Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 9984

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

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.

Old Road Securities (ORS) has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. Details of our client’s land interests are registered under Site IDs 604 (Land off Roxton Road (c.100 units) and 645 (500 units known and ‘Willoughby Park’). Indicative Masterplans for both options are provided as Appendix 1 and 2 to this form. These interests were the subject of detailed representations and comments on the proposed strategy as part of the Council’s Summer 2021 Preferred Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation. Issues identified with the proposed approach have not been addressed as part of the Council’s Plan for Submission nor have our client’s site interests been subject to any further detailed or iterative testing, as required. As such, these representations should in conjunction with our client’s previous submissions, full details of which are contained at Appendix 3.

The Development Strategy Topic Paper contains the rationale used by the
Council to justify its approach to spatial strategy. It sets out an approach which will focus development on the urban areas, strategic opportunities adjacent to the Bedford urban area and growth locations on the East West Rail / A421 transport corridor.

In regard to development in the rural areas, the policies of the Plan seek to limit growth to the completion of strategic Key Service Centre and more limited Rural Service Centre residential development identified in Local Plan 2030.

Despite the fact that the Local Plan 2030's growth distribution was derived under the former NPPF2012 and only extends through 2030, there is no method within the plan or supporting evidence base to identify housing needs for designated rural areas. By presenting an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively within the ‘rural areas’, the Council has effectively excluded growth connected to villages as a component of its chosen strategy.

It is fundamentally unsound that Policy DS2(S) seeks to provide for a far more limited scope for development to meet identified priorities for the rural area than Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 that it is proposed to replace. Policy 3S provides in principle for the recognition of growth in Key Service Centres delivering enhancement to services and facilities, whereas Policy DS2(S) and the spatial strategy as proposed does not make any such commitment either as part of meeting additional housing needs prior to 2030 or over the full plan period to 2040.

This is compounded by the failure to consider specific capacity analysis for individual settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Addendum reaffirms this (April 2022). The Council has simply decided not to evaluate whether the settlement hierarchy or capacity of individual locations such as Great Barford, as outlined in the 2030 Plan, needs to be changed. 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, 68 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).

Although the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was generated under the former NPPF2012 and only goes through 2030, there is no mechanism within the plan or associated evidence base to evaluate housing needs for designated rural centres. By presenting an either/or choice between large-scale strategic growth or extension of the urban area in the selected A421 and rail-based development corridors and development in rural areas, the Council has practically eliminated growth related to villages as a component of its preferred strategy. There is absolutely no evaluation of the degree to which these elements of an appropriate strategy could work in harmony rather than opposition to one another.

The reason the Council is unable to complete this assessment is that, as part of its site assessment process, it did not produce enough evidence to identify potentially suitable levels of growth from individual site options at specific settlements within the hierarchy before selecting or rejecting the potential contribution to growth from the rural areas in its entirety.

We specifically take issue with the district's evaluation of rural settlements. Despite the requirements set forth in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (necessitating immediate review) 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. The Council has simply refused to decide whether or not any potential site option is suitable before beginning its assessment of strategy options that exclude the village-related component of growth.

Aligned to this, but more broadly, the Development Strategy Topic Paper confirms that there hasn't been any attempt at a more thorough testing of all feasible alternatives, including development in rural areas; with only the preferred approach having been assessed robustly, and even then, only specific aspects of the transport corridor strategy have been thoroughly tested.

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 Council's position is further undermined by the simple fact that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible before years 11 through 15 of the plan period, if not later. This result of this is an almost immediate supply issue which can only reasonably be addressed by the allocation of small/medium sized sustainable sites across the rural area. Providing a choice of locations for growth will ensure that market saturation is avoided and will support rural vitality in line with the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG.

As set out in our client’s previous representations the scope for development in the "east" and "south" corridor parishes and support for expansion at Great Barford under Option 2d of the Council’s Strategy Options, under the framework of a "hybrid" approach, would be supported in principle. This acknowledges that rural areas can contribute to sustainable development, particularly in early stages of the plan period.

The Council has simply not progressed its evidence base sufficiently in order to assess individual site options or to assess the potential positive effects of growth at settlements within the A421 transport corridor (and to counter dis-benefits of likely delays to delivery of the selected strategy) in a manner that would justify it excluding further village-related growth from this aspect of the spatial strategy

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village extensions, including at Great Barford, with our client’s land available at two different scales (100 and 500 dwellings), suitable, and with development achievable that would secure contributions to sustainable development as assessed favourably in the initial Sustainability Appraisal indicators (including new green infrastructure, community facilities and opportunities for recreation).
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: 9986

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

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.

Old Road Securities (ORS) has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. Details of our client’s land interests are registered under Site IDs 604 (Land off Roxton Road (c.100 units) and 645 (500 units known and ‘Willoughby Park’). Indicative Masterplans for both options are provided as Appendix 1 and 2 to this form. These interests were the subject of detailed representations and comments on the proposed strategy as part of the Council’s Summer 2021 Preferred Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation. Issues identified with the proposed approach have not been addressed as part of the Council’s Plan for Submission nor have our client’s site interests been subject to any further detailed or iterative testing, as required. As such, these representations should in conjunction with our client’s previous submissions, full details of which are contained at Appendix 3.

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040, as it is currently envisioned, will exacerbate current problems with the slow and delayed delivery of allocated sites, rendering even its suggested "stepped approach" to housing requirement ineffective. This is due to an overreliance on strategic scale development. The Council's position is seriously undermined by the lack of sufficient data to demonstrate that rail-based expansion in the A421 corridor is feasible, deliverable, or developable before years 11 through 15, if not sooner (and at the delivery rates indicated).

This creates a problem with supply that arises very immediately and can only be sensibly managed by dispersing development via small- to medium-sized sustainable sites throughout the rural area. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth plan, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist in preventing market saturation and improve rural vitality.

We believe that greater levels of village-related growth, such as that at Great Barford, must be encouraged from the start of the 2020–2040 plan period in order to accomplish the goals of the forthcoming Local Plan 2040. The settlement of Great Barford as an example, and in particular the determination that our client's land holding is suitable, available and achievable to support expansion, would provide contributions to sustainable development as favourably assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (including new green infrastructure, community facilities and opportunities for recreation).

The Council's suggestion to adopt a stepped trajectory is a response to prior failures to accurately estimate the deliverability and developability of sites within the adopted development plan as well as general worries about the suggested spatial strategy and reliance on large strategic areas for expansion.

In order to continue with the annual requirement in the adopted Local Plan 2030 for the purposes of ostensibly demonstrating a Five-Year Supply upon adoption (at least under the Council's figures), the proposed approach represents a mathematical sleight of hand. It does not make a fundamentally unsound plan "sound." The stepped trajectory represents an admission that the Council’s current planned strategy (and identified provision) cannot achieve a boost in housing supply and does nothing to overcome the legitimate concerns that constraints to the deliverability and developability of sites identified beyond 2030 will substantially preclude achievement of the housing requirement in the plan period.

Without prejudice to the opportunity for our client to submit a further detailed review of the Council’s assumptions for deliverability and developability of sites as part of the information it intends to rely upon at Examination, we submit that the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing throughout multiple 5-year intervals in accordance with NPPF2021 paragraphs 73 (large-scale sites) and 74 (housing land supply) is fundamentally compromised. It is considered that the Council will be unable to present a 5-year supply from adoption in 2023, taking account the non-deliverability of currently allocated sites. We also assume that the Council will remain in deficit against minimum five-year requirements from 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2040.

This is directly related to the Council's trajectory and its extreme overdependence on large-scale strategic locations for growth, which are known to produce results at a far slower rate than small and medium scale growth. The assumption that new-settlement scale proposals at Little Barford and Kempston will exceed 300 units per annum from 2035/36 (and 600 units per annum from 2037/38) is wholly unprecedented particularly in terms of two locations delivering in combination at this rate.

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’s evidence base is fundamentally deficient in this regard, with no evidence of engagement with agents or developers. This particularly affects the Council’s assumptions for large-scale growth but is also evident where in the absence of any detailed information and noting delays to the Local Plan 2030 trajectory the Council identifies a vast number of existing or proposed allocations in the urban area commencing in the same year in 2030/31 (generating an unjustified increase in forecast completions from 1,128 in 2029/30 to 1,641 the following year) which would be unprecedented.

Because the Council have not given enough thought 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, the Council is unable to adequately defend its reliance on a stepped trajectory. This is because the strategy is based on the use of a stepped trajectory, and the Council has not given enough thought to reasonable alternatives or the related concerns in terms of dis-benefits of a strategy where growth is deferred until later in the plan period.

At paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report is severely constrained in its content and assessment of the proposed stepped trajectory. The cross-references within this paragraph appear to be incorrect, with paragraph 8.29 specifically relating only to assessment of the Kempston-Hardwick new settlement. Elsewhere the SA only sets out the reasons that a stepped approach has been considered at para 7.24 and paragraph 8.33 specifically deals with the selection and testing of a ‘stepped’ option (with details provided at Appendix 8 of the report, incorrectly referenced in this paragraph as Appendix 9). Although paragraph 8.33 indicates both options have been tested and identifies no negative effects from a stepped approach this does not appear to be justified by the scenarios assessed. 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).

On this basis, paragraph 9.14 only looks to reinforce the Council’s previously identified justification for a stepped trajectory. The expanse of blank space following this conclusion indicates that the Council has provided no specific justification to reject an un-stepped approach, which is what is required to justify the selected option and comparing the benefits and dis-benefits of the alternative approaches. Specifically in relation to Appendix 8 it is, for example, not justified or correct to identify that the stepped approach does not potentially give rise to negative effects in terms of failure to meet the housing requirement in full and because the selected strategy negatively effects opportunities under SA Objectives 12, 13 and 14 in terms of delivering a wider mix of housing needs and enhancing services and facilities elsewhere.

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 impacts upon the housing trajectory. It may be argued that this illustrates a strategy that the Council itself isn't totally satisfied with.
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: 9988

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Old Road Securities PLC

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.

Old Road Securities (ORS) has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. Details of our client’s land interests are registered under Site IDs 604 (Land off Roxton Road (c.100 units) and 645 (500 units known and ‘Willoughby Park’). Indicative Masterplans for both options are provided as Appendix 1 and 2 to this form. These interests were the subject of detailed representations and comments on the proposed strategy as part of the Council’s Summer 2021 Preferred Strategy Options and Draft Policies consultation. Issues identified with the proposed approach have not been addressed as part of the Council’s Plan for Submission nor have our client’s site interests been subject to any further detailed or iterative testing, as required. As such, these representations should in conjunction with our client’s previous submissions, full details of which are contained at Appendix 3.

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.

When village-related growth has been tested under the Sustainability Appraisal process, it has been done so with the presumption 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).

Furthermore, the Council has not attempted to discriminate between settlements that are included in the A421 "transport corridor" as indicated by its own strategy choices (including, for example, Great Barford).It is not evident from the Council's assessment whether it genuinely feels these locations perform any differently against the objectives of the Local Plan or inform any differences in capacity for growth across the settlement hierarchy when considered in the context of the spatial strategy.

The SA for the Submission version Plan which appears to contradict the Council’s view that all village sites in all settlements should be treated in the same way and viewed as inconsistent with the spatial strategy (see Table at Para 9.13). In this table, ‘excluded’ ‘village’ sites do not include those in settlements such as Great Barford (where these form part of the identified transport corridors). It is not, however, clear from the Council whether it genuinely considers these perform any differently for the purposes of the spatial strategy or settlement hierarchy and the conclusion in the SHLAA is that sites in any village are ‘inconsistent’ with the strategy.

As a result, the spatial strategy and assessment of effects under the SA may in fact have distinct relationships with village-related growth in various settlements. Policy DS5(S) should therefore also reflect the distinction between ‘east’ and ‘south’ corridor parishes in terms of the distribution of growth.

The planned growth distribution only permits the completion of existing rural allocations; it does not place additional demands or opportunities on rural settings. In spite of this, the SA at paragraph 7.23 claims that housing development in rural regions might significantly contribute to satisfying housing needs and goes on to specify specific locations recommended for consideration, which seems to directly contradict the SHLAA Table 2.2 where all village-related sites are ruled inconsistent with the selected strategy based on the SA findings. As a result, specific rural locations are mentioned as viable choices without further detailed testing or allocation of growth.

Strategic policies should provide a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas that reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and size of growth and any applicable allocations, according to paragraph 66 of the NPPF2021. This is a significant change from the Framework's 2012 iteration. The testing of options by the Council for the Local Plan 2040, however, advances an arbitrary distribution of anticipated levels of growth in Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres and fails to provide a housing requirement for specific rural settlements.

The potential benefits of village extensions in the east and south corridor parishes 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 necessary iterative methodology is not evident in the Council's SA. Concerns highlighted by our client during earlier consultation rounds, particularly the requirement to evaluate "hybrid" possibilities for levels of expansion within the settlement hierarchy, have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Council. To expand further, a new "Option 8" that swaps Little Barford's "new settlement" growth for village-related development has been assessed and "rejected" in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal for the Submission version Plan. This conclusion, however, was made without thoroughly examining the potential for growth in specific settlements or individual site options.

The SA confirms that Great Barford 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.

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 Great Barford 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, such as the provision of green infrastructure. Concerns about the site's assessment in connection to ecology, BMV, and heritage assets have also been raised in the past.
Therefore, as drafted we consider that Policy DS5(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.