Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 9519

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS2(S) Spatial Strategy
2.3 The overarching aims and ambitions of the Spatial Hierarchy are generally supported. However, we have concerns that the approach adopted underutilises the role of existing sustainable settlements, including the Rural Service Centres, and places a significant overreliance on the delivery of new settlements and is not therefore sound because it has not taken full account of all the reasonable alternatives.
6
Fisher German LLP is a limited liability partnership.
Registered in England and Wales. Registered
Number: OC317554. Registered Office: The Head
Office Ivanhoe Office Park, Ivanhoe Park Way,
Ashby-De-La-Zouch, Leicestershire, England, LE65
2AB. A list of members’ is available for inspection at
Head Office.
2.4 Reasonable alternatives are discussed within the ‘Development Strategy Topic Paper’ (May 2022). It notes that the Arc impacts are not yet known and so the growth strategy focuses only on Bedford’s own growth requirements.
2.5 Through previous consultations, the following growth options were put forward:
- Option 1a – development in and around the urban area only
- Option 1b – sites within the urban area at enhanced density
- Option 2a: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south.
- Option 2b: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south, plus one new settlement.
- Option 2c: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 2d: Development in and around the urban area, plus A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth – south and east, plus one new settlement: this included potential growth at Willington.
- Option 3a: Development in and around the urban area, plus four new settlements.
- Option 3b: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres.
- Option 3c: Development in and around the urban area, plus two new settlements plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 4: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 5: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements.
- Option 6: A421 transport corridor with rail-based growth, plus two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
- Option 7: Development in two new settlements, plus key service centres, plus rural service centres.
2.6 Within the topic paper, the Council consider that a reasonable alternative for the purposes of the NPPF test was an alternative that could provide dwelling growth within 10% of the required need. Option 2D was identified as a reasonable alternative.
2.7 Willington was included in growth option 2D, outlined above, whereby growth at villages including Willington in the transport corridor-east would have been combined with other growth options such as development in and around the urban area and one new settlement.
2.8 The Council considered that the benefits of Option 2D are that housing development in the wider Parishes would enable housing delivery to be achieved earlier in the plan period (this is a very strong benefit consistent with the aims of Government).
7
Fisher German LLP is a limited liability partnership.
Registered in England and Wales. Registered
Number: OC317554. Registered Office: The Head
Office Ivanhoe Office Park, Ivanhoe Park Way,
Ashby-De-La-Zouch, Leicestershire, England, LE65
2AB. A list of members’ is available for inspection at
Head Office.
2.9 The negatives identified with Option 2D were that development would be considered to be more dispersed which could reduce the amount of development where railway stations could be accessed by active travel. There was also a perceived impact upon the landscape and settlement characters (not necessarily specific to Willington). Option 2D is noted in the topic paper to be the least popular option with the public.
2.10 Overall, village related growth was considered by the Council to be the worst performing option compared to the other growth options. However, no further comment is made in detail on option 2D despite its similarity with option 2B being noted within the Topic Paper (and option 2B was ultimately assessed as the most appropriate growth option).
2.11 As detailed in response to Policy DS3 and DS5, there seems an absolute reluctance by Bedford Borough to allocate any further additional growth at the Rural Services Centres despite the benefit being that some proportionate growth would be delivered earlier in the Plan period rather than almost solely relying on the delivery of strategic sites. In the context of immediate housing need and withe current cost of living crisis, failure to deliver housing in settlements such as Willington will result in more and more young people being forced out of the settlements in which they may currently live and continue to suppress natural household formation. All settlements, but particularly sustainable settlements with a service offer, need proportionate and commensurate growth to ensure they do not age and stagnate.
2.12 Land at Barford Road Willington has shown that there would not be any adverse impact on the landscape and settlement character as a result of the site coming forward for development. In terms of the reduced ability for rural sites to be accessible to rail by active travel, it is important to note that some sites would be accessible by active travel, but more broadly they would be accessible by green travel through the ongoing transition to hybrid and electric cars.
2.13 The Plan and Strategy also has a deliberate disregard of the role that Neighbourhood Plans should be playing in accommodating growth beyond their current period to 2030. Neighbourhood Plans should be policy bound to allocate an amount of growth up to 2040, as they were obliged to within the 2030 plan (see current policy 4S). NPPF Paragraph 66 sets out that Strategic Policies should “set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations”. Clearly to reflect the overall strategy as required by the NPPF, this must extend requirements up to 2040.

Object

Representation ID: 9520

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Amount of Housing
2.14 Policy DS3(S) outlines the Council’s preferred approach to the delivery of housing, including the housing requirement and the temporal delivery of housing over the Plan period. This includes a ‘stepped trajectory’, with the housing requirement to increase throughout the Plan period.
2.15 The Plan utilises the baseline Local Housing Need (LHN) as the housing requirement, equating to 27,100 dwellings over the Plan period. The PPG is clear that when establishing a housing requirement “the standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area… Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.” [our emphasis] (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216). Examples of scenarios which may justify an increase of housing requirement include growth strategies, the delivery of strategic infrastructure improvements or the requirement of an authority to take on unmet need from a neighbouring authority.
2.16 It is important to note that the PPG sets out that the consideration of whether uplifts to the housing requirement from LHN are necessary should be undertaken prior to and independently of any consideration of the ability of an area to meet that need.
2.17 The Plan discusses the housing requirement at Paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the reasoned justification, albeit there is no discussion as to whether a higher housing requirement would be justified. The reasoned justification seems to challenge, informally, the LHN requirement. The Plan asserts that population would need to increase by 50,000 people with in-migration of more than 22,000 a year above existing trends to populate homes within Bedford at the standard method rate of 1,355 dwellings per year. However, it is significant to note, and acknowledged within the Plan, that Bedford Borough falls within the Oxford Cambridge Arc. Whilst there is a lack of clarity on the onwards direction of the top-down vision for the Arc, accelerated growth is likely to occur irrespective, led through economic demands which will drive an above historic trend rate of growth and migration. Furthermore, the Plan’s assumptions do not reflect a higher level of natural household formation rate, which may currently be suppressed due to a lack of housing or house prices more generally. Looking at historic rates of delivery could therefore become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that historic suppressed growth and/or suppressed household formation rates could be used to feed into justification for any subsequent strategies and serve to further suppress latent growth.
2.18 The LP2040 is not consistent with national policy because it does not plan for sufficient housing to meet future needs and does not proactively plan for any uplift as a result of the Arc Framework. It remains our view that a higher housing figure beyond the Local Housing Need Figure (which is intended to be a minimum figure within the PPG) should be planned for within the LP2040 in order to ensure a sound Plan.
Timing of housing growth
2.19 The stepped trajectory is proposed as follows:
• 5 years 970 dpa = 4,850 dwellings during the period 20/21-24/25
• 5 years 1,050 dpa = 5,250 dwellings during the period 25/26-29/30
• 10 years 1,700 dpa = 17,000 dwellings during the period 30/31-39/40
• 20 years average = 1,355 dwellings during period 20/21-39/40
2.20 The stepped trajectory as proposed results in the delivery of 4,850 dwellings in the first 5 years (970 per annum), 5,250 in the next 5 years (1,050 per annum) equating to 10,100 dwellings in the first 10 years. This then dramatically steps up to 1,700 dwellings per annum over the final 10 years equating to 17,000 dwellings. This is an almost 70% increase from the requirement in the first 10 years of the Plan period to the requirement for the latter 10 years. To deliver this quantum of housing, the Council is relying on undeliverable levels of growth on the two strategic new settlement allocations (Kempston Hardwick and Little Barford) as discussed below.
2.21 Paragraph 4.27 of the emerging Plan advises that there is limited opportunity to bring forward additional sites in the early years of the Plan period due to the requirements for the delivery of strategic sites and the inter reliance on new development and the completion of major infrastructure projects which is why the stepped trajectory is required with significant growth pushed back to the latter part of the Plan period.
2.22 The approach oversimplifies matters and fails to recognise the latent capacity within the wider Plan area for existing sustainable settlements to deliver growth through smaller sustainable sites, which collectively could deliver a significant quantum of supply. Crucially, this supply can be front loaded in the Plan period, as sites within the smaller sustainable settlements are generally ‘shovel ready’, essentially meaning following allocation housebuilders are able to start quickly and deliver quickly. In addition to this, the delivery of such sites ensures the Council’s overall housing portfolio is varied, appealing to both a wide range of housebuilders and housing markets, thus ensuring the greatest choice and competition in the market, which ultimately drives delivery whilst protecting the continued over inflation of house prices.
2.23 The Council’s own evidence, which supported the preparation of the current Local Plan identified that the Rural Service Centres were able to deliver up to 150 dwellings in each settlement; the adopted Plan progressed a target of 25 to 50 dwellings to be delivered through Neighbourhood Plans. It is clear therefore that the existing settlements have capacity to accommodate additional growth through this Plan and that there is an opportunity to allocate sustainable sites in villages such as Willington to support the delivery of housing and importantly, support the delivery of housing in the early part of the Plan period so that housing need can be met immediately and not delayed as currently proposed. This approach would further ensure a buffer should the strategic allocations/new settlements fail to deliver as anticipated, which we consider will be the case.
2.24 It is considered that the timing of delivery from the new settlements is overly ambitious and fails to reflect past delivery rates and evidence associated with brining forward similar sites.
2.25 The Wixams is an example. The site was first identified as a location for new housing in the late 1990s through the Elstow New Settlement: Planning and Development Brief, which was adopted in September 1999. The role of the document was to provide the framework for the submission of both the outline and reserved matters planning applications for the timely delivery of the settlement. The outline planning application for the core site was submitted in November 1999. In September 2005 the Council, in consultation with the land promoters, published and adopted The Wixams Strategic Design Guide SPD, to further guide and expedite delivery of the site. At this stage, it was anticipated that the entire development would be delivered within 15 years; this would have meant that the site would have been close to being fully built out in 2022.
2.26 However, despite this and the intervening 17-year period, the most recent monitoring report, confirms that only the initial phases have been completed in full with significant development still to be brought forward, despite construction commencing as far back as 2007 (15 years ago).
2.27 The Wixam’s highlights the complexity associated with the delivery of new settlements. Whilst the continued delivery of the site is of course promising, the difficulty in reaching this stage, on a site within Bedford Borough, should act as a severe warning as to the obvious pitfalls associated with strategic delivery of new settlements and should be factored into the Plan’s strategy and its over reliance on new settlements delivering the whole of the LHN moving forward.
2.28 Despite the significant delays associated with the delivery at Wixams, and also evidenced through other Local Plans which have acknowledged failure due over reliance on strategic sites (Charnwood, Rushcliffe, West Northamptonshire, etc), the Council have seemingly wed themselves to a strategy which once again, places an over reliance of strategic development, including new settlements. This approach is not justified and therefore not sound.
2.29 Start to Finish (Nathanial Lichfields) reinforces the examples above and sets out that applications for schemes over 500 dwellings are unlikely to make a contribution in the first five years. This is primarily due to the complex planning issues related to both the principle of development and the detail of implementation. Where applications have been determined more quickly than the average, this is as a result of matters being substantially addressed prior to submission which, when combined with the determination period, still adds up to the same amount of time; as the report states “there is rarely a way to short-circuit planning”.
2.30 The NLP report goes on to state:
“Planned housing trajectories should be realistic, accounting and responding to lapse rates, lead-in times and sensible build rates. This is likely to mean allocating more sites rather than less, with a good mix of types and sizes, and then being realistic about how fast they will deliver so that supply is maintained throughout the plan period. Because no one site is the same – and with significant variations from the average in terms of lead-in time and build rates – a sensible approach to evidence and justification is required.”
2.31 Whilst the site promoter may point to more optimistic timescales, a far more cautious and evidenced approach is required, with smaller and more deliverable sites allocated to deliver immediately, in order to ensure a sound Plan.
2.32 In relation to the Kempston Hardwick New Settlement (Policy HOU14), it is noted that the site has no current planning status according to the Council’s online mapping. Land Registry details confirm that the site is in multiple ownership. It is not clear to what extent the landowners are in agreement as to the delivery of the site or whether there is agreement between all parties to bring the site forward. As set out above and demonstrated through the complex history associated with the Wixams, strategic scale development is difficult to deliver and takes a significant amount of time. These difficulties are compounded when the development covers multiple land ownerships.
2.33 The Little Barford proposed allocation (Policy HOU19) appears to be within a single land ownership but will still require significant time to deliver. The site is attached to St Neots, a town within neighbouring Huntingdonshire District. It is not clear whether Huntingdonshire have commented or agreed to this proposal. Clearly by locating development here, residents are most likely to work and spend in St Neots, not within Bedford. This therefore limits the benefits provided by this housing, without any compelling justification. Bedford’s LHN should be met, and development located where the need is. There is no compelling justification for the approach adopted by the Council, and this is a significant concern. Not only is the delivery of the new settlements not sound, the overall approach of directing almost all of Borough’s housing need to new settlements is also unjustified and fails to reflect the housing needs of the Borough as a whole. The proposed approach to the distribution of development fails to recognise the role smaller settlements, including the Rural Service Centres play. The delivery of housing to new settlements only fails to help young people remain in the settlements where they currently live, forcing younger people and families out of villages and contributing to a lack of social diversity within existing settlements. It also fails to support the vitality and viability of existing businesses and services in rural settlements, potentially risking their ongoing operation. The approach also fails to deliver a variety of housing to the housing market, preventing choice and competition as advocated in the NPPF and in the Letwin Review.
2.34 In relation to the new settlements, the Council’s assumes delivery on these sites will be at times 1,200 dwellings per annum collectively, equating to annual delivery of 600 dwellings per annum per site. This is highly ambitious. Nationally sites of over 2,000 dwellings only deliver on average 160 dwellings per annum. The Council’s trajectory however sets out that from commencement of delivery of units in 2030/31 up to 2039/40, annual delivery rates averages 380 dwellings per annum, in excess of double the national average for similar sites over 2,000 units. It is considered highly unlikely these anticipated rates of development will occur, particularly during the Plan period. The peak delivery of 600 units per site from 2037/38 is also considered highly ambitious and not reflected in delivery rates of other similar sites nationally, let alone within Bedford.
2.35 To ensure a sound Plan allocating suitable shovel ready sites in sustainable settlements such as Willington to deliver in the early part of the Plan period will lessen the reliance on complex sites to deliver in the latter stages of the Plan bringing delivery targets down to more reasonable and deliverable levels. This revised approach would enable the Council will deliver more homes in the short term, securing jobs and helping to slow the inflation on house prices. There will be further social benefits through the delivery of affordable housing at a time when there is an acute need. It will help maintain the viability and vitality of existing and ensure choice and competition in the market for housing assisting delivery and market absorption. It will also ensure the Council can maintain a five-year housing land supply; which currently looks to be marginal even on adoption, if it can be demonstrated at all. This approach is a fundamental risk as the Plan cannot be found sound if there is no five-year housing land supply at adoption and will weaken the plans effectiveness if Paragraph 11 is regularly engaged. Allocating sufficient sites to ensure a robust five-year housing land supply at adoption and throughout the Plan is therefore considered to be a fundamentally benefit as the Plan cannot be adopted or reasonably function without it.

Object

Representation ID: 9521

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.36 Emerging policy DS5 sets out where growth is to be located. It takes into account existing commitments together with the additional growth required to meet needs to 2040.
2.37 Emerging policy DS5(S) sets out the following distribution of housing growth: (table included in the original)
2.38 As detailed in response to Policy DS2 it is considered that the Council’s preferred strategy is over reliant on strategic sites and new settlements and is not sound. The approach proposed risks the delivery of the Plan as it is highly vulnerable to delayed or non-delivery. If one of the strategic sites does not deliver than the Plan will fail. Further, the approach adopted by the Council does not provide for choice and competition in the housing land market, which is likely to result in land price inflation given most the new housing is under the control of a limited number of landowners. Moreover, it largely rules out developments being brought forward by SME housebuilders, instead creating a monopoly of sites which can likely only be delivered by the larger housebuilders who will benefit from the economies of scale. As a result, there will also be a limited variety of houses realising to the market concurrently, slowing market absorption which will have high consequences in the latter years of the Plan period in terms of satisfying the Housing Delivery Test or demonstrating a five-year housing land supply.
2.39 The Plan states that there will continue to be growth in villages as a result of policies in the Local Plan 2030 which allocate growth to some Key Service Centres and Rural Service Centres however, no new/additional allocations are made in these villages in the Local Plan 2040.
2.40 The Plan instead advises that some Parish Councils may choose to allocate further sites for development in their Neighbourhood Plan; there is no requirement for this.
2.41 This absence of small and medium growth in the rural villages misses an opportunity to delivery some of the housing requirement earlier on in the Plan period, rather than relying on some 10,000 dwellings to be delivered through new settlements which are significantly reliant on the delivery of large-scale infrastructure. As detailed in response to PolicyDS3 it is not an appropriate strategy to place such a reliance on strategic infrastructure to deliver such a large proportion of a housing need.
2.42 The evidence base which supported the previous Local Plan 2030 and initial drafts of that Local Plan confirmed that there is capacity within the smaller settlements to deliver a higher quantum of growth than was adopted through the Plan (up to 150 dwellings in each settlement rather than the 25 – 50 dwellings detailed within the Plan). The Plan states that it is not possible to provide additional housing in the early years of the Plan period, but this is not justified. Its own evidence has clearly demonstrated that settlements such as Willington are suitable for a higher quantum of growth than currently being delivered under the adopted Plan.
2.43 The distribution of growth within the LP2040 is not effective. As detailed in response to Policy DS3, such a reliance on strategic sites is not be deliverable over the Plan period (it is already noted in policy DS5(S) that 400 dwellings will be delivered beyond the plan period, before accounting for any delays in site assembly, unlocking and delivering the required infrastructure, and actually delivering homes on sites included within the plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 9522

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Clarendon Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.44 Emerging policy DM5 requires an element of self-build plots to be provided on all sites other than developments of 1 – 4 dwellings. Land at Barford Road, Willington has the potential to deliver up to 33 dwellings and theoretically, using the current draft policy, would be expected to provide 3 self-build plots.
2.45 There are issues with providing self-build plots within standard open market sites in terms of achieving a comprehensive design and issues with who is responsible for installing utilities (and to what point). There is also the risk that plots will sit undeveloped for long periods of time if they are not sold, whilst the required marketing and viability evidence is gathered in the result that demand is low or non-existent in a location.
2.46 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Topic Paper (April 2022) identifies that through the current allocations and self-build projections, there is capacity to deliver 644 self-build plots. The Topic Paper also notes that there are currently 90 people on the self-build register. The provision of 644 self-build plots through the Local Plan 2040 is significantly above the current demand.
2.47 The policy should be re-worded to encourage the inclusion of self-build plots rather than require them. In its current form it is too prescriptive and will lead to issues with overall site completion. It will also lead to a significant surplus in the provision of self-build plots for which there is unlikely to be what would need to a 7-fold increase in demand over the plan-period (from 90 to 644). This surplus of self-build plots will lead to the Council using more of their valuable time assessing numerous marketing and viability reports in order to meet the requirements of Policy DM5 to seek to change them to standard market housing plots when it transpires that demand is low.