Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 9943

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Paragraphs 1.23 to 1.28 provide further information in terms of the proposed East West Rail (EWR) and how the delivery of this national project has a bearing on the Plan and its success. It is being introduced in three stages, which are as follows:
• Stage One – Oxford to Bletchley / Milton Keynes
• Stage Two – will extend that service to Bedford
• Stage Three – will connect Oxford all the way to Cambridge
Paragraph 1.5 states that the track between Oxford and Bicester is already complete, and the next part from Bicester to Bletchley is underway. The section to Bedford involves refurbishing existing lines and is expected to follow on from Stage One. The last stage is advised to be more challenging because it involves the construction of a completely new stretch of track from Bedford north towards Sandy / St Neots and Cambourne, then on to Cambridge. No detailed route alignment has however been chosen. Paragraph 1.26 states that the full route is expected to be operational by 2030.
It is our understanding that plans for Stages 2 and 3 are still being developed, with no funding yet to be received for these stages1. Whilst it may be the case that this is quite common with a lot of infrastructure projects of this nature, it does suggest that there are still a large number of unknowns associated with the EWR.
Paragraph 1.29 refers to another significant infrastructure project as being the upgrade of the road route between the Black Cat Roundabout (A421 / A1 junction) and the Caxton Gibbet roundabout on the A428. Similarly, there are still some unknowns in this respect, with the Secretary of State still yet to issue a decision / grant a Development Consent Order2. The deadline for the Secretary of State to make a decision is the 18th of August 2022.
Based on the above, it is considered that significant infrastructure projects should not be over relied upon within the Plan in the event of any delays in delivery, funding etc., with some growth concentrated within areas that are already in sustainable locations, that are already well served by alternative transport links.

Support

Representation ID: 9944

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS1 (Resource and Climate Change) provides a number of requirements for development, in order to support a move to carbon neutrality and (a) minimise carbon emissions (b) maximise carbon storage and sequestration and (c) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change (d) respond to the economic and policy changes that are likely to accompany climate change (e) provide a Sustainability and Energy Statement demonstrating how mitigating and adapting to climate change has been considered.
The wording of the policy and the move towards carbon neutrality is supported by IM Land, who are committed to creating a sustainable future and have a proactive Environmental, Social Governance programme to deliver a range of benefits to communities. The proposed development at Rushden Road, Wymington will support Bedford Borough’s target for carbon neutrality and comply with draft policy DS1 by way of the following:
• In accordance with criteria A) i. and D) i. of the draft policy, key local amenities are located within walking distance of the Site, which will minimise the need to travel by private vehicle. There are bus stops on Rushden Road, approximately 400m from the Site, which provide services to Bedford and Kettering. Wellingborough railway station is approximately 6.2 miles away (a 16-minute drive or 34 minute cycle) and this offers regular services to Corby via Kettering and London St Pancras via Bedford and Luton airport;
• With regards to A) iii. the proposals will retain and enhance the public rights of way on site for pedestrian and cycle usage. New routes are also proposed which will enhance the sustainable connections through the Site and provide improved accessibility to local facilities and the surrounding countryside;
• In terms of A) v. and vi., the homes at Rushden Road will be constructed to meet the full Future Homes Standard and will therefore produce 75% less carbon emissions than homes delivered under current regulations. This means homes will be heated and powered by renewable heat provided by a heat pump and use renewable electricity powered by roof mounted solar PV cells. Homes will also be designed to specify sustainable materials, considering the whole life cycle of materials to reduce the embodied carbon of development;
• In relation to B) ii. and C) ii. the proposed development will retain and enhance existing hedgerows and planting across the Site and along the Site boundaries;
• With regards to C) i. the development is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has a low risk of flooding from the river or sea, making it suitable for development. Sustainable Drainage Systems will be used throughout the development to provide amenity and biodiversity improvements;
• In relation to C) iii. areas of formal and informal public open space are proposed. The existing allotments will also be retained and potentially expanded which promote social interaction;
• Criteria C) iv. refers to delivering an environmental net gain. The Site is presently arable land and of relatively low ecological value and therefore a 10% net gain on site is achievable;
• In accordance with C) v. new homes will achieve a water consumption rate of 110 l/p/d by incorporating water efficiency measures. All homes with gardens will be provided with water butts to capture rainwater for re-use.

Comment

Representation ID: 9945

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS2 (Spatial Strategy) sets out a spatial strategy for the local plan and the areas where new development will be directed. It states that development will be focused within the urban area of Bedford, and at specified strategic locations adjacent to the urban area and at growth locations within the A421 / East West Rail corridor. In seeking to meet the need over the Plan period for 27,100 homes, the spatial strategy depends on the delivery of significant development at Kempston Hardwick and a new settlement at Little Barford. Taken together, these locations are expected to deliver 7,200 homes over the final 10 years of the plan.
Whilst we do not object to the proposed allocations in principle, it is considered that the expected rates of delivery on the sites is too optimistic. In order to be considered ‘sound’ a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery should be provided, in accordance with paragraph 73 (d) of the NPPF. If the housing trajectory was revised to be in line with available evidence on average annual build out rates for large schemes [3 For example, the Lichfield’s report ‘Start to Finish’ (February 2020)], the Council will inevitably need to identify additional sites in order to ensure the housing needs of the Borough are met in full.
In identifying additional sites, it is considered that a greater proportion of housing should be directed to smaller sites in urban areas other than Bedford to secure more proportionate balanced growth, such as the Site at Rushden Road, which is located within the Bedford Borough but adjacent to the southern boundary of Rushden (located within North Northamptonshire Council). As demonstrated within the accompanying vision document, the Site is suitable, available and deliverable.
The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-31 (adopted July 2016) recognises Rushden as a Growth Town (the highest tier of settlements) and defines its ‘spatial role’ as “to provide the focus for major co-ordinated regeneration and growth in employment, housing, retail and higher order facilities serving one or more districts”.
Furthermore, the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the 29th of March 2021. The Hearing Sessions concluded on Thursday 5th of May 2022. Within the Part 2 Plan, Rushden is identified as a growth town, which will provide the majority of new housing and employment development during the plan period, through a new sustainable urban extension. This includes at least 2,500 dwellings and associated jobs and facilities. This is considered to demonstrate the suitability of Rushden as a location for new development. On this basis, we consider that the Site would align with the Plan’s vision for greener, more accessible, and more prosperous Borough.
Whilst it is acknowledged that ongoing or future infrastructure improvements e.g. Black Cat Junction improvements and the East West Rail section through the Borough are due to be completed later in the plan period, and this may inform the overall growth strategy and trajectory, there also needs to be consideration of smaller, sustainable sites (without extensive infrastructure requirements) that can come forward earlier in the plan period and take pressure off the delivery of a high number of sites and homes between 2030 and 2040 (especially those reliant on the delivery of infrastructure). The wording within the subtext to the policy which states that “the Council will monitor the provision and delivery of infrastructure and, if necessary, bring forward a review of the local plan” is supported.
Notwithstanding the above, the Viability Assessment that has been published as part of the Council’s evidence base to the BBLP40 highlights the challenges of achieving viability in complex urban areas such as Bedford, particularly where schemes may involve a degree of recycling existing buildings (paragraph 6.4). As such, the allocation of greenfield sites in other urban locations such as the Site at Rushden Road will ensure development comes forward in compliance with the Council’s policy requirements e.g. relating to affordable housing, whilst providing holistic / inclusive growth throughout the entire Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 9946

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS3 (Amount and Timing of Housing Growth) states that a provision of 27,100 new dwellings will be stepped as follows:
[table in local plan policy DS3(S) inserted]
In order to support the policy, a stepped trajectory topic paper has been published as part of the Council’s evidence base, which seeks to illustrate why a stepped trajectory is justified. The paper states that the BBLP2040 requires a stepped trajectory as a result of the Standard method, which requires a 40% increase in the Borough’s housing delivery rate, when compared to the Local Plan 2030. The local plan strategy of an urban focus with rail-based growth is also set out as a factor, as it necessitates the delivery of large strategic sites with longer lead in times.
Whilst these factors are acknowledged, the principle of a stepped housing trajectory is not accepted. The Council should be ensuring that the housing needs are met at a consistent rate throughout the plan rather than deferring until later in the plan period, particularly when the resultant impact will be delivery later in the plan period of a scale which has not been achieved in the Borough in the recent past.
We agree that larger sites take significant lengths of time before development commences and optimum rates of housing delivery are achieved. The PPG provides further information on when a stepped housing requirement may be appropriate for plan-making (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722). Whilst it acknowledges the reasons set out within the background paper, it states that stepped requirements will still need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period, in order to avoid delays in meeting identified development needs.
Due to the uncertainties which surround the delivery of the major infrastructure on which the large strategic sites depend and given the viability challenges highlighted on some of the allocated ‘urban’ sites, the Local Plan should allocate sufficient smaller non-strategic sized sites in locations other than Bedford urban area to complement larger sites and to ensure HLS in the early to mid-term. In order for the strategy to be ‘sound’, the Council should consider sustainable sites (without extensive infrastructure requirements) that can come forward earlier in the plan period and take pressure off the delivery of a high number of sites and homes between 2030 and 2040 (especially those reliant on the delivery of infrastructure or a high level of enabling works that still have uncertainties and may be subject to delay). The Council recognises that meeting an increased minimum requirement of housing (compared to the adopted Local Plan 2030) will bring with it considerable challenges, and therefore must ensure that they also bring forward suitable and sustainable sites with less reliance on large scale infrastructure projects which are less likely to come froward within the timescale envisaged.

Comment

Representation ID: 9947

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS5 (Distribution of Growth) sets out where housing and employment growth will be located, which is as follows:
[table from policy DS5(S) inserted]
As set out in further detail above, it is considered that in order to be ‘sound’, further housing growth should be directed to already accessible locations in urban areas other than Bedford, in order to ensure the needs of the Borough are met.
Paragraph 69 of the NPPF states that medium sized sites such as Land at Rushden Road can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, as they are often built out relatively quickly. The Site at Rushden Road would not rely upon the delivery of any major infrastructure in order to be considered a sustainable / suitable location for new development. The Site therefore provides the Council with the opportunity to deliver growth in accordance with the needs of Bedford relatively early on in the Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 9948

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM1 (Affordable Housing) requires sites of 10 or more residential properties or 0.5 hectares or more to provide 30% affordable housing with 75% of the dwellings as social or affordable rented properties and the remainder (25%) as First Homes at a 50% discount. Affordable rents will be 80% of open market rents but a lower percentage should be set where this would preclude access to housing benefit. The draft Policy is supported by the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) Addendum (April 2022) and Viability Assessment.
In relation to First Homes, PPG states that they are discounted market sale units which “a) must be discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value” and should account for at least 25% of all affordable housing units delivered by developers through planning obligations (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 70-001-20210524). As such, draft policy DM11 currently goes beyond national requirements in terms of the discount of 50% against the market value. In this regard, PPG states that the First Homes Written Ministerial Statement does give local authorities the discretion to require a higher minimum discount of either 40% or 50%, if they can demonstrate a need for this (our emphasis added). In order to demonstrate need, local planning authorities should undertake a housing need assessment to take into account the need for a range of housing types and tenures, including affordable housing tenures. The assessment will enable an evidence-based planning judgement to be made about the need for a higher minimum discount level in the area, and how it can meet the needs of different demographic and social groups.
As part of the evidence base to the BBLP2040, a Local Housing Needs Assessment has been published. This includes an analysis of the impact of introducing a 40% and 50% discount on First Homes as a percentage of affordable housing; and goes on to examine a further potential strategy for meeting the Government requirement for First Homes. The LHNA and draft policy requirements are supported by the viability assessment.
In relation to viability, the Council should ensure that all of the anticipated development costs associated with all the draft Policies of the BBLP40 have been fully taken into account, in line with the NPPF, paragraph 34. This will ensure that the delivery of affordable housing is not undermined. Whilst the Viability Assessment appears to reflect these considerations, it is noted that not all schemes will be viable at any given level of affordable housing, particularly in complex urban areas such as Bedford where schemes may involve a degree of recycling of existing buildings. As such, the wording of the policy should be revised in order to allow for site and scheme specific flexibility (in accordance with NPPF, paragraph 58) where the requirements of the policy wouldn’t be viable.
In addition to the above, and in order to accord with national planning policy guidance relating to First Homes, we consider it essential that the policy is expanded, in order to allow developers to sell a First Home on the open market and remove the title restriction, as long as certain conditions are met (e.g. that the home is marketed for at least 6 months in total and that all reasonable steps have been taken to sell the property) (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 70-011-20210524). This will ensure that plots are not left vacant in perpetuity.

Comment

Representation ID: 9949

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM3 (Housing Mix) states that new housing developments will be expected to provide a mix of dwelling size and types to meet the identified needs of the community. The Council has produced a Local Housing Needs Assessment (April 2022 update) as part of the evidence for the policy, and refers to other current assessments of housing need including the Older Person’s Accommodation Strategy, the Learning Disabilities Accommodation Strategy, the Mental Health Accommodation Strategy (or their successor Strategies) and evidence in respect of the needs of other specialist groups.
It requires all developments of 100 dwellings or more in suitable locations, to “include specialist housing designed to meet the needs of those with a learning disability or mental health need in accordance with the Council’s most up to date statement of need:
(i) On sites of 3 or more dwellings 47% of all new residential development should meet Category 2 (Accessible and Adaptable dwellings) of approved Document M; Volume 1, and on sites of 20 or more dwellings a minimum of 4% of all market housing and 6% of affordable housing should meet Category 3 requirements,
(ii) All specialist housing for older people should meet Category 3 requirements”.
IM Land supports the principle of addressing the specific local housing needs of Bedford, and creating safe, accessible environments that promote inclusion and community cohesion.
In terms of ensuring that the policy is ‘sound’, footnote 49 of the NPPF sets out that planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, where this would address an identified need (our emphasis added).
The PPG provides further clarification in terms of the necessary evidence to justify policies in relation to accessibility optional technical standards and makes reference to detailed information on the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock and the size, how needs vary across different housing tenures and the location, type and quality of dwellings needed (Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 56-007-20150327). Within the LHNA, an assessment of the need for accessible and adaptable dwellings is provided. However, details relating to the location, type and quality of dwellings needed should be incorporated into the Council’s supporting evidence to ensure that an appropriate evidence base is available to support any proposed policy requirements.
Whilst the LHNA and other current assessments of housing need provide a useful steer in relation to current / future demand, we consider that in order to be ‘sound’, the wording of the policy should be amended to allow for a flexible approach to the tenure requirements on a site-by-site basis e.g. to take into account specific factors which may make a site less suitable for accessible dwellings (PPG, Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) as well as viability assessments where relevant (Paragraph 58 of the NPPF).

Comment

Representation ID: 9950

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM5 (Self-Build and Custom-Build Housing) requires applications for new housing development to include plots for self-build and custom house builders, based on the overall number of net- additional dwellings proposed as below:
• 1-4 dwellings = no requirement
• 5-9 dwellings = 1 plot
• 10-29 dwellings = 2 plots
• 30-49 dwellings = 3 plots
• 50-69 dwellings = 5 plots
• 70-89 dwellings = 6 plots
• 90-100 dwellings = 7 plots
• 100+ dwellings = by negotiation
Draft Policy DM5 requires that for sites of 50 or more dwellings:
• “Plots will be marketed solely to individuals and associations on Part 1 of the Council’s Register in the first instance for an initial period of two months (minimum) from the commencement of the site being marketed. Following the initial marketing period, the offer of any unreserved plots will be extended to those on Part 2 of the Council’s Register and any new registrants to Part 1 having joined during the initial period. If the developer can provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Council that suitable purchasers from the Register have not been forthcoming within 6 months (minimum) of commencement of marketing the plots, they may be offered for unrestricted market sale to self-build and custom homebuilders including industry sector specialist companies,
• Any plots not reserved within a further 6 months (minimum) will be released from this specific policy requirement, following a total of 12 months of marketing.”
A self-build and custom housebuilding topic paper has been published as part of the evidence base to the BBLP 2040, which seeks to explain the background information about local demand for self-build and custom housebuilding, and therefore the reasoning for the policy. It sets out that whilst the self-build and custom housebuilding policy in the draft Local Plan 2030 was removed because the local plan Inspectors were concerned about the robustness of the Council’s register information on which it was based, a considerable amount of work has been done to ensure better quality local information is available for the BBLP 2040.
The rationale for such a policy is now considered to be the Council’s Self-build and Custom housebuilding Register (which is divided into two parts), and evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrating the level of demand for self-build and custom housebuilding plots in the Borough. In terms of the register, this has been split so that part 1 denotes a defined local connection, whilst part 2 are those eligible at the national level. As of October 2021, there were 90 individuals on the register, 46 with a local connection on part 1 and 44 on part 2. This has reduced considerably since March 2021, when there were 178 applicants were on the register, of whom 47 were on part 1 and the remaining 131 of part 2.
In addition, the evidence prepared by Opinion Research Services (April 2021) demonstrates that Bedford Borough Council is currently providing sufficient single dwelling plots to comply with its requirement to meet the needs of those on Part 1 of its own self-build and custom housebuilding register. This has been achieved without any designated policy requirement and is also based purely on the number of planning applications that were granted planning permission for developments of a single dwelling in the Borough. The report therefore considers that it is likely that at least some properties on sites with more than one dwelling will also fall within the definition of being self-build and custom housebuilding and as such a greater number of plots will realistically have been provided.
Based on the above, it is unclear why specific requirements are included within the draft policy, and why these are so high. There is not a necessity within National policy to include self and custom build thresholds, with the PPG (Paragraph 025 Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) setting out a number of ways in which Local Authorities can support self and custom build. As such the currently proposed BBLP40 approach is unnecessary in the context of the tests of soundness set out within paragraph 35 of the NPPF which require plans to be consistent with national policy.
In addition, the evidence provided indicates that a draft Policy which continues to encourage self-build and custom build developments, where appropriate (in line with the NPPF paragraph 62) would be sufficient. We would welcome a policy which allows consideration of the level of demand for self-build and custom housing and a requirement for a proportionate level of self-build and custom plots at the time a planning application is submitted.
Whilst we welcome a clause in the Section 106 Agreement, for the release of a plot from the requirement of Policy DM5 after a period of marketing, we consider a 12-month minimum marketing period to be unreasonable and unjustified. It is also considered that the wording of the policy should be revised in order to specify that the requirements will not apply to flatted developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 9951

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM6 (Residential Space Standards) requires all new dwellings to conform to the nationally described space standards as a minimum. Footnote 49 of the NPPF states that policies may make use of the nationally described space standard, where the need for an internal space standard can be justified (our emphasis). The NPPG identifies that evidence should consist of need, viability and timing, in order to demonstrate that such standards are appropriate for the local area and would not for example have a detrimental impact on meeting demand for starter homes or on the affordability of properties (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 56-020-20150327).
However, the only justification provided for this requirement appears to be that these standards have recently become mandatory for all new dwellings developed under permitted development rights. As such, the requirements of the draft policy are not considered to be adequately evidenced and therefore justified in this instance, having regard to the PPG criteria for optional technical standards.
In order to be considered ‘sound’, the Council should provide relevant and up to date evidence which is proportionate and focused tightly on supporting the policy concerned (Paragraph 31 of the NPPF).

Support

Representation ID: 9952

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM7 (Environmental Net Gain) requires proposals for major development to secure a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain.
IM Land support the inclusion of the draft policy, which is considered to be consistent with National Policy (paragraph 174 (d) of the NPPF) which requires net gains for biodiversity to be provided, and the emerging Environment Act. It is also noted that the requirement within draft policy has been evidenced as being viable within the supporting Viability Assessment (April 2022), which demonstrates that it would not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan overall.
A desk-based review of the Site has been carried out and suggests that the majority of the habitat comprises arable field, which is likely to be of relatively low ecological value. As such, a 10% net biodiversity gain is achievable.