Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 10434

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments 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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Reps Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document, showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development, upon a sustainably-located site well-related to the principal settlement of Bedford but maintaining appropriate separation from the urban edge within Kempston Rural parish, that these representations are made.

We continue to have fundamental concerns about how opportunities for development within Kempston Rural parish, including our client’s specific site interests, relating to the ‘urban edge’ component of growth have been assessed. A clear rationale exists for development beyond that proposed for allocation within the Council’s Plan for Submission. Further reservations are made regarding the Council's strategy for the distribution of growth, which merely refers to dwellings and ignores the method necessary to meet the housing demands of various groups, including specialist housing for older people and self-build/custom-build housing, additional opportunities for which could potentially be provided through the identification of additional small and medium-scale allocations as part of the selected strategy.

The SHLAA confirms in respect of our client’s land that the site has not been subject to more detailed testing on the basis that it does not accord with the preferred spatial strategy. We consider that the site, if applying a hybrid approach that would (as is already the case in the selected strategy) support the prioritisation of development around sustainable urban edges without undermining the wider need for some growth at Key Service Centre and Rural Service Centre settlements within the Council’s settlement hierarchy. Maximising the contribution from urban edge sites could make an important contribution when it comes to delivering housing, offsetting a reliance on strategic scale growth elsewhere within the Plan for Submission which often delivers at a much slower pace than small-to medium sized sites.

Given the proximity of our client’s land to the proposed allocation HOU13 at Gibraltar Corner, the site is demonstrably located within the Council’s selected strategy and would, with minimal additional impact, help to deliver much needed housing.

The Council's trajectory for the Local Plan 2040 as proposed, with 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 the housing requirement. 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 such as that at Green End, Kempston. Providing a choice of locations for growth will ensure that market saturation is avoided and will support urban and rural vitality in line with the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG.

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: 10435

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments 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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

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 both urban and rural settlements. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth strategy, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist prevent market saturation and improve settlement vitality.
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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

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 both urban and rural settlements. According to the NPPF and NPPG guidelines, allowing for a "hybrid" growth strategy, as regularly recommended by our clients, will assist prevent market saturation and improve settlement vitality.

We believe that greater levels of small to medium sized growth such as that at Green End, Kempston, 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 sustainability of locations well-related to the urban area, as the Council recognises, and in particular the determination that our client's land interests are suitable, available and achievable to support expansion that would provide contributions to sustainable development as favourably assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (including new green infrastructure).

The Council's suggestion to adopt a stepped trajectory is a response to prior planning mistakes 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.

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.

It is evident that there is a lack of a meaningful evaluation and reasoning at paragraph 9.14 of the April 2022 Sustainability Appraisal report relating to the stepped trajectory, the assessment of non-stepped options and without any recognition of the dis-benefits of deferring meeting housing need. This aspect of the Sustainability Appraisal is severely confined in its content and has blank space where evidence to support the approach would be anticipated.

A revised Deliverability Assessment produced on behalf of our client challenges the Council's ability to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing throughout multiple 5-year intervals of the overall plan period is submitted alongside these representations. If computed in accordance with national policy, as is demonstrated in the accompanying Assessment, we do not consider that the Council will be able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites upon adoption. We also assume that the Council will remain in its current status from 2025 to 2030 and 2030 to 2035. This is directly related to the Council's trajectory and its extreme overdependence on strategic size awards, which are known to produce results at a far slower rate than small and medium scale growth.

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

Object

Representation ID: 10436

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments 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.

These comments should be read in conjunction with our clients Regulation 18 representations (Representation ID: 8572 / Site ID: 1247) which are appended to a Site-Specific Representation and which provides detailed comments on the proposed strategy and specific details relating to our client’s land interests. In addition to the Site Specific Representations Report, which contains an updated Site Analysis Document showing how the site could deliver up to 120 dwellings, these representations should be read alongside the supporting Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Report.

The Site Analysis Document and Regulation 18 representations detail how the site could deliver the green infrastructure priorities set out in adopted (and proposed saved) policies AD24 and 36S. It is within the context of a site capable of delivering meaningful residential development in the Kempston Rural area, that these representations are made.

In theory, it is positive that the Council's Preferred Option includes development at the urban edge within Kempston Rural Parish, which also forms part of the ‘transport corridor’ south parishes within the selected strategy.

It is particularly encouraging to see this location recognised as being sustainably located to existing services and facilities. This is thought to illustrate the seamless connections between the parish's growth pattern—particularly at Green End—and the services and amenities found in the urban area. The sustainability of this location is presumed to be acknowledged when the Council specifies a number of 1,500 for sustainable locations adjacent to the urban area without mentioning any settlement- or site-specific distribution within the policy.
Aligned to identified concerns in respect of the stepped trajectory and approach to site assessments, set out in further Regulation 19 representations, we consider it necessary that the Council, through a Main Modification, recognise the benefits associated with our client’s land at Green End, and the ability of the site to contribute to delivering the housing requirement in the early part of the Plan period. Accordingly, we propose a modification set out below.

It is also pertinent to note in respect of the site assessment process that there appears to be considerable inconsistencies in the way sites within the same component of the spatial strategy have been tested from the very first assessment in the SHLAA. This is true of the way in which the proposed allocation at Gibraltar Corner (636) and our client’s land at Green End (1247) have been considered in the SHLAA, despite the fact that they are adjacent to each other, as demonstrated on in the appended Site Analysis Document.

In particular we refer to the fact that against three scoring criteria, namely 5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities, 11a. At risk of flooding and 15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school, the Green End site scores better than the Gibraltar corridor site, with the scores for all other categories the same for both. It is therefore surprising to see that the Green End site did not progress for further assessment on the basis of conflict with the preferred spatial strategy alone, whilst no such outcome was referenced in respect of Gibraltar Corner.

Accordingly, we consider that the site assessment process has failed to apply a consistent approach and in line with our outlined concerns in respect of the SA, we object to the policy as drafted. Modifications to recognise our clients land, which performs better than the Gibraltar Corner site, are necessary to ensure that the Plan and proposed approach to site selection adjacent the urban edge is capable of being found sound.

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