Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 10117

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. This representation relates to Land at Marsh Lane/Rushden Road, Milton Ernest (Site ID: 910) and should be read alongside the accompanying Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report (Appendix 1) and Opportunities and Constraints Diagram (Appendix 2) appended with this Form.

These objections relate to land partly allocated within the Milton Ernest NDP and the remainder of which presents opportunities to contribute towards additional needs for development. Within the context of our client’s overarching objections regarding soundness and legal compliance the failure of the Local Plan 2040 to provide a housing requirement figure for the designated neighbourhood area at Milton Ernest, or to consider needs beyond 2030, has precluded further assessment of this option.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

This is despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.


Policy DS2(S) is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 and provides for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals and objectives for sustainable development in the rural area (and specifically at Milton Ernest) than is provided for under the existing spatial strategy or required as part of an appropriate strategy for the Local Plan 2040.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722.

The Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that in the case of Milton Ernest have sought to support growth to 2030 only at the lower end of an identified range.

This should be considered within the context of the Examiner’s Report for the made Neighbourhood Plan (and subsequent Modifications to the Plan) recognising the requirement for review of the NDP within five years from adoption and expressly requiring recognition of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 (para 4.10). Specifically, regarding our client’s interests and the proposed extension of the site boundary (including provision of additional open space) (para 4.33) the Examiner recognised this is a matter that could be considered as part of planning applications for the site. However, in terms of the site assessment and plan-making process these are evidently matters that should be considered within the context of the Local Plan Review where there are opportunities to complement the existing direction of growth.

It is relevant to note that our client’s land, as with all other options for village-related growth, has been rejected as part of the SHELAA and SA processes despite the land having been part-allocated within the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan. Notwithstanding this, it is also noted that the Council’s assessment of SA indicators for the site fail to recognise its opportunity to provide new open space (7a) and that the allocation in the site itself will provide appropriate landscape mitigation (8a). There is also the opportunity to enhance social cohesion through the provision of allotments. It is only the process of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040 that can reasonably consider the current circumstances of the land and its scope to support further sustainable allocations for growth and this simply has not been carried out within the evidence base.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Milton Ernest where this is capable of being accommodated within the context of the existing spatial strategy.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10125

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

c) Relationship With The Proposed Requirement for a Stepped Trajectory
3.12 PPG ID: 68-021-20190722 notes that a stepped trajectory may be appropriate where there is to be a significant change in the level of housing requirement between emerging and previous policies or to accommodate the phasing of strategic sites. The PPG also addresses how past shortfalls should be considered when assessing housing completions against planned requirements (PPG 68-031).
3.13 For Bedford it is correct that upon commencement of the new plan period from 2020 past under-delivery or over-delivery prior to this date is reflected in the result of the calculation of the standard method and application of the affordability adjustment (ID: 68-031-20190722). This is a significant point. The Council previously argued that it was necessary to calculate any surplus/’oversupply’ against the NPPF (2012)-derived objectively assessed need of 970dpa prior to 2020, That argument has now been completely negated.
3.14 It is also relevant to note the contents of the PPG in respect of local housing need. PPG ID: 2a-010-20201216 notes that previous levels of housing delivery may be a relevant indicator in considering whether to plan for needs greater than those indicated by the result of the standard method.
3.15 The following points further demonstrate, with reference to the Local Plan 2030 and PPG ID: 68-021-20190722, that reliance on the stepped trajectory proposed by the Council is not justified in the circumstances.
3.16 Firstly, recent levels of delivery broadly accord with the outputs of the standard method, notwithstanding a small reduction in output between 2019/20 and 2020/21. This is not surprising, with the upturn in completions since 2015 largely being reflective of rectifying (in- part) early delays to achieving the growth ambitions of the area reflected in the 2008 Core Strategy/Regional Spatial Strategy and delivery of commitments first identified in earlier plans.
3.17 It is worth reiterating that in terms of recent levels of delivery and their relationship with housing need the need to address these earlier delays is reflected in the standard methodology and its measures to address worsening affordability as well as enabling sustainable commuting patterns. The earlier conclusions of the Council’s consultants, Opinion Research Services (ORS) that the 2014-based projections from which the standard method is derived are likely to overestimate future growth (due to perceived errors in the 2011 Census estimates) have been proven incorrect by the most recent 2021 Census estimates.
3.18 Projected growth in the 2014-based series has been met and exceeded to 2021, as shown in the comparison below in Figure 1 below, albeit annual rates of delivery below have been slightly below the current calculation of LHN.
[See Fig 1 in attachment]
3.19 While this does not itself indicate a need to plan for a higher level of need than indicated by the result of the standard method the trend is indicative of high levels of market demand and suggests that minimum local housing need provides a stable basis for plan-making in the area, as intended by Government. The requirement under national policy to sustain these trends is neither new, surprising or unexpected.
3.20 The difference between the 2021 Census estimate and the 2018-based subnational population projections used in the Council’s demographic analysis of utilising a stepped trajectory9 is around +9,000 persons. This is at least in-part likely to be a result of substantially higher net in-migration to the area than recorded in previous official mid-year estimates (as set out in Figure 8 of the Council’s analysis). The impact on levels of population and household growth relative to recent trends will therefore be substantially greater than indicated in the Council’s current evidence base.
3.21 Making provision for a downward step-change as indicated by the Council’s trajectory is the antithesis of securing the Government’s objective to boost supply under NPPF 60. Compared to recent trends it is likely to encourage adverse effects in terms of affordability, household formation, commuting patterns and supporting growth of the labour force locally consistent with the Council’s ambitions for economic development. Implementing a stepped trajectory as proposed by the Council is therefore inconsistent with numerous facets of national policy and guidance and its introduction must be very carefully considered in order to cause the minimum possible delay to meeting future needs.
3.22 Secondly, recent levels of completions have been achieved within the context of overall policies of significant restraint in the rural area, prior to the conclusions of the Local Plan 2030 that in principle the spatial strategy could sustainably cater for the distribution of growth to Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres.
3.23 Thirdly, in relation to the phasing of strategic sites the PPG must be considered in the context of earlier plan-making. The Council has had many years, including the entire Local Plan 2030 process, to have identified and made strategic land allocations at earlier stages. In seeking an earlier ‘reprieve’ while still suggesting its current Local Plan met national policy objectives to boost supply the Council could be expected to accommodate a spatial strategy that would have minimal implications for supporting the long-term phasing of new strategic sites in the future. The stepped trajectory now proposed demonstrates that this is not the case. Total delivery proposed in the Council's stepped trajectory for the period 2020 to 2030 (10,100 dwellings – assuming the Council’s delivery forecasts for identified sites are robust) is only around 800 dwellings greater than the LP2030 trajectory for the same period (9,281 dwellings). This indicates little if any effective plan-led response to boosting supply to meet needs within the Plan for Submission. In now reiterating concerns regarding the phasing of strategic sites, having opted not to allocate these at earlier stages, the Council is further compounding the challenge of delivery and relying on past excuses to defer meeting needs.
3.24 Fourth – and most significantly – the Council’s conclusion is fundamentally reliant on acknowledging that the LP2030 strategy was and has been incapable of meeting expectations for a boost in supply 2020-2025. For the same five-year period the LP2030 housing trajectory anticipated delivery of around 1,120 dwellings per annum. This cannot be regarded as a significant change from the requirement to satisfy local housing need, which the Council was already aware of. In reality the Council now acknowledges that the whole strategy upon which it relied to adopt the LP2030 has in effect been deferred backwards into the plan period, hence a proposed stepped trajectory for this period of 970dpa (over 13% below the expectations from its own Plan adopted less than three years ago).
3.25 Acknowledging these past failures should provide clear justification to prioritise sites that can be delivered early in the plan period, in accordance with the PPG (ID: 68-021-20190722) rather than reinforcing reasons to delay meeting needs. This is considered further below. The Council’s proposed use of a step trajectory, particularly to the extent proposed, simply extends to gap between a failed strategy and identifying opportunities to meet needs in full (or even to ensure that the prospects for delivery secure levels of completions recorded pre- 2021)
d) Failures in Delivery of Provision Identified Within the Local Plan 2030
3.26 The delays and failures in respect of the Bedford Local Plan 2030 are most evident when considering the trajectories of the 2030 Plan and 2040 Plan for individual sites and locations for growth. It is here that we can see an acute problem with the delivery of allocated sites. In a number of instances, some of which are highlighted below, delivery on allocated sites, including a large capacity for housing identified in Bedford Town Centre, has simply been pushed back from that expected on adoption of the 2030 Plan.
3.27 For instance, the Greyfrairs allocation was expected to deliver circa 70 dwellings per annum from 2021 in the 2030 trajectory (200 in total), whilst the 2040 trajectory pushes back first delivery to 2029 and reduces build out to 50 dwellings per annum.
3.28 The same is true of the large Ford End allocation, were delivery was expected to commence in 2021 at a rate of between 68 and 117 dwellings per annum (630 in total). Again the 2040 trajectory pushes delivery back to 2029 and expects a rate of between 50 and 75 dwellings per annum (700 in total).The below table sets out some key differences;
[See Table 4 in attachment.]
The same is true of the Neighbourhood Development Plan allocations as demonstrated below (note these assumptions are without prejudice to our client’s position regarding the assessment of deliverability in each case);
[See Table 5 in attachment.]
e) Reliance Upon Supply from Unidentified Sites within the Local Plan 2040
3.29 It is further noted that there has been a jump in the number of windfall sites anticipated throughout the Plan period against the 2030 Plan period. The LP2030 housing trajectory includes a total of 958 dwellings for the period 2020-2030, whereas the Council’s Stepped Trajectory includes 148dpa from 2021/22 to 2025/26 and 135dpa thereafter (equivalent total to 2030 of 1,280). These totals include the Council’s allowance for delivery on small sites (0- 4 dwellings) not captured separately in the trajectory but are also inclusive of a figure of 90dpa windfall on sites comprising 5-24 units in the urban area as set out in Appendix 2 of the Council’s most recent Housing Land Supply Assessment.
3.30 Average windfall supply from the 5-24 units component has increased since 2016/17, which is very likely to be a function of trends related to conversion under Permitted Development Rights but not subject to any detailed assessment of whether these trends can realistically be expected to continue as part of the Council’s evidence base (and as required by NPPF2021 Para 71). This will need to be fully justified and upon further evidence, and we retain the right to explore the windfall allowance further. This is particularly important where the Plan for Submission also seeks to specifically allocate several sites of under 25 dwellings and therefore the Council must ensure no ‘double-counting’ of these sources of supply. The policy proposals within the Plan for Submission, such as Policy DM5 relating to thresholds for the provision of self-build plots from small sites, may also impact upon windfall supply.
3.31 In any event, the difference in the approach to total identified provision between the LP2030 and LP2040 trajectories is not reflective of a plan-led response to boosting supply and does not offer any support for the reasons to rely on a stepped trajectory. If past rates of windfall supply are not maintained there will be a further increase in the ‘gap’ to meeting needs in full.
f) Summary and Updated Delivery Assessment
3.32 It is clear that even after just 2 years from adoption, there are considerable issues with the strategy and allocations contained within the 2030 Plan. Notwithstanding, our continued assertion that the adopted housing requirement of 970 dwelling per annum was artificially constrained and not reflect of the full objectively assessed need for housing, we have considered the Council’s claimed housing land supply again this requirement for the next 5 plan years.
3.33 The sites assessed here and considered in the Council’s latest trajectory almost exclusively comprise existing allocation from the 2030 Plan, some of which were carried forward from the 2002 Plan.
3.34 As demonstrated within the supporting Deliverability Assessment Update (copy at Appendix 1), we have concerns that the Council will not be able to demonstrate a supply at adoption and furthermore, will be unable to demonstrate a supply at the 2nd and 3rd step of the trajectory.
3.35 Having reviewed the sites in detail we have identified common issues that are contributing to this expected shortfall over the next few years.
3.36 In particular we have identified that the Local Plan 2030 carried forward a number of Town Centre sites from the 2002 Plan and the sites have thus far failed to deliver the level of growth anticipated. It is understood that viability is a key component of the issue here, with previous viability work supporting the 2030 Plan having significantly over-estimated land values, which subsequently cannot be achieved. In allocating so many sites in the Town Centre the Local Plan 2030 also exposes known issues surrounding delivery rates, achieving an appropriate housing mix (including provision of family housing), securing affordable housing and securing provision for the housing needs of different groups
3.37 There has been a notable failure to address local priorities for matters including community, social, and green infrastructure as well as enhancing existing facilities and job opportunities/ This is because the allocation of land in Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres was in the 2030 Plan largely deferred to Neighbourhood Development Plans.
3.38 Whilst we supported a strategy that included development in these areas, almost all of the Neighbourhood Development Plans have opted to accommodate their apportioned growth in one large allocation. Concerns relating essentially to the allocation of strategic scale growth through NDPs have been well-document as part of previous representations on behalf of our clients relating to the relevant Local Plan 2030 and NDP processes. The resultant delays to delivery and shortcomings in the ability of the NDP process to identify and secure improvements to local infrastructure, services and facilities are not unexpected. This is an inevitability where these strategic priorities have been deferred from the Local Plan-making exercise and realistically required more detailed testing than that carried out throughout the Neighbourhood Development Plan process.
3.39 The absence of sufficient flexibility in the allocation of land in the 2030 Plan further compounds this issue and ultimately results in the Council not being able to respond to circumstances, such as those set out above, whereby delivery is delayed or coming forward at a slower pace than anticipated. The Council should seek to ensure that this mistake is not made again, particularly when considering the overriding reliance on strategic scale growth proposed in the 2040 Plan.
3.40 In summary the Local Plan 2030 unnecessarily sought to delay meeting needs in accordance with the Government’s latest policy with full awareness of these issues. Pursuing a stepped trajectory, particularly in the context of the housing requirements identified by the Council, simply perpetuates these problems.

Object

Representation ID: 10309

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Our client supports with reservations the Council’s proposed update to Policy 75 of the adopted Local Plan 2030 and the policy objective to improve opportunities for new employment in the countryside.

This representation addresses our client’s interests that were submitted and the subject of comments at previous consultation stages:

• Land at Rushden Road, Milton Ernest (Site ID: 852) – supporting the intensification and enhancement of existing commercial floorspace
• Land at Highfield Road, Oakley (Site ID: 1000) – providing opportunities for economic development and jobs growth adjacent existing employment provision

In both cases our client’s interests would be supported by the proposed criterion in Policy DM8 to enable the enlargement of existing employment areas. Our client would endorse that these provisions are necessary for consistency with national policy to support a prosperous rural economy and to allow all settlements to grow and thrive. This was advocated as part of our client’s previous submissions, noting in-particular the distribution of land for economic development across Key Service Centre and Rural Service Centre locations to the north of the borough (including at these two locations) and the reasons to support housing and employment growth at these centres within the settlement hierarchy.

Notwithstanding this, we have reservations regarding the soundness of the proposed approach in terms of the effectiveness of the policy, specifically in relation to the definition of enlargement of existing employment areas. This is considered to be overly restrictive and potentially imprecise in terms of the opportunities the policy would support. The supporting text to the policy does not explain whether this approach would support development outside of existing settlement policy area boundaries or the circumstances where this would be appropriate.
For example, our client’s land at Highfield Road operates on a tightly defined site enclosed by existing road boundaries. However, land to the south and west is functionally well-related to the successful existing facilities and functionally-related to the adjoining settlement at Oakley and thus would represent a suitable location for economic development in accordance with the objectives of the policy and wider strategy.

Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DM8 is unsound as it is not effective, but is capable of Modifications as described below.

Object

Representation ID: 10348

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted in respect of the earlier iteration of the Plan. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. The Council has failed to assess in detail either the suitability of individual site options against existing and emerging policy or the relationship of site options to the characteristics and services of individual settlements in order to inform this view.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722. The Council simply states that it has not looked at amendments to the settlement hierarchy or a more flexible approach to the distribution of growth because no new allocations or expansions were planned at Rural Key Service Centres under the selected strategy (see Supporting Document ID: 24 Addendum paras 5 and 4).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

The Council's proposed trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, demonstrating an over reliance on strategic scale development, will exacerbate existing problems with delayed and slow delivery
We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted in respect of the earlier iteration of the Plan. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at Station Road, Oakley to which the Regulation 18 representation and an indicative masterplan are appended. Along with the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, to which an updated Deliverability Assessment is appended.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper provides the justification for the spatial strategy and strategic policies contained within the Plan to address identified priorities and which the Council must be able to defend. It outlines a strategy that will concentrate development in urban areas, a small number of extensions to the urban edge and primarily as part of rail-based growth within the A421 corridor.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

There is no means within the plan or accompanying evidence base to assess housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas, despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.

The extent to which these components of an appropriate strategy may complement rather than compete with one another is simply not evaluated.

The fact that Policy DS2(S), which is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030, tries to provide for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals for the rural region, is fundamentally flawed in respect of the Plan’s strategic priorities and their relationship with the settlement at Oakley.

This is made worse by the disregard for detailed capacity assessment for particular settlements. This is reiterated in the Settlement Hierarchy Addendum (April 2022). The Council has merely chosen not to consider whether the 2030 Plan's settlement hierarchy or capacity for specific sites, like Oakley, needs to be altered. The Council has failed to assess in detail either the suitability of individual site options against existing and emerging policy or the relationship of site options to the characteristics and services of individual settlements in order to inform this view.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722. The Council simply states that it has not looked at amendments to the settlement hierarchy or a more flexible approach to the distribution of growth because no new allocations or expansions were planned at Rural Key Service Centres under the selected strategy (see Supporting Document ID: 24 Addendum paras 5 and 4).

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was created under the previous NPPF (2012) and only extends through 2030, neither the plan itself nor the supporting evidence base are equipped to assess the housing requirements of designated rural centres.

The Council is unable to complete this assessment because, during the site assessment process, it did not generate any evidence for potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at particular settlements within the hierarchy before accepting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas as a whole.

At Oakley, undertaking this exercise in accordance with national policy and guidance leads to the conclusion of the opportunity to support an increase in the distribution of growth to the settlement. The reasons for this include the inherent sustainability of the settlement, supporting its reclassification as a Key Service Centre within the settlement hierarchy, and where this would assist with the delivery of social infrastructure priorities at Lincroft Academy.

Instead, the Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that have not (in the case of Oakley) addresses the priorities identified. The difficulties that have been noted have this at their root.

The Council has simply refused to determine the suitability of any prospective site possibilities before evaluating alternative expansion strategies that do not include the village-related component.

The Council's proposed trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, demonstrating an over reliance on strategic scale development, will exacerbate existing problems with delayed and slow delivery of allocated sites, rendering ineffective even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirements.

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to show that rail-based growth in the A421 corridor is developable before years 11 through 15 of the plan period significantly undermines the Council's stance. This has the effect of creating an almost immediate supply problem, which can only be rationally resolved by distributing small- to medium-sized sustainable sites across Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres. Offering many options for expansion will help avoid market saturation and enhance rural vitality in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Oakley.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10349

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted previously. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Statement – Land at Station Road, Oakley and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

We consider that in order to achieve the aims of the next Local Plan 2040, higher rates of village-related growth, such as that at Oakley, must be supported from the beginning of the 2020–2040 plan period.

The Council's proposal to use a stepped trajectory is in response to earlier mistakes in estimating the deliverability and developability of sites within the adopted development plan as well as to general concerns about the suggested spatial strategy and reliance on large strategic areas for expansion.

The suggested technique is a mathematical ruse to maintain the yearly requirement in the approved Local Plan 2030 for the sake of allegedly showing a Five-Year Supply at approval (at least according to the Council's figures). It does not render a fundamentally flawed strategy "sound." The stepped trajectory is an admission by the Council that its current planned strategy (and identified provision) cannot increase housing supply. It also does nothing to allay legitimate concerns that obstacles to the deliverability and developability of sites identified after 2030 will significantly hinder meeting the housing requirement over the plan period.

We assert that the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing over several 5-year intervals in accordance with NPPF2021 paragraphs 73 (large-scale sites) and 74 (housing land supply) is fundamentally compromised, without prejudice to our client's opportunity to submit a further in-depth review of the Council's assumptions for deliverability and developability of sites as part of the information it intends to rely upon at Examination.

In light of the non-deliverability of the sites that have already been assigned, it is believed that the Council will be unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites starting from adoption in 2023. In addition, we anticipate that the Council will continue to fall short of the minimum five-year needs from 2025 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2040 based on the ‘steps’ in its proposed housing trajectory.

This has a clear correlation to the trajectory of the Council and its severe reliance on large-scale strategic locations for growth. The expectations of proposed delivery rates from new settlement-related growth at Little Barford and Kempston Hardwick from 20374/38 onwards (at a combined 1,200 units per annum) are wholly unprecedented and wholly unsupported by the evidence base.

Taking this background into account, the Council’s proposed reliance on a stepped trajectory directly contravenes national planning practice guidance where any such approach should not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs and where stepped requirements will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period (ID: 68-021-20190722). The starting point for this information must be provided from the Council’s assessment of deliverability and developability in the SHELAA, where PPG recognises that there is a requirement to provide a reasonable prospect that large-scale sites can be delivered within the timescales envisaged, taking account of known constraints (ID: 68-019-20190722). Evidence should also be presented on the timescales and rates of development to be assessed (ID: 3-022-20190722).

The Council is unable to adequately defend its reliance on a stepped trajectory because it has not given enough consideration to reasonable alternatives or the related concern of ensuring that all sites are objectively assessed in terms of their suitability rather than excluded on general grounds of inconsistency with the chosen strategy. This is due to the strategy's reliance on a stepped trajectory and the Council's inadequate consideration of reasonable alternatives or recognition of the disbenefits of a strategy that defers growth until later in the plan period.

The content and evaluation of the suggested stepped trajectory are severely circumscribed under paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report. Cross-references in this sentence seem to be in the wrong place because paragraph 8.29 clearly refers solely to the evaluation of the Kempston-Hardwick new settlement. In other places, the SA only explains the justification for using a stepped approach at paragraph 7.24, and paragraph 8.33 deals explicitly with the choice and testing of a "stepped" alternative (with details provided at Appendix 8 of the report, incorrectly referenced in this paragraph as Appendix 9). Even though paragraph 8.33 claims that both methods have been studied and finds no drawbacks to a phased approach, this does not seem to be supported by the details subject to assessment.

Appendix 8 contains only a ‘stepped’ scenario, which would imply all other strategy options have been considered on the basis of being ‘un-stepped’. This is plainly incorrect and contrary to the Council’s generation of strategy options, where it has been clear throughout that Options 2a-2d (rail-based growth and A421 corridor) are only feasible using a stepped trajectory. These options would not otherwise comprise reasonable alternatives for meeting requirements within the plan period (although may do so under a hybrid strategy if complemented by further growth in the rural areas).

In light of this, paragraph 9.14 aims to support the Council's earlier reasoning for a stepped trajectory. The fact that there is a large blank space after this conclusion shows that the Council has not given any particular reasons why an un-stepped method should be rejected, which is necessary to support the selected strategy.

For instance, claiming that the stepped approach does not have the potential to have negative effects if the housing requirement is not fully met and that the chosen strategy has a negative impact on opportunities under SA Objectives 12, 13, and 14 relating to community cohesion and social infrastructure is not justified. This is demonstrated by the fact that the selected strategy has not enabled a detailed assessment of our client’s Land East of Station Road, Oakley and the associated opportunity for the expansion and enhancement of services at Lincroft Academy.

Likewise, there is no recognition that these dis-benefits can only be countered by looking at reasonable alternatives that Council has identified but excluded because it considers them ‘inconsistent’ with the selected strategy option. This would act against the Council’s reasons to reject these options and it is clear that there is a lack of meaningful assessment and rationale in relation to effects arising from the use of a stepped trajectory.

Therefore, as drafted, we consider that Policy DS3(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10350

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. These representations should be read alongside the detailed Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 7450) submitted previously. Our client’s land has been registered under Site ID 832 (Land at Station Road, Oakley) and is considered capable of accommodating around 210 dwellings additional to those allocated within the ‘made’ Oakley Neighbourhood Plan.

These representations should be read alongside the Site-Specific Statement – Land at Station Road, Oakley and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

Aligned to our representation of the spatial strategy (Policy DS2(S)), the 'village-related' growth component relating to settlements both inside and outside the 'east' and 'south' corridors would only be thoroughly tested if a 'hybrid' approach were applied to the spatial strategy informing the distribution of growth and used to inform site assessment and site selection under Policy DS5(S). This has not been undertaken, meaning that the distribution of growth identified in Policy DS5(S) is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

The Sustainability Appraisal process has examined village-related growth only with the assumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages). No testing of individual site options has been undertaken before determining that the village-related component of growth should be rejected altogether as inconsistent with the selected strategy.
This overlooks that both the Council’s own SA and 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper anticipate scope for further refinement in the testing of site options.

The planned growth distribution does not create new demands or opportunities for rural areas; it only allows for the fulfilment of existing rural allocations. Despite this, the SA at paragraph 7.23 asserts that housing development in rural areas may significantly contribute to meeting housing needs and goes on to list specific locations that should be taken into account. Particularly emphasis is placed upon locations within or adjacent existing settlements i.e., criterion which capture our client’s Land at Sharnbrook. This appears to directly conflict with the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the chosen strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, various rural areas are suggested as possible options without more in-depth assessment or expansion allocation.

According to paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021, strategic policies should stipulate a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas that reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of growth and any related allocations. From the 2012 iteration of the Framework, this is a significant change. However, the Council's testing of options for the Local Plan 2040 neglects to consider any identification of housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas beyond the distribution of growth within the Local Plan 2030.

The potential benefits of village extensions across the borough should be considered within this context as specifically complementing the distribution of growth within the selected strategy rather than restricting any opportunities outright. Despite this, options in these locations have not been subject to any further iterative testing prior to completion of the Plan for Submission.

The Council has not adequately addressed issues raised by our client during earlier consultation rounds, particularly the need to consider "hybrid" options for degrees of expansion within the settlement hierarchy. To further elaborate, a new "Option 8" that substitutes village-related development for Little Barford's "new settlement" growth has been evaluated and "rejected" in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal for the Submission version Plan. However, this result was reached without fully analysing the possibility for growth in particular settlements or site options.
The SA confirms that Oakley and specific site options within village locations have only been the subject of early testing against a number of SA indicators. There has been no attempt to apply the identified combination of effects to any revised strategy option or against conclusions of the potential suitability (including provision of specific benefits) from individual site options.

These issues particularly affect Oakley due to its existing classification as a Rural Service Centre and the associated distribution of growth under the Local Plan 2030. As such, the deferral of allocations to Neighbourhood Plans was a fundamentally inadequate mechanism to address strategic priorities related to school place provision at Lincroft Academy or to safeguard the longer-term requirements of this facility and opportunities for sustainable development east of Station Road. These are priorities that can only be addressed as part of site assessment and site selection for the current plan-making process.

We also have a number of concerns about the site assessment procedure, as is detailed in our Regulation 18 representations. In particular, we have previously raised serious concerns about the Council's assessment of our client’s land at Oakley after submission as part of the Summer 2020 Call for Sites exercise. The site assessment pro-forma neglects to document or acknowledge the advantages connected with site development, specifically the enhancement of services and facilities at Lincroft Academy. Concerns about the site's assessment in connection to ecology, BMV, and heritage assets have also been raised.
Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10429

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Please see accompanying Site-Specific Statement – Land Adjacent Milton Hill, Clapham and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report, both of which are appended.

Object

Representation ID: 10431

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

This representation relates to a site at land to the west of Clapham which did not form part of the 2020 Call for Sites exercise but should in any event have been subject to assessment by the Council as part of a positive approach to site identification in accordance with national policy and guidance (ID: 3-010-20190722).

This representations form should be read alongside the supporting Site Specific Representation Report – Land Adjacent Milton Hill, Clapham and the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report that provides full details related to the site and the Council’s evidence base relating to the assessment of site options in this location and across the wider Borough. A Site Location Plan can be found in the accompanying Site-Specific Representation.

The site at Clapham is directly adjacent to the 806 Milton Hill Neighbourhood Development Plan allocation but lies just outside of the Parish boundary. The site is therefore located within the Oakley Parish and as such could not be allocated through the Clapham Neighbourhood Plan. Given the proximity to the allocated land and location within an identified growth location, the site presents an excellent opportunity to deliver additional growth to the settlement, which is recognised for its sustainability credentials as a Key Service Centre. Were it not for the effect of the administrative parish boundary geography upon the extent of the designated neighbourhood area the site would likely have been allocated as part of 806 Milton Hill. The evidence base for the Neighbourhood Plan, including a Design Code exercise covering the entire site area, is reflective of this.

The land allocated within the Clapham Neighbourhood Plan is currently the subject of a planning application, the details of which provide for all future infrastructure and services requirements necessary to enable the additional capacity for development on our clients’ adjacent land.

In the case of Clapham, the suitable extent of the preferred direction of growth west of the village has been arbitrarily limited by the extent of the designated neighbourhood area (based on parish boundaries) precluding the most effective use of land in this area. To achieve the objectives of the upcoming Local Plan 2040 higher rates of village-related growth must be promoted from the beginning of the 2020–2040 plan period. Details of suitable, available and achievable site options such as our client’s land adjacent Milton Hill provide one such opportunity that would complement the existing spatial strategy and would not in isolation materially affect the proposed approach in the Plan for Submission.

The Council’s assessment of housing requirements and site options within designated rural settlements is unsound. Despite the requirements set forth in Policy 1 and modifications to national policy and guidance, the Council has not altered the method used to evaluate reasonable alternatives in this component of the settlement hierarchy from that used to evaluate the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is the cause of the issues that have been identified in respect of housing land supply, rural vitality and the application of a stepped trajectory. The adoption of a Stepped Trajectory and the deliverability of the sites included in the Council’s trajectory is considered in the Bedford Local Plan 2040 Deliverability Assessment Update appended to the Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation.

Sites within rural settlements were disregarded at the initial stage of testing, as described in the SHLAA, solely on the grounds that they ran counter to the preferred spatial approach. Due to the apparent predetermination of the preferred approach and the unjustified decision to reject all village-related growth, it appears that Council has decided against evaluating all alternative options for growth. This fundamentally restricts the assessment of this component's potential contribution to an appropriate spatial strategy.

This circular reasoning cannot be used to support the conclusion that site suitability assessments and detailed or iterative testing of strategy options for levels of growth in the rural area (or at specific settlements) should not be conducted beyond that undertaken prior to the Regulation 18 consultation stage. Regardless of whether the Council will unjustifiably assert that it has "run out of time" to examine the situation in more detail, the Council's position is in direct conflict with paragraph 3.10 of the 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper, which serves as the basis for the Regulation 18 Draft Plan.

In respect of village-related growth, considered under option 3c, the Topic Paper indicates highways constraints as a reason to reject this strategy. This is considered in detail in the Technical Note appended to this submission which was prepared and submitted in respect of our client’s wider land interests in September 2021. As is detailed in the Technical Note, the AECOM report focuses primarily on the evaluation of development in Bedford being given in the form of "either" a new community at Colworth or Twinwoods, or both. The local road network's capacity to support a more varied pattern of expansion among nearby communities as opposed to just at Colworth / Twinwoods does not appear to have been evaluated.

Specific capacity analyses have not been conducted for individual settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Addendum reaffirms this (April 2022). The Council has simply decided not to evaluate whether the settlement hierarchy outlined in the 2030 Plan needs to be changed because no new allocations or expansions were planned in the major rural service centres.

The planned growth distribution is therefore only intended to enable the fulfilment of the existing rural allocations; it does not generate new demands or opportunities for rural areas.

This is a specific issue for Clapham where our client’s land adjacent Milton Hill would complement an established direction of growth. The SA at paragraph 7.23 asserts that housing development in rural areas may nonetheless significantly contribute to meeting housing needs and goes on to list specific locations that should be taken into account, which appears to be in direct conflict with the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the chosen strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, a number of rural locations are recommended as potential choices without a more thorough analysis or allocation for expansion.

The logic of the Council’s approach is particularly flawed in relation to Clapham, where Site ID: 3234 (corresponding to land allocated in the Clapham Neighbourhood Plan) is rejected from both sources due to its perceived inconsistency with the Plan’s spatial strategy despite having been identified as a suitable, sustainable and preferred direction of growth for the settlement.

Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10445

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to this policy. The approach is not legally compliant in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal and Duty to Cooperate processes and fails all four soundness tests.

Site IDs 918 (Land at School Approach) and 932 (Land east of Odell Road, Sharnbrook) detail the land interests of our clients. As part of the Council's Summer 2021 Preferred Plan Options and Draft Policies consultation, these interests were the focus of thorough statements and comments on the proposed strategy (Representation ID: 9000). The Council's Submission Plan does not address the problems raised previously, and it remains the case that our clients’ land interests have not undergone the necessary additional comprehensive or iterative assessment.

These representations should be read alongside previous submissions appended to a detailed Site-Specific Representations Report – Land at ‘Stoneyfields’, Sharnbrook and Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report.

Two alternative options for growth have been proposed. The first would see the land at Odell Road come forward for up to 397 dwellings, whilst the smaller parcel at School Approach is capable of accommodating a standalone c.100 dwellings. Together the two parcels provide for a comprehensively masterplanned development of around 500 dwellings known as ‘Stoneyfields’ and capable of providing substantial benefits to the wider community including delivery of a new Riverside Park, ecological enhancement and land for a new local centre.

Aligned to our representation of the spatial strategy (Policy DS2(S)), the 'village-related' growth component relating to settlements both inside and outside the 'east' and 'south' corridors would only be thoroughly tested if a 'hybrid' approach were applied to the spatial strategy informing the distribution of growth and used to inform site assessment and site selection under Policy DS5(S). This has not been undertaken, meaning that the distribution of growth identified in Policy DS5(S) is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

The Sustainability Appraisal process has examined village-related growth only with the assumption that all settlements at the same level of the hierarchy will have "flat" development quanta (500 units in Category 1 villages and 35 units in Category 2 villages). No testing of individual site options has been undertaken before determining that the village-related component of growth should be rejected altogether as inconsistent with the selected strategy. This overlooks that both the Council’s own SA and 2021 Development Strategy Topic Paper anticipate scope for further refinement in the testing of site options.

The planned growth distribution does not create new demands or opportunities for rural areas; it only allows for the fulfilment of existing rural allocations. Despite this, the SA at paragraph 7.23 asserts that housing development in rural areas may significantly contribute to meeting housing needs and goes on to list specific locations that should be taken into account. Particularly emphasis is placed upon locations within or adjacent existing settlements i.e., criterion which capture our client’s Land at Sharnbrook. This appears to directly conflict with the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the chosen strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, various rural areas are suggested as possible options without more in-depth assessment or expansion allocation.

According to paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021, strategic policies should stipulate a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas that reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of growth and any related allocations. From the 2012 iteration of the Framework, this is a significant change. However, the Council's testing of options for the Local Plan 2040 neglects to consider any identification of housing requirements for designated neighbourhood areas beyond the distribution of growth within the Local Plan 2030.

At Sharnbrook, the Local Plan 2040 specifically fails to recognise that the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan allocates growth at a location divorced from the main settlement (upon Land at Hill Farm). The Neighbourhood Plan does not support the development of land well-related to the existing village and previously identified as Preferred Options by the local planning authority, including our client’s Land at Sharnbrook. However, in terms of the requirements of national policy and guidance this does not preclude sound plan-making in terms of requiring an assessment of site options and identification of an appropriate housing requirement for the designated neighbourhood area particularly where this would provide a number of additional benefits for the local community and housing delivery.

The Council has not adequately addressed issues raised by our client during earlier consultation rounds, particularly the need to consider "hybrid" options for degrees of expansion within the settlement hierarchy. To further elaborate, a new "Option 8" that substitutes village-related development for Little Barford's "new settlement" growth has been evaluated and "rejected" in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal for the Submission version Plan. However, this result was reached without fully analysing the possibility for growth in particular settlements or site options.

The SA acknowledges that Sharnbrook and individual site options within village locations have only undergone preliminary testing against a number of SA parameters. No attempt has been made to compare the observed combination of effects of the selected strategy to any iterative approach that considers judgements on the suitability (including the availability of specific benefits) from different site options.

Given the identified delays with the delivery of land allocated within the Sharnbrook Neighbourhood Plan, we consider that our clients land in Sharnbrook should be considered in detail, with an acknowledgement that delivery could contribute towards housing need within the early part of the plan period and assist the Council maintain a sufficient supply of housing.
These benefits specifically relate to the parcel of our client’s Land at School Approach, which can be provided either as a standalone scheme for 100 units or as part of the comprehensive Stoneyfields Masterplan proposals.

Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.