Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Comment

Representation ID: 10529

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DS5 (Distribution of Growth) sets out where housing and employment growth will be located, which is as follows:
(extract of table in Policy DS5)
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: 10530

Received: 26/07/2022

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: 10531

Received: 26/07/2022

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: 10532

Received: 26/07/2022

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.

Object

Representation ID: 10533

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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).

Comment

Representation ID: 10534

Received: 26/07/2022

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.