Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission

Object

Representation ID: 10473

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Property / iSec

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.

Bedfordia has engaged at all previous consultation stages undertaken as part of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040. This representation relates to Land at Marsh Lane/Rushden Road, Milton Ernest (Site ID: 910) and should be read alongside the accompanying Spatial Strategy and Legal Compliance Representation Report (Appendix 1) and Opportunities and Constraints Diagram (Appendix 2) appended with this Form.

These objections relate to land partly allocated within the Milton Ernest NDP and the remainder of which presents opportunities to contribute towards additional needs for development. Within the context of our client’s overarching objections regarding soundness and legal compliance the failure of the Local Plan 2040 to provide a housing requirement figure for the designated neighbourhood area at Milton Ernest, or to consider needs beyond 2030, has precluded further assessment of this option.

The Plan attempts to limit expansion in rural areas to the completion of existing allocations in Key Service Centres and more limited residential development at Rural Service Centres (including Oakley) as defined in Local Plan 2030.

This is despite the fact that the growth distribution of the Local Plan 2030 was produced under the previous NPPF2012 and only runs through 2030. The Council has essentially eliminated growth tied to villages as a component of its chosen strategy by offering an either/or choice between expansion in the A421 and the identified rail-based development corridor or alternatively as part of village-related growth across the settlement hierarchy.
Policy DS2(S) is intended to replace Policy 3S of the Local Plan 2030 and provides for a far more limited scope for development to achieve defined goals and objectives for sustainable development in the rural area (and specifically at Milton Ernest) than is provided for under the existing spatial strategy or required as part of an appropriate strategy for the Local Plan 2040.

This is not consistent with NPPF2021 paragraphs 20, 66 and 79 nor PPG IDs ID: 41-101-20190509 and 3-018-20190722.

The Council has not modified the procedure used to assess reasonable alternatives and the distribution of growth in this part of the settlement hierarchy from that used to determine the spatial strategy within the adopted Local Plan 2030. This is notwithstanding the criteria stated in Policy 1 of the Local Plan 2030 (requiring an immediate review), subsequent changes to national policy and guidance or the fact that the Local Plan 2030 deferred the allocation of sites to Neighbourhood Plans that in the case of Milton Ernest have sought to support growth to 2030 only at the lower end of an identified range.

This should be considered within the context of the Examiner’s Report for the made Neighbourhood Plan (and subsequent Modifications to the Plan) recognising the requirement for review of the NDP within five years from adoption and expressly requiring recognition of the Review of the Local Plan 2030 (para 4.10). Specifically, regarding our client’s interests and the proposed extension of the site boundary (including provision of additional open space) (para 4.33) the Examiner recognised this is a matter that could be considered as part of planning applications for the site. However, in terms of the site assessment and plan-making process these are evidently matters that should be considered within the context of the Local Plan Review where there are opportunities to complement the existing direction of growth.

It is relevant to note that our client’s land, as with all other options for village-related growth, has been rejected as part of the SHELAA and SA processes despite the land having been part-allocated within the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan. Notwithstanding this, it is also noted that the Council’s assessment of SA indicators for the site fail to recognise its opportunity to provide new open space (7a) and that the allocation in the site itself will provide appropriate landscape mitigation (8a). There is also the opportunity to enhance social cohesion through the provision of allotments. It is only the process of plan-making for the Local Plan 2040 that can reasonably consider the current circumstances of the land and its scope to support further sustainable allocations for growth and this simply has not been carried out within the evidence base.

To achieve the objectives of the emerging Local Plan 2040 we consider it necessary to support further village-related growth, including at Milton Ernest where this is capable of being accommodated within the context of the existing spatial strategy.

Therefore, as draft we consider that Policy DS2(S) is unsound as it is not Positively
Prepared, Justified, Effective or Consistent with National Policy.