspace and opportunities for job creation. As a result, this is not a matter addressed by the deferral of site allocations to Neighbourhood Plans.
Paragraph 85 of the NPPF2021 recognises that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In the case of our client’s interests at High Barns Farm, opportunities to provide for sustainable development that reflects this context are satisfied by the wider functional relationship with opportunities in the Ox-Cam Arc. The site also accords with national policy in terms of supporting the diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses (paragraph 84b) and the conversion and re-use of existing buildings (84a).
Preparation of the Local Plan 2040 is an important opportunity to address the requirements for economic development in the rural area. In the case of Roxton, this can be achieved in a manner that complements the wider strategic opportunity within the A421 corridor as part of providing choice and flexibility and overcoming a reliance on large strategic sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7448

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The policy sets out the requirement for a minimum of 8,642 net additional jobs will be provided to 2040. Principally we support Policy E1S and meeting the requirement for additional allocations to meet needs for economic development over the extended plan period. Support for the approach is provided notwithstanding our wider objection to the Council’s position regarding forecasting demand for jobs growth (potentially failing to ensure a sustainable balance between jobs and homes) and its Preferred Options published for consultation (too inflexible).
However, in order to be considered sound proposed policy criteria (i) also requires modification. This is in order to reflect that the development strategy includes providing support for economic development in the ‘east’ corridor parishes outside of potential strategic allocations. This is necessary in terms of maintaining sustainable patterns of development and the ability to respond flexibly to changing patterns of demand.
Our client’s site at High Barns Farm would satisfy this requirement and would satisfy other appropriately worded policy parameters on all technical matters.
Additionally, and should our client’s land not be allocated or specifically designated within the Policies Map, criteria (ii) should be modified to specify that the circumstances where providing support for development on unallocated sites include the re-use and conversion of existing sites in the rural area to support diversification and a prosperous rural economy.
Paragraph 6.12 of the Council’s consultation document is also noted with regards recent changes to the Use Classes Order. As well as amending policies within the existing LP2030 it is necessary that criteria (i) and (ii) of proposed Policy E1S also recognise that support for economic development in accordance with the strategy, and on unallocated sites, extends across Use Classes B2, B8 and Class E. Criteria (ii), as drafted, refers only to ‘B-uses’. It is not considered necessary for suitable opportunities to be limited only to ‘business’ uses within Class E as suggested by the Council’s paragraph 6.12.
This is contrary to the flexibility sought by the changes to the Use Classes Order. This approach is also ineffective, as it would not apply to existing lawful former B1 uses within existing employment areas would in most cases benefit from opportunities to provide a wider range of commercial uses under Permitted Development Rights. The same flexibility should be applied to the Council’s policy criteria when assessing new development proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 7450

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

This representation has been prepared by DLP Planning Ltd (DLP) on behalf of Philip C Bath Ltd in response to the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2040 consultation.
This representation relates to High Barns Farm, Roxton and their potential to provide for increased employment development. A location plan identifying the site is provided at Appendix 1.
BACKGROUND TO THE LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH NATIONAL POLICY AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Summary of Local Plan 2030 and Requirement for Immediate Review
The Bedford Local 2030 was adopted subject to the provisions of Policy 1 – ‘Reviewing the Local Plan 2030’. The Inspectors’ Report provides further clarification of the requirement for Modifications introducing the approach to this Policy and that it was considered essential for soundness.
Paragraph 1.1 of the Council’s Preferred Options Consultation Document affirms the significance of the ‘guillotine’ mechanism inserted within the review policy, which engages paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF2021 in the event that a new Plan is not submitted for Examination before January 2023. While the Borough Council is aware it cannot avoid the consequences for the statutory development plan of failing to adhere to these timescales the Preferred Options published for consultation must also address the reasons for first introducing Policy 1. Drawing from the Inspectors’ Report:
• Paragraph 17 emphasises the importance of considering longer-term requirements and thus together with other issues with the Plan a need for the review to be undertaken as quickly as possible with the three-year timeframe providing balance to allow work to be completed effectively
• Paragraphs 33-34 anticipate that the review will consider the balance between jobs and workers including any changes in the balance of net out-commuting and the implications of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc
Paragraph 18 of the Inspectors’ Report confirms that Policy 1 cannot set the parameters of the updated Local Plan. While there is a desire for alignment with the delivery of cross-boundary strategic priorities (including those related to the delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc) the requirement for review is a result of the deficiencies with the approach put forward by the Council in the Local Plan 2030.
The appointed Inspectors determined (in the context of the 2012 Framework) it would not be effective for the policies of the Local Plan 2030 to look beyond that date. The findings of soundness are predicated on the context of a very narrow remit of addressing the area’s strategic priorities (and even then, only with the application of the three-year ‘guillotine’ following adoption).
It is not open to future Inspectors to reach the same conclusion. This emphasises the importance of the of the first paragraph of Policy 1 and the overriding objective of the aim of the review to secure levels of growth that accord with government policy. This establishes grounds for a Plan that must be fundamentally deliverable / developable over than plan period and cannot further defer relevant decisions relating to options to meet the area’s strategic priorities.
In not fully responding to the reasons and scope of requirements for the review and subsequent update of the Local Plan the Council risks rolling forward several of the same fundamental shortcomings in the Local Plan 2030. This is not only contrary to the objectives of sustainable development but in the context of the most recent policy and guidance simply fails to provide the basis for a sound Local Plan.
National Policy and Guidance
The most recent version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2021, following commencement of the Council’s Preferred Options consultation. The changes were published in draft format in January 2021 (including those relevant to the plan-making framework) and thus available for the Council to consider.
These representations highlight four important components of the 2021 Framework and the changes they necessitate for the scope of the review, relative to the 2012 version of the Framework against which the current Local Plan 2030 was assessed. Other specific provisions of the Framework and NPPG are referred to in comments relating to detailed elements of the consultation proposal.
Firstly, Paragraph 22 of the NPPF2021 confirms that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption and anticipate long-term development requirements. This is a significant change from paragraph 157 of the 2012 Framework that specified that policies should be drawn up over an appropriate timeframe and only preferably a 15-year horizon.
Secondly, the second paragraph of NPPF2021 Paragraph 22 is a significant addition following the most recent revisions. This requires that policies should the address a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years. The transitional arrangements for these provisions at Annex 1 confirm their application to the preparation of all Plans except those that have already undergone consultation on the Submission version Plan. The Oxford-Cambridge

Spatial Framework is also seeking to cover the period to 2050 (i.e., 30 years).
The Council’s Preferred Options clearly anticipate reliance on these approaches to growth and the associated implications in terms of extended timescales for development. None of the Council’s Preferred Options set out the proposed approach beyond a 20-year horizon. As a result, detailed policies for the scale and distribution of growth cannot be considered consistent with national policy without significantly extending their scope alongside provision for the other requirements of sustainable development.
Thirdly, the requirements of Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 accord with the circumstances outlined at Paragraph 33 of the NPPF2021.
Finally, Paragraph 35 of the NPPF2021 confirms that the criteria for the assessment of soundness have changed since the 2012 Framework. In order to provide for a justified approach the policies for the Plan must provide for ‘an appropriate strategy’ rather than the ‘most appropriate’ strategy when assessed against reasonable alternatives. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF2021 provides further detail on the basis for assessing the proposed strategy in terms of seeking net gains for sustainable development and ensuring that the Plan has addressed relevant economic, social, and environmental objectives.
In summary, there is no longer any support in national policy for the outcomes of the Local Plan 2030 Examination in terms of pursuing constraints to the plan period and overall level of growth and deferring decisions on key components of approaches to meet strategic priorities for the area (particularly in terms of overall housing need (including affordable housing) and the delivery of social and community infrastructure (including health and education).
DLP, on behalf of Philip C Bath Ltd, welcomes the Council’s decision to review and update the various elements of the extant development plan and provide for a new local plan document that will fully reflect the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and provide for the up-to-date development needs of the Borough and its residents in a sustainable manner. DLP wishes to make a number of comments on the consultation document as part of the background context to the representations we are submitting on the site itself.
This Report addresses the Council’s consultation proposals and identifies in-principle support for those elements of Council’s Preferred Strategy Options that indicate growth in the ‘east’ transport corridor parishes, specifically at Roxton. Reservations are, however, expressed in the context that the inclusion (and resultant levels of development) of the ‘east’ corridor parishes is unconfirmed and contingent upon only Option 2d being selected. Furthermore, in the case of our client’s interests, this strategy option should reflect the ability to complement opportunities for economic development through the intensification and expansion of existing commercial floorspace.
DLP wishes to make a number of comments on the consultation document as part of the background context to the representations we are submitting on the site itself.
Section 2 provides a background to the Local Plan Review and its relationship to national policy and other material considerations
Section 3 addresses specific comments on the Council’s Preferred Strategy Options and Preferred Option Policy Proposals together with their supporting evidence.
Section 4 discusses the suitability of our client’s land for development following a review of the Council’s Site Assessment Proforma.

Support

Representation ID: 7451

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Emerging Oxford Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework
The proposed Oxford-Cambridge Spatial Framework will have the status of national policy and is intended to form a material consideration for plan-making alongside the National Planning Policy Framework.
The government is currently seeking view on priorities for the Framework as part of consultation on the document ‘Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ (until October 2021). The latest consultation proposals set out that it will aim to guide sustainable planning and investment decisions under four policy pillars:
• the environment;
• the economy;
• connectivity and infrastructure; and
• place-making.
The current consultation follows publication of an initial policy paper in February 2021 setting out the approach to developing the Framework. Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of the policy paper set out in terms of the strategy for housing and planning in the Arc the role of the Framework will not be to make site allocations or to include detailed policies set elsewhere in national policy or better left to local plans (including for example, setting out the housing requirement). However, the policy paper emphasises the importance of meeting housing needs in full (including the delivery of affordable housing) and therefore relies on the calculation of minimum annual local housing need in accordance with the standard method as its starting point. Opportunities to increase levels of development above this minimum starting point are clearly anticipated as part of the Framework’s aspirations to support economic development and ensure a balance between the delivery of new jobs and homes (see paragraph 2.6).
Paragraph 3.8 of the policy paper sets our that the government expects: “ local planning authorities to continue to develop local plans before the publication of the Spatial Framework. These changes will sit alongside wider planning reforms, and as we take forward our response to the ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation, we will outline transitional arrangements and the role of the Spatial Framework within any new system.”
The development of the Spatial Framework will be supported by two further public consultations: Towards a Spatial Framework (Spring 2022) and Draft Spatial Framework (Autumn 2022). It is the government’s intention to commence implementation of the Spatial Framework throughout 2023, meaning its policies are expected to be in place as a material consideration at the same point the Bedford Local Plan 2040 is undergoing Examination.

Support

Representation ID: 7452

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

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.
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.

Support

Representation ID: 7453

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

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”
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.

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.
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
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: 7454

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Phillip C Bath Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

The Council’s conclusions in the Employment Land Topic Paper to take account of the limited opportunities for high density office development and the majority of demand from within lower density business parks are generally supported.
It is recognised that the Council’s requirement for a minimum additional allocation of 123ha employment land represents an ambitious target and takes account of relatively limited existing supply. However, the approach to identify the overall land required cannot be considered sound without undertaking more detailed analysis of the potential jobs growth and floorspace needs associated with testing a wider range of jobs forecasts.