LUTON LOCAL PLAN (2011-31) Pre Submission Version Consultation Response - Summary

ANNEX 6 - LUTON LOCAL PLAN (2011-31) Pre Submission Version Consultation Response - Summary

Date: 22 March 2016

Contents

Page

Introduction 5

Statistical summary of the response to the consultation 6

Section-by-section breakdown of the response………………………………………………………………….. 10

• Duty to Co-operate ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 • Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background………………………………………………………………. 18 • Chapter 2 - Setting the Scene…………………………………………………………………………………. 22 • Chapter 3 - Vision & Objectives………………………………………………………………………………. 26 • Chapter 4 - Spatial Development Strategy: 34 o Policy LP1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development……………….. 34 o Policy LP2 – Spatial Development Strategy………………………………………………… 38 o Policy LP3 – Luton Town Centre Strategy…………………………………………………… 56 o Policy LP4 – Green Belt………………………………………………………………………………. 61 o Policy LP5 – Land south of Stockwood Park……………………………………………….. 66 o Policy LP6 – London Luton Airport……………………………………………………………… 75 o Policy LP7 – Butterfield Green Technology Park…………………………………………. 84 o Policy LP8 – Napier Park…………………………………………………………………………….. 92 o Policy LP9 – Power Court…………………………………………………………………………… 95 o Policy LP10 – High Town……………………………………………………………………………. 101 o Policy LP11 – Creative Quarter…………………………………………………………………… 104 o Policy LP12 – Marsh Farm………………………………………………………………………….. 107 • Chapter 5 - Growing Luton’s Economy including Policy LP 13 - Economic Strategy & 110 Policy LP 14 - Employment Areas ………………………………………………………………………….. • Chapter 6 – Housing……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 121

• Policy LP 15 - Housing Provision …………………………………………………………………………….. 125 • Policy LP 16 - Affordable Housing ………………………………………………………………………….. 132 • Policy LP 17 - Houses in Multiple Occupation ………………………………………………………… 138 • Policy LP 17A - Student Accommodation ……………………………………………………………….. 139 • Policy LP 18 - Older People's Housing ……………………………………………………………………. 140 • Policy LP 19 - Extensions to Dwellings and Annexes ………………………………………………. 142 • Policy LP 20 - Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople …………………………………… 143 • Chapter 7 - Luton’s Town Centre & District & Neighbourhood Centres…………………. 147 • Policy LP 21 - Centre Hierarchy ……………………………………………………………………………… 149 • Policy LP 22 - Primary and Secondary Shopping Areas and Frontages …………………… 152 • Policy LP 23 - District & Neighbourhood Areas & Shopping Parades …………………….. 154 • Chapter 8 - Education & other Community Facilities & Policy LP 24 - Education and Other Community Facilities……………………………………………………………………………………. 155 • Chapter 9 - High Quality Design……………………………………………………………………………… 159 • Policy LP 25 - High Quality Design ………………………………………………………………………….. 159 • Policy LP 26 - Advertisements and Signage…………………………………………………………….. 164 • Chapter 10 (part) - Natural and Historic Environment……………………………………………. 165 • Policy LP 27 - Open Space and Natural Greenspace ………………………………………………. 170 • Policy LP 28 - Biodiversity and Nature Conservation ……………………………………………… 172 • Policy LP 29 - Landscape & Geological Conservation ……………………………………………… 174 • Policy LP 30 - Historic Environment ………………………………………………………………………. 176 • Chapter 11 (part) – Transport…………………………………………………………………………………. 181 • Policy LP 31 - Sustainable Transport Strategy & Policy LP 32 - Parking………………….. 184 • Policy LP 33 - Freight & Policy LP 34 - Public Safety Zones …………………………………… 193 • Policy LP 35 - Communications Infrastructure ………………………………………………………. 194 • Policy LP 36 - Flood Risk…………………………………………………………………………………………. 195 • Policy LP 37 Climate Change, Carbon and Waste Reduction and Sustainable Energy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 198 • Policy LP 38 - Pollution and Contamination ……………………………………………………………. 206 • Chapter 12 - Infrastructure Delivery & Policy LP 39 - Infrastructure and Developer 209 Contributions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. • Appendix 1 – Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………………. 212

• Appendix 2 – Parking & Cycling Standards………………………………………………………………. 215 • Appendix 3 – Employment Sites – Cats A & B…………………………………………………………. 217 • Appendix 4 – Housing Allocations…………………………………………………………………………… 218 • Appendix 5 – Housing Trajectory……………………………………………………………………………. 221 • Appendix 6 – Space Standards………………………………………………………………………………… 222 • Appendix 7 – Transport Assessments & Travel Plans………………………………………………. 223 • Appendix 8 - Monitoring Framework…………………………………………………………………….. 224 • Appendix 9 – Replaced Local Plan Policies………………………………………………………………. 225 • Appendix 10 – Replaced Minerals & Waste Policies……………………………………………….. 226 • Appendix 11 – Technical Evidence Studies……………………………………………………………… 227 • Appendix 12 – Greenspace Standards…………………………………………………………………….. 228 • Appendix 13 – Luton’s Green Infrastructure Network…………………………………………….. 230

Sustainability Appraisal …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 231

Introduction

This report provides the following:

• A summary of the responses received on the Pre-submission version of the Luton Local Plan (2011-31). • A summary of the Council’s response to the representations. • Consideration of all the suggested changes to the plan suggested by representors.

While every effort has been made to provide an accurate summary it is important to stress that full copies of all the representations have been published on the online system known as OBJECTIVE which can be directly accessed by using this URL: http://consult.luton.gov.uk/portal/lbc/environmentandplanning/policy/llp2031/

The format of the main section of this document is structured as follows:

(i) A brief statistical summary of a particular section of the response, starting with the Duty to Co-operate and then ordered in the same sequence as the published local plan. Each of the statistical summaries relating to each section of the plan have been combined to provide an overall table immediately following this introduction. (ii) A summary of the main issues raised by representors. (iii) A brief response to the points made by Luton Borough Council. (iv) A table listing and coming to a view on each of the specific changes that representors have suggested. Where the Council agrees that a change should be made these will be extracted from this document to form a separate document listing all the Minor Modifications the Council proposes to agree prior to submission.

Overall, some 470 representations were made to the consultation by 81 representors. The Council wishes to express its appreciation to all the representors for their time and effort in helping produce the Luton Local Plan.

Luton Local Plan (2011-31) – Statistical Summary of Response

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant? Sound? Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 1 - Introduction and 23 1 24 1 1 23 6 3 7 1 Background Chapter 2 - Setting the Scene 17 17 1 17 2 3 2 10

Chapter 3 - Vision & Objectives 21 4 25 4 21 2 4 10 4

Chapter 4 - Spatial ------Development Strategy: Policy LP1 – Presumption in 7 2 9 2 1 2 7 2 2 5 3 favour of sustainable development Policy LP2 – Spatial 73 3 76 8 8 4 68 33 18 33 23 Development Strategy Policy LP3 – Luton Town Centre 14 3 17 1 2 11 5 5 4 7 5 Strategy Policy LP4 – Green Belt 12 1 13 1 1 1 12 2 6 3 5

Policy LP5 – Land south of 18 18 1 3 18 12 8 15 12 Stockwood Park Policy LP6 – London Luton 11 5 16 2 5 11 4 3 7 3 Airport Policy LP7 – Butterfield Green 12 1 13 3 2 1 12 6 4 5 5 Technology Park Policy LP8 – Napier Park 4 4 2 4 3 2 1 2

Policy LP9 – Power Court 3 3 6 1 3 3 2 1 1 1

Policy LP10 – High Town 4 4 1 4 1 2 1

Policy LP11 – Creative Quarter 5 5 1 5 2 1

Policy LP12 – Marsh Farm 3 1 4 1 2 1 3

Chapter 6 – Housing 11 1 12 2 1 10 2 4 6 2

Policy LP15 - Housing Provision 14 2 16 3 1 2 14 6 9 5 8

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant? Sound? Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP 16 - Affordable 11 2 13 4 1 2 11 5 5 3 5 Housing Policy LP 17 - Houses in 1 1 1 1 Multiple Occupation Policy LP 17A - Student ------Accommodation Policy LP 18 - Older People's 1 1 1 1 Housing Policy LP 19 - Extensions to Dwellings and Annexes Policy LP 20 - Gypsies, Travellers 17 15 1 10 17 12 11 8 10 & Travelling Showpeople Chapter 7 - Luton’s Town 2 1 3 1 2 1 Centre & District & Neighbourhood Centres Policy LP 21 - Centre Hierarchy 4 1 5 2 1 1 4 3 4 2 4

Policy LP 22 - Primary and 2 2 1 1 1 1 Secondary Shopping Areas and Frontages Policy LP 23 - District & ------Neighbourhood Areas & Shopping Parades Chapter 8 - Education & other 3 3 3 2 Community Facilities Policy LP 24 - Education and 4 2 6 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 Other Community Facilities Chapter 9 - High Quality Design 9 2 11 4 1 2 9 4 4 6 6 including Policy LP 25 - High Quality Design Policy LP 26 - Advertisements 1 1 1 and Signage Chapter 10 - Natural 12 5 17 1 5 12 1 2 1 Environment & Historic Environment Policy LP 27 - Open Space and 5 5 6 1 1 5 1 2 3 1 Natural Greenspace Policy LP 28 - Biodiversity and 5 5 2 3 Nature Conservation

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant? Sound? Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP 29 - Landscape & 5 1 5 2 1 Geological Conservation Policy LP 30 - Historic 4 4 2 4 3 Environment Chapter 11 (part) – Transport 9 2 11 2 1 11 2 4 9 2

Policy LP 31 - Sustainable 10 3 13 1 1 3 10 1 3 6 2 Transport Strategy & Policy LP 32 - Parking Policy LP 33 - Freight & Policy ------LP 34 - Public Safety Zones

Policy LP 35 - Communications 0 1 1 1 1 Infrastructure Policy LP 36 - Flood Risk 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

Policy LP 37 Climate change, 6 1 7 1 1 6 3 4 3 4 carbon and waste reduction and sustainable 1 energy Policy LP 38 - Pollution and 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 Contamination Chapter 12 - Infrastructure 4 4 4 1 1 2 Delivery and Monitoring Policy LP 39 - Infrastructure and 2 1 3 1 2 2 Developer Contributions Appendix 1 – Glossary 1 1 1 1

Appendix 2 – Parking & Cycling 1 1 Standards Appendix 3 – Employment Sites ------– Cats A & B Appendix 4 – Housing 6 6 6 3 1 3 1 Allocations Appendix 5 – Housing 1 1 1 1 1 Trajectory Appendix 6 – Space Standards 1 1 1 1

Appendix 7 – Transport ------Assessments & Travel Plans

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant? Sound? Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 8 - Monitoring ------Framework Appendix 9 – Replaced Local ------Plan Policies Appendix 10 – Replaced ------Minerals & Waste Policies Appendix 11 – Technical ------Evidence Studies Appendix 12 – Greenspace 2 2 2 1 1 1 Standards Appendix 13 – Luton Green ------Infrastructure Network Sustainability Appraisal N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NB: The entries in this table are indicative and intended as a guide.

DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations mentioning the Duty to Co- operate Meets Fails Total Duty to Co-operate c40 c70 c110

Introduction

• There are around 110 representations that refer to the Duty to Co-operate (DtC). Around 40 of these comments suggest the plan complies with the DtC whereas the remainder claim the local plan fail to meet the duty. Of the representations suggesting the plan fails the duty in excess of 40% are recorded from a single representor, Central Bedfordshire Council.

• Around 50 representors consider compliance with the DtC as part of their representations. Of these Representors some 40% consider the plan complies with the duty. Of those representors suggesting the duty is not met around one quarter have made a response on issues relating to Gypsies and Travellers.

• Neighbouring local authorities that consider the local plan fails the duty are; Aylesbury Vale District Council, Central Bedfordshire Council, Buckinghamshire County Council and one section of Hertfordshire County Council. Those local authorities that consider the DtC has been met include; Bedford Borough Council and a different section of Hertfordshire County Council. Ongoing liaison under the DtC will be seeking to address the outstanding matters insofar as this proves to be practicable. Neighbouring Councils that have not raised matters under the DtC are Dacorum Borough Council, North Hertfordshire District Council and St Albans City & District Council.

• The remainder of this section considers the main issues raised by representors in the responses.

Summary of the main issues raised by Representors who suggest the Local Plan does not meet the Duty to Co-operate

Lack of evidence relating to the Duty to Co-operate

• The Council have not published sufficient material for interested parties to scrutinise how the Duty to Co-operate is being discharged. The only record relating to the obligation is set out in paragraph 1.7 of the local plan and the references in the 2012 Annual Monitoring Report. The Inspector for the Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy concluded that Central Bedfordshire Council had failed to meet the DtC. If Central Bedfordshire Council

failed in its Duty, then the corollary is that LBC has also failed to meet the DtC (Home Builders Federation, 792154 ), (Mr Nick Baker, 955851),(Gladman Developments Limited, 856720),(Sundon Parish Council, 933122,),(Arnold White Estates Limited, 955824),(South East Milton Keynes Consortium, 956717),(Legal & General Investment Management, 955851).

The Proposed Joint Growth Options Study

• There is no effective strategy that will provide for Luton’s housing shortfall (Home Builders Federation, 792154),(Gladman Developments Limited, 856720).

• Luton's decision to publish the Local Plan is pragmatic and based on the limited supply of land available but there are competing uses for that land. There is no suitably agreed and expressed strategy for the wider HMA to identify where growth can most appropriately be located based on the latest SHMA (2015). Based on Central Bedfordshire Council's experience, consideration and resolution of these matters is likely to be critical to progression of the Local Plan. Although the DtC is not a duty to agree, realignment of LBC's programme is necessary to work constructively on strategic matters (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The Inspector’s conclusions in relation to the withdrawn Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire set out an expectation that through the Duty to Co-operate there needs to be a mechanism to demonstrate where Luton’s unmet need will be delivered. Whilst good progress is being made in agreeing the content of the study and the required outcomes, the brief for this study is yet to be agreed and finalised (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The Plan suggests that a Growth Options Study should be jointly prepared to examine locations for housing .The principle of a joint study is supported but only if it comes to a conclusion before local plans are submitted. Checkley Wood could be a Garden Village north of Leighton Linslade - a mixed development including housing (some 4,500 homes). This would serve Luton’s unmet housing needs being in close proximity and well connected when the A5 - M1 link opens (Arnold White Estates Ltd, 955824).

• Aylesbury Vale District Council has provided no indication of the potential requirement to provide for Luton's unmet needs despite progress on the Luton Local Plan, and LBC has not fully explored these links (East Crest Nicholson, 956529).

• The unmet housing need issue has not been adequately addressed prior to the publication of the pre-submission local plan and the preparation of AVDC’s Local Plan is therefore impaired. Preparation of the Luton Local Plan should cease until the co-operative working in relation to Luton’s unmet need has been carried out satisfactorily and there are conclusions which secure the evidence needed to support the approach to meeting housing need within the wider HMA (Aylesbury Vale District Council, 954792).

Green Belt

• Buckinghamshire County Council expects further work under the DtC and cannot see any justification for not undertaking a Phase 2 GB review at this stage, due to the scale of unmet need. The Plan's reference for the need to prepare a Growth Options Study is noted and Buckinghamshire County Council expects to be consulted as part of this (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

Strategic Locations

• Strategic locations for development expressed through adopted development briefs and draft allocations such as land north of Luton should be set out in evidence, including their ability to meet cross-boundary needs and provide essential road linkages. There are no ‘areas of search’ identified on the Policies Map and Key Diagram. There is little recognition in the plan, aside from the reference to the strategic examination of growth options, of each of the possible directions for cross-boundary growth. Consideration of these cross-boundary matters appears deferred until some point in the future. If Luton is to be economically competitive addressing the housing shortfall is of critical importance. The Plan seemingly makes no provision to accommodate outward growth (North Luton Consortium, 956709).

• Central Bedfordshire Council’s decision to withdraw their Development Strategy and hence not progress the North of Luton Strategic Site through to the planning stage clearly identifies that no agreement in principle has been reached (Barton-le-Clay Parish Council, 955510).

The Objective Assessment of Housing Needs

• The Objective Assessment of housing need carried out by ORS is considered to underestimate the level of housing provision required. With Luton and Central Bedfordshire planning on the basis of lower migration the question arises as to how the people affected will be catered for? (Home Builders Federation, 792154),(Gladman Developments Limited, 856720).

• It would be helpful to learn of the content of the co-operation with the Mayor of London. It is unclear how the plan responds to the challenges posed by London’s housing shortfall not least given the proximity and good quality rail links to London. No local authority – including Luton and Central Bedfordshire - in the wider south east has made provision for these migrant households (Home Builders Federation, 792154),(Claydon Land Development, 497297), (Templeview Developments Ltd, 662818).

• Paragraph 2.46 of the Housing Market Assessment Refresh (ORS, 2014) suggests that Luton’s Housing Market Area extends beyond the Luton local authority area and incorporates “part of Central Bedfordshire”. The representor suggests their own analysis shows that Luton forms part of a much wider HMA, known as the Milton Keynes HMA, which includes Aylesbury Vale, Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes. There are a number of potential locations and districts with whom Luton should be engaging in order to make provision for their unmet housing need (Claydon Land Developments Ltd, 497297),(Templeview Developments Ltd, 662818).

• Luton’s local plan ‘underprovides’ for affordable housing thus placing even greater pressure on housing sites to the north of the town within Central Bedfordshire Strategic sites cannot support the levels of affordable housing implied by the above calculation (North Luton Consortium, 956709).

The Level of Housing Provision Proposed

• The capacity for housing growth in Luton is underestimated and the methodology to determine this has not been agreed. This means it has not been objectively assessed nor all reasonable alternatives considered. It also means there is a higher housing shortfall which is an unreasonable burden on neighbouring authorities (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222),(CPRE, 956529).

• The levels of housing and employment growth proposed in the local plan are out of sync (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

Transport Infrastructure

• There has been a lack of cross-boundary co-ordination by Central Bedfordshire Council on the provision of transport policy and infrastructure on the proposed development to the north of Luton in particular regarding access for southern Central Bedfordshire Parishes to Luton via Sundon Park Road (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

• Local Plan has failed to properly discharge requirements on potential cross-boundary strategic transport matters specifically in respect of Hertfordshire County Council (Hertfordshire County Council, 856637).

• The new Local Plan needs to strengthen its position on identifying strategic infrastructure requirements which cross administrative boundaries into Buckinghamshire. Future growth scenarios need to take into account strategic infrastructure improvements which may include the new route proposals for the A418 from Aylesbury to north of Wing which aims to secure journey time reliability and the A5-M1 link road scheme which aims to reduce congestion in Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis conurbation. As highlighted in the pre-submission plan, it will be important to ensure that such improvements are well coordinated to support anticipated population growth (Buckinghamshire County Council , 932834).

• The impact of Luton Airport’s expansion is also key when considering transport connectivity on highway routes between administrative areas. As a strategic allocation, the expansion creates an opportunity for Buckinghamshire to be part of the airports sub-regional economy and the potential economic improvements it will generate. Well maintained transport links will be essential in this case, including improvements to Luton and Luton airport via public transport (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

Other Infrastructure

• LBC has not approached Central Bedfordshire Council on a number of non housing-related topic areas including employment, retail, transport and infrastructure. The Local Plan is insular and has failed to look at all alternatives across the wider conurbation. The further work required should be

achieved through LBC pausing its own timetable and completing new evidence (including the Growth Options Study) in-line with the resetting of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s local plan timescale timetable (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• In terms of educational infrastructure, the plan highlights that additional capacity is needed for the equivalent of a 900 place Secondary School and 500 place primary school over the next 5 years and further high school places over the plan period in central and southern Luton. As further discussions take place and more evidence is available on how educational infrastructure would be achieved, particularly where unmet housing is included within Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire County Council requests that its education department is consulted as part of these discussions (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

Gypsies and Travellers

• In relation to Gypsies and Travellers there are many alternative sites in Luton that could be considered throughout the town. This would distribute the responsibility for traveller site provision among a far larger population making it much easier to integrate and provide services with easier access. There is also no evidence of a collaborative approach to meeting the requirements in collaboration with neighbouring councils (various representors).

Other Matters

• While the DtC is a sound and wise requirement it is actually a sham since Central Government and all the Local Authorities involved are driven by the same ‘growth at any cost’ agenda (Mr David Logan, 879188).

Summary of the main issues raised by Representors who suggest the Local Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate

• Most of the representors who indicate that in their view the Luton Local Plan meets the Duty to Co-operate have not specified their reasons for so doing. The following paragraphs summarise the specific comments that have been made.

• The Development Services policy team of Hertfordshire County Council have examined the Luton Local Plan on behalf of the County Council as landowner and on behalf of County Council services namely; Children’s Services, Health and Community Services, Youth, Fire and Rescue Services, Gypsy Section and also on behalf of the Waste Disposal Authority. After carefully considering your plan, the County Council has no comments to make. It is acknowledged that the housing need in the Luton Housing Market Area is far greater than that which can be accommodated within Luton itself and that you are working with adjoining authorities (including two in Hertfordshire) under the DtC in order to ensure these housing needs are met (Hertfordshire County Council, 932766).

• The Office and Rail and Road have responded to indicate that the plan does not affect the current or future operation of the mainline network in Great Britain (The Office and Rail and Road, 780358).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Lack of evidence relating to the Duty to Co-operate – The Council acknowledges the representations indicating that at the time of the consultation on the Pre-Submission version of the Local Plan there was little information in the public domain relating to ongoing liaison on the DtC. This gap will be met at the submission stage through the publication of the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report and, most importantly, the Duty to Co-operate Statement. The latter document contains a vast amount of material on the pro-active stance taken by the Council in relation to the duty. This pro-active stance was necessary since Luton is an urban authority with a tightly drawn administrative boundary and unable to fully accommodate its rapidly growing population.

• The Proposed Joint Growth Options Study - In seeking to deal with Luton’s housing shortfall a major Joint Growth Options Study is proposed. It is intended that should examine options looking into the scale and distribution of the housing shortfall and following agreement amongst the commissioning authorities that the results should be incorporated in local plans. So as not to undermine or delay the adoption of local plans it is proposed that, where appropriate, the implications can be taken forward through the review of local plans as long as sufficient safeguards are built into plans to enable this contingency arrangement to work. LBC has been using ongoing discussions under the DtC not only to both ensure that the Joint Growth Options Study is commissioned but also that emerging local plans include the necessary wording to ensure that reviews take place, should they be required. LBC does not accept that its local plan should be delayed until the Joint Growth Options Study is complete since to do so would almost certainly result in the Council failing to meet the Government’s target for the preparation of local plans.

• Green Belt – LBC’s position is that as a consequence of the scale of growth requirements it is inevitable there will be implications for the Green Belt. The Council carried out a review of the small amount of Green Belt falling inside its administrative area. This review concluded that at present no changes should be made to Green Belt coverage. Notwithstanding this conclusion LBC recognises that, as part of the Joint Growth Options Study, there will be a need to further examine the implications for Green Belt within Luton, but in conjunction with adjacent areas covered by Green Belt designation across the administrative boundary. This process should enable all reasonable options to be comprehensively assessed in a way that a review within a single Council’s area is incapable of achieving.

• Strategic Locations – The Luton Local Plan by definition covers the administrative area of Luton. The strategic growth locations that are emerging are covered by the local plans of neighbouring authorities. The Council accept that additional reference to the emerging proposals in the adjoining areas could be usefully made and proposes to do this by indicating the proposals on the Key Diagram.

• The Objective Assessment of Housing Needs – In relation to the level of housing needs within the Housing Market Area it should be noted that this is based on evidence jointly commissioned by LBC and Central Bedfordshire Council. It is respectfully suggested that the responses raise technical matters that relate to the soundness of the plan rather than the DtC. It should be noted that the Mayor of London has not responded to consultation on the Pre Submission Local Plan. On the definition of the Housing Market Area it should be noted that this results from the technical study included in the evidence base (HOU 003d - Housing Market Areas in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas, November 2015) a report jointly commissioned under the DtC by Central Bedfordshire Council, Bedford Borough Council, Luton Borough Council, Milton Keynes Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, Stevenage Borough Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council.

• The Level of Housing Provision Proposed – The level of housing provision within Luton is based on a realistic assessment of anticipated housing capacity within the Borough. The information underpinning this includes the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and work on viability. LBC anticipates that the availability of more up-to-date information on the land development pipeline in advance of the public examination through an update to the SHLAA to an April 1 2016 base date (not least to include data on office to residential conversions) may enable some adjustment to the level of housing proposed. It is important to stress, however, that the scale of any increase in relation to the overall housing requirement is likely to be relatively small. Detailed evidence on this matter will be available elsewhere. The relationship of the number of homes vs jobs is also dealt with elsewhere but it is important to point out that Luton, as an important sub-regional employment centre with its major international airport and an important hub for manufacturing, will inevitably continue to show a discrepancy between the two figures.

• Transport Infrastructure – As regards transport infrastructure there are continuing discussions with Highways England and other Highways Authorities to ensure that the appropriate modelling and mitigation works are carried out. Notwithstanding this point it is important to stress that meeting the objectively assessed development requirements, and provision of the necessary infrastructure across the housing market area, is a joint responsibility of all the local authorities affected. LBC will continue to play its full part in these discussions but it fails to see, for example, why it should be seen as being responsible for undertaking modelling work for land outside its boundary when this clearly is the responsibility of the authority for that territory.

• Other Infrastructure – in relation to non-transport infrastructure LBC is confident, following discussions held under the DtC that all these matters are either resolved, or will be so after ongoing liaison over specific developments are completed.

• Gypsies and Travellers – Discussions with neighbouring authorities have all concluded that Luton should deal with matters relating to Gypsies and Travellers within its own administrative area. The identification of a site or sites within Luton is not a matter for the DtC.

• Other Matters – No need to comment.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Key Diagram North of Luton Consortium Amendment to the Key Diagram to Key Diagram Key Diagram amended to show key Yes, in part – minor PS286 show emerging strategic proposals proposed urban extensions to the north clarification to show close the administrative boundary. and east of Luton plus key highway links. relationship to committed The changes will be indicative only major development and will direct readers to the relevant proposals emerging and local plan. potential future directions of growth in close proximity to Luton’s administrative boundary.

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 1 – Introduction and 23 1 24 1 1 23 6 3 7 1 Background

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Representations from Friends of the Earth have extensively listed issues related to Chapter 1. These express the opinion that cross-boundary issues in the context of broader positive social and environmental outcomes such as combating climate change and promoting green infrastructure having been overlooked, also referred to by another respondent (Mr David Logan). Friends of the Earth believe that green infrastructure and walking and cycling routes should be given priority. The respondent supports the completion of a Sustainability Appraisal and viability assessment as a means of illustrating the unsustainability of the current plan and looks at environmental costs. As a result of this Chapter 1 is not considered positively prepared or effective in regard to national planning policy (Friends of the Earth, 54044), (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• Various respondents identify Paragraphs 1.24 and 1.25 as not being effective without having a greater regard for the value and economic contribution made by the environment as an added reason to support its protection; and that providing and protecting a healthy natural environment should be given equal importance to focusing on the outcomes of new development (Environment Agency, 312797), (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Other respondents (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum) note that whilst neighbouring authorities have not signed up to joint Green Belt study to date, comments at Paragraph 1.18 are welcome and recognise the importance of cross-boundary planning on leisure, including green infrastructure, wildlife corridors and walking and cycling routes into and out of the Borough and consider this approach to be sound (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222),(Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

• One respondent feels that healthy lifestyles are not addressed in a holistic manner across this section, consistent with the loss green spaces. Decisions permitting substandard architecture particularly student flats are considered to be detracting from the remaining pieces of Victorian and Edwardian architecture. Therefore, the plan is not considered effective. (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• The Plan is considered overly long by some respondents and not positively prepared as a result (e.g. Colin Chatwin, 828261).

• A respondent believes that a claim from the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP) to support building an additional 70,600 houses and creation of 94,700 new jobs across the sub-region is exaggerated, however additional need to travel and associated traffic congestion are going to be considerable and need to be addressed. The issue of flood risk is also mentioned, and potentially impacting on the M1. The respondent considers greater regard has been has to particular stakeholders e.g. SEMLEP compared to other environmental interests. Therefore the plan is not considered to be justified or effective (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• Arnold White Estates consider that the Plan Period should extend to 2032, as they believe there is little likelihood of the Plan being adopted prior to 2017. This is not considered positively prepared or consistent with national policy (Arnold White Estates, 955824).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

The responses identify, expand and confirm a number of important issues affecting the town which are set out in this section and carried forward in identifying the subsequent Objectives, Vision and Policies within the Plan as a whole. The Council considers that the responses emphasise the importance of putting into place an up-to-date Local Plan for the area as soon as possible in order to provide greater guidance and control over decision-making, which a number of respondents feel has been lacking.

Representors have highlighted the competing demands that must be satisfied in order to achieve net gains across all three domains of sustainable development and comply with national guidance. It is important to emphasise the significant economic role and potential of the town as a major urban area, which is reflected in the approach of the plan towards employment land and job creation and recently further reinforced by the proposed designation of the Luton Airport Enterprise Zone. In terms of the level of housing need identified in the plan, the Council is satisfied that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2015) fully complies with national guidance to identify full objectively assessed housing needs and that identifying this requirement is an essential part of preparing a sound plan.

Representors are also reminded that the Sustainability Appraisal process complements and provides essential support to preparation of the Local Plan. This explores a number of issues highlighted by respondents, such as nature conservation and community cohesion and assesses the significant effects of the strategy being pursued against other reasonable alternatives to confirm that the most appropriate approach has been taken.

Luton Borough Council remains committed to having a new Local Plan in place by 2016 and it is therefore not considered necessary to revise the Plan Period 2011-2031.

Responses under the Duty to Co-operate will be addressed separately; however the Council confirms that updates to the Annual Monitoring Report, along with a full series of Topic Papers, will be prepared to support the Submission and Examination of the Local Plan.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Paragraph 1.1 Arnold White Estates The plan period(s) should extend to N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The Pre-Submission PS184 2032 not 2031 to increase the period proposed Plan proposed a realistic for housing supply being planned for. timetable to adoption in Late 2016 as set out on page 2.

Paragraph 1.18 Friends of the Earth Planning green infrastructure N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The proposed is not PS112 and walking and cycling routes should proposed considered appropriate to be given priority, consistent with the this section, which sets out Rights of Way Plan and regardless of the co-operation on other housing. key matters such as green infrastructure will take place alongside discussion over housing, which are all priorities to achieve sustainable development Paragraph 1.20 Friends of the EarthPS113 The respondent considers that the 1.20 The Sustainable Community Strategy 1.20 The Sustainable Community Strategy Yes – Agree minor change text should be updated to reflect the was prepared by the Luton Forum (Luton's was prepared by the Luton Forum for clarity; although this is past nature of work to prepare the Local Strategic Partnership) its members are (Luton's Local Strategic Partnership) its not considered to detract Sustainable Community Strategy, and drawn from the public, business, community members are were drawn from the from the important work that the Luton Assembly which and voluntary sectors across Luton.” public, business, community and undertaken to set valid previously represented the voluntary voluntary sectors across Luton.” objectives for the Plan. sector has lost its funding Paragraph 1.24 Environment Agency Should also refer to the N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The representors’ PS150 and value/economic contribution of the proposed points are considered to be Bedfordshire Local Nature natural environment, hence the need addressed within the plan Partnership to protect and enhance it. as a whole, as part of the PS215 overall outcomes of sustainable development

and specific support for green infrastructure and biodiversity conservation and enhancement.

Paragraph 1.25 Friends of the Earth The approach should be strengthened N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – It is considered that PS118 to prioritise the protection and proposed the introduction provides planting of trees and retention of sufficient detail on the gardens in every project and reduce environmental domain of walking distance to green spaces. sustainable development, which are applied through individual sections and policies as appropriate.

Paragraph 1.25 Environment Agency Include the need to provide healthy N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The representors’ PS151 and natural environment to proposed points are considered to be Bedfordshire Local Nature promote/support healthy lifestyles addressed within the plan Partnership as a whole, as part of the PS216 overall outcomes of sustainable development and specific support for green infrastructure and biodiversity conservation and enhancement.

Paragraph 1.34 Friends of the Earth Use a viability assessment to show N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The consideration of PS 119 that demands for housing are proposed significant effects arising unrealistic and undeliverable and from the strategy, broadly would have adverse impacts on the as sought by the community. Have regard to the representor, is provided adverse effects on health, wellbeing, through the Sustainability environment (including climate, Appraisal. wildlife & habitat, water resources, pollution), employment, schooling or needs of existing or future residents.

CHAPTER 2 – SETTING THE SCENE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 2 – Setting the Scene 17 17 1 17 2 3 10 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Miss Helena Cotter has commented on the effectiveness of paragraph 2.6 that development in Luton is short sighted, lacklustre, unimaginative, dull and boring. No thought whatsoever regarding the environment. Solar panels, greenery and well-constructed buildings of high quality continue to elude this town, as do quality retail and eating establishments. Destruction of front gardens is prolific in the town. Measures should be put in place to halt this decline. Floodwater absorption loss, destruction of mature trees and hedges and lawns which provided sanctuary for wildlife – all gone. Luton has 25% too little greenery for a town the size it currently is (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership has commented that paragraph 2.6 identifies “insufficient open space of recreational value”. They suggest this should be a driver for committing to address/resolve through provision of high quality natural environment /greenspace in all new development, designed in at an early stage of proposals. Likewise paragraph 2.17 refers to an “unequal distribution of greenspace”, reinforcing this point (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Flitton and Greenfield Parish Council are seeking to establish their own Neighbourhood Plan and are fearful of the implications of the housing shortfall. They consider the approach in the plan is unjustified since there is a contradiction between paragraph 2.8 which seems to be saying there is insufficient greenfield land and that brownfield land cannot be developed because development market values are low. In contrast Section 2.9 highlights the potential for sustainable economic growth. Luton is allocating significant land to further the economic development of the town but to the detriment of its housing supply. We strongly oppose this position (Flitton and Greenfield Parish Council, 955504).

• Miss Helena Cotter has made a representation on the effectiveness of paragraph 2.9 covering various aspects such as cycling, the availability of green space, tree planting, the unattractive urban environment and problems arising from traffic congestion (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• CPRE object to paragraph 2.12 which concerns the development of the strategic allocation comprising London Luton Airport, Century Park and Wigmore Valley Park. They consider this is not justified and is business led, and conflicts with paragraph 1.25 which aims to “support and promote development to be designed, constructed and managed in ways that improve health and promote healthy lifestyles”. To build on Wigmore Valley Park, one of Luton’s few green spaces where local people from cramped estates can walk in green, semi-natural surroundings, connect with nature and breathe reasonably fresh air, is totally unacceptable. It would also conflict with Policy LP1B. Century Park is a wide expanse of rolling green fields, edged by woodland and other habitat, behind the airport, popular with local residents and dog-walkers, and should not be sacrificed to airport activities, when there is plenty of spare capacity on the existing airport site. It could also compete with town centre office space. It should never have been included in the plan as a site for industry (CPRE, 54044).

• In relation to paragraph 2.14 Mr David Logan questions its effectiveness as he considers the quality and range of shops within The Mall shopping centre has diminished over recent years and that the quality of the environment in George Street and that increasing traffic congestion users are likely to seek alternative options (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• Mr David Logan refers to paragraph 2.15 having a lack of East-West connectivity which is absolutely true. However, this fact was first identified in 1926 and since then Central Government and Local Authorities have repeatedly ducked this issue and the opportunity for creating any East-West route that would not have a major impact upon the Chiltern Hills’ sense of place has also long gone (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• On paragraph 2.17 Miss Helena Cotter has commented this is not effective since Luton is full. There is simply no more space to develop. The town centre looks hideous with all the tower blocks of student flats. Building on green belt – the lungs of the area is undesirable. Brownfield sites, of which there are plenty in Luton should be developed first. Our Parks are fantastic. Let’s hope they are protected from development. Mr David Logan has also commented on this paragraph questioning LBC’s approach to implementation (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183),(Mr David Logan, 879188).

• On paragraph 2.20 CPRE have responded to indicate that with online shopping and many town centre outlets struggling, to “expand the town centre into Power Court” would be an unwise and not effective. Power Court is the best place for the football stadium to relocate, enabling fans to walk easily from the station instead of clogging up the roads trying to access land beside junction 10A, which is within the airport public safety zone. Fans don’t want to travel to J10A. If it cannot go to Power Court, the stadium should stay where it is (CPRE, 54044).

• In relation to paragraph 2.20 Central Bedfordfordshire welcomes the recognition of the need for a cross boundary approach to green infrastructure provision but have suggested the plan is neither legally compliant nor sound as does not consider that it applies a spatial approach to the Green Infrastructure Plan through policies in the “Natural and Historic Environment” Section or policies relating to enhancement or protection. Notwithstanding the criticism no specific changes are identified (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• On paragraph 2.26 Mr David Logan considers that local authorities have sought to accommodate unsustainable growth of uncontrolled inward migration in the 1991 to 2011 period and are now seeking to accommodate even greater amounts of uncontrolled inward migration in the 2011 to 2031 period. There is a lack of evidence to confirm that the necessary supporting infrastructure can be dealt with (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• In relation to paragraph 2.28 the Environment Agency and the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership have welcomed the reference to need to protect and enhance wildlife but would be more effective if the paragraph referred to habitats and wider natural environment (Environment Agency, 312797) (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Paragraph 2.28 refers to the need to protect Luton Town’s green spaces and green infrastructure. These are fine words but Mr David Logan considers they are not effective unless and until credible actions are taken by LBC, NHDC and CBC which then result in credible and measurable outcomes which deliver that protection (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• Also in relation to paragraph 2.28 Miss Helena Cotter considers that Luton must be one of the only towns in the country where the river has been buried. This needs to be addressed (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• Mr Colin Chatwin commented, although not in relation to any specific paragraph(s), that there also must be a number of key issues for Luton; migrant influx, housing, hospital care as surely the population will outgrow the Luton and Dunstable and also traffic and Luton Town FC relocation. Could these issues not be brought out separately and commented on for the plan to be positively prepared (Mr Colin Chatwin, 828261)?

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The ‘Setting the Scene/ section of the plan clearly introduces many diverse issues that are then picked up in greater depth in subsequent sections of the plan. It is not surprising that the range of observations made by representors are equally diverse in their range. In most cases, however, the comments

tend to be rather general in nature and do not lead to the identification of specific changes that might be made to the text of this section. LBC considers that taken as whole the section presents a reasonable introductory commentary and proposes no changes be made in response to the comments.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Paragraph 2.6 Miss Helena Cotter Destruction of front gardens is prolific Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested No, the representor’s views PS187 in the town. Measures should be put the Representor by the Representor are not shared by the in place to halt this decline. Borough Council.

Paragraph 2.12 CPRE Removal of Century Park as an Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested Not agreed, Century Park is PS122 employment site. the Representor by the Representor integral to the London Luton Airport strategic allocation.

Paragraph 2.20 CPRE Relocate Luton Town Football Club to Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested Not agreed, the Council’s PS122 Power Court, or failing that retain the the Representor by the Representor policy is to relocate the existing stadium. football stadium to J10A.

Paragraph 2.28 Environment Agency Para 2.28 should also refer to habitats 2.28 The town's green spaces and green Detailed wording change not suggested No – it is considered that PS152 and wider natural environment. infrastructure network including the River by the Representors habitats and the wider Bedfordshire Local Nature Lea and other open areas need to be natural environment are Partnership protected and enhanced for wildlife and already captured by the PS218 accessibility for formal and informal existing wording of the recreation which bring important benefits in paragraph. terms of health and wellbeing. In particular access to greenspace networks which link up with cross boundary provision, will be encouraged.

CHAPTER 3 – VISION AND OBJECTIVES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Chapter 3 – Vision and 21 4 26 - - 4 21 2 4 10 4 Objectives

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Comments in relation to the Vision and Strategic Objectives of the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan highlight the competing pressures that the strategy must balance to achieve net gains across the social, economic and environmental strands of sustainable development. • The Home Builders Federation identifies that the Vision for the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan as a whole is not justified which in-turn has negative implications for a number of the individual Strategic Objectives. This relates to the issue of an unmet need of at least 11,100 households with no solution identified to deliver these. The respondent considers that this will undermine economic prosperity (Paragraph 3.4) and housing choice (Paragraph 3.6). An appropriate level of housing would not be provided in-line with Strategic Objective 3 and Strategic Objective 6 is jeopardised by unmet affordable housing need and greater economic hardship (Home Builders Federation, 792154). • Abbey Land and Developments indicate that land in their control, situated immediately to the West of Luton but in the administrative area for Central Bedfordshire Council, provides an appropriate location for development to meet unmet housing needs arising within Luton (up to 5,500 dwellings) and around 3,500 jobs associated with the potential Strategic Allocation. The Council’s support for this location is welcomed and acknowledged (at Paragraph 4.8 of the Spatial Strategy) but it is considered that it is paramount to achieving sustainable development for the town and should therefore be reflected as part of the Vision and Objectives in order for the Plan to be considered sound (Abbey Land and Developments, 856534). • Fenton Property Management highlights that Strategic Objective 3 is not justified without greater reference to NPPF Paragraph 50 and the need to support the housing needs of all groups such as students and elderly populations (Fenton Property Management ID: 955816).

• Mr David Logan alternatively considers that the housing requirements identified is exaggerated by high levels of in-migration (Mr David Logan, 879188). • Many of the Strategic Objectives are supported in principle but various representors highlight that they consider their relevance and achievability to be undermined by the proposals put forward in the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan and support for further development in the adjoining Districts of Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire (various respondents). • Friends of the Earth highlight that support for London Luton Airport’s sustainable growth over the plan period should be removed from Strategic Objective 1 (relating to economic growth and opportunity). Further expansion is not sustainable, as it would have a disproportionate and exponential impact in terms of air pollution and vehicle movements (added to the already above-average car usage in Luton). The support for further expansion is not considered justified (Friends of the Earth, 54044) • J2 Global and the Augur Group have highlighted that Paragraph 3.5 of the Vision is not justified, positively prepared or consistent with national policy as it fails to recognise the strategic contribution that land at Napier Park can make towards both residential and employment provision (J2 Global, 957878),(Augur Group Ltd, 956519). • Some representors highlight issues of effectiveness, justification and consistency with national policy in relation to Strategic Objective 2 (promoting an efficient use of economic, social and environmental resources within the limited physical land capacity in the Borough and whilst ensuring the permanence of the Green Belt). These representors highlight that this objective is undermined and contradicted by the existing planning commitment for development land North of Houghton Regis and the Pre-Submission Plan’s support for further development North of Luton. Resultant impacts are identified on the villages of Sundon and Streatley north of Luton and locations such as Great Bramingham Park and existing green spaces which connect communities north of Luton with the countryside beyond (Friends of the Earth, 54044),( Miss Helena Cotter, 663183),( Mr David Logan, 879188),(Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733). • There is a suggestion that the Freight Terminal proposed at the Sundon RFI cannot be supported if provided in association with additional housing and extended road-links between the M1 and A6. Support may be offered based on the potential to reduce road freight if the Sundon RFI proposals provided, in isolation, new links to M1 Junction 11A without any major road to the A6 (Friends of the Earth, 54044). • The essence of Strategic Objective SO5 (and the supporting text at Paragraph 3.8) is broadly supported but representors do not consider that this is reflected in recent decisions on planning applications and that support for development on the edge of the Borough (and on adjoining sites such as land North of Luton) which negatively affect the town’s Chilterns gap setting. This is associated with further negative effects on Heritage assets (such as recently approved development near to Drays Ditches SAM) and ecological assets including SSSIs. Further development such as expansion of the London Luton Airport will take-up additional land negatively affecting the landscape, setting and character of the town (Miss Helen Cotter, 663183), (Mr David Logan, 879188). Other respondents consider that the historic character of the area is generally well-recognised as part of the overall vision (Historic England, 169722). 27

• Some representors question the effectiveness of Strategic Objective 8 (to improve accessibility and connectivity) due to existing deficiencies within the road network including congestion in the town centre and flow of traffic in relation to the airport. Further development proposals for 2011- 2031 (including those on adjoining land in Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire Districts) are considered unsustainable and if implemented, will render Luton an unviable centre for employment, business, shopping and emergency response in the future (Mr David Logan, 879188),(Miss Helena Cotter, 663183). • Mr David Logan also queries Strategic Objective 4 (an effective network of centres) on the basis of existing traffic congestion in relation to education and town centre uses and the impact of further proposed development (including on adjacent land in Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire Districts) on these locations (Mr David Logan, 879188). • One representor considers that it is inappropriate to focus the Vision in relation to the town centre disproportionately on a ‘flagship’ site identified as Power Court when there is a need and potential to improve the quality and sense of place across the Town Centre as a whole (Project Management Company Luton BID, 955840). • The effectiveness of Strategic Objective 9 (delivery of a new football stadium) is questioned in terms of its effectiveness as the proposed location at M1 J10A is considered to be dependent on the private car and affect junction capacity as well as having negative impacts upon the AONB, AGLV, County Wildlife Site and the setting of Stockwood Park. Beyond the consideration of the safe operation of London Luton Airport, the location is unsustainable. The ‘Southern Gateway’ development is not needed and office development should be directed towards the town centre (Friends of the Earth, 54044). • There is some general support for Strategic Objective 10 (improve, protect and enhance the biodiversity of natural areas) but the representor highlights that many of the proposed allocations are within the vicinity and setting of the Chilterns AONB or other designated sites and many recent developments provide limited open space mitigation or enhancement. Further major development beyond the Luton Borough Boundary is highlighted as also negatively affecting this objective. It is suggested that the scope of the objective is broadened to include reference to the River Lea “corridor” and have regard to SSSI, CWS and District Wildlife Site Designations. Further consideration of the major development proposals is required, incorporating a master planning approach and full and appropriate consultation with key agencies and organisations (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

No issues with Legal Compliance have been raised on this section.

Comments in relation to the Vision and Strategic Objectives of the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan highlight the competing pressures that the strategy must balance to achieve net gains across the social, economic and environmental strands of sustainable development. Various representors have expressed their support for certain elements of the approach in the Plan whilst highlighting concerns in other areas. It is also noted that the Vision and Objectives set out at the early stage of the plan are necessarily broad. Whilst they may not necessarily indicate the level of detail sought by respondents at this stage they are sufficiently focused to support subsequent policies in the plan, which provide greater detail on specific sites or protections. The approach taken across the Plan as a whole is considered to be consistent with national policy in terms of seeking to meet a broad range of strategic priorities and looking to ensure net gains across all three domains of sustainable development (NPPF Paragraph 152). The emerging Local Plan sits alongside and supports a number of other initiatives that reinforce support for key outcomes and specific sites, such as the recent designation of the Luton Airport Enterprise Zone, which reinforces the need and purposes of a number of the key objectives. Respondents are also reminded that some of the issues referred to are in relation to specific sites which either already have planning consent or which are located outside the administrative area of Luton Borough covered by the Plan (but nonetheless may already comprise existing commitments, such as expansion North of Houghton Regis and the A5-M1 Link Road). In the context of sites where the planning permission is in place, it is considered that the decision-making process has been able to demonstrate the acceptable outcomes will be achieved. The Council would also wish to reassure residents that it will continue to work co-operatively with neighbours to identify the most appropriate sites and to ensure that acceptable outcomes will be achieved on all subsequent decisions.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Paragraph 3.5 Augur Group It is considered that the supporting Paragraph 3.5: N/A – No detailed wording proposed. Yes, in part but it is (and paragraph PS357 text in Paragraph 3.5 does not Respondent seeks to add recognition of considered this is best 3.6) and J2 Global accurately reflect the range of uses London Luton Airport will be improved employment and housing capacity. dealt with through a PS246 that may come forward at the Napier to provide more jobs related to aviation clarification to paragraph Park Strategic Allocation. The industries and other associated business LBC comment: 3.6 rather than paragraph respondents indicate that the Vision clusters and maintain London Luton 3.5 as suggested by the should recognise a strategic Airport's key role as a sub-regional Paragraph 3.5 refers to economic Representor. contribution to employment and economic driver bringing wealth and job proposals but suggest that this point can housing provision. creation (including high skilled jobs) to the be better addressed through a minor town and neighbouring local authorities. clarification to paragraph 3.6, as follows The completion of Butterfield Technology 29

Park will support more job opportunities in 3.6 High quality housing and high technology industries. Across Luton, a neighbourhoods will be delivered in the mix of high quality and low cost business Borough and in neighbouring authority accommodation will support a range of jobs areas to ensure there is a sufficient supply suitable for the skills of local and of appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes neighbouring residents with Power Court and tenures to offer local residents choice and Napier Park making a strategic of where to live. This includes mixed uses contribution leading to an increase in on certain strategic allocations such as employment. The creative and cultural Napier Park. industries will grow, stimulated by the presence of a modernised University of Bedfordshire, the historic and distinctive Creative Quarter and High Town.

3.6 High quality housing and neighbourhoods will be delivered in the Borough and in neighbouring authority areas to ensure there is a sufficient supply of appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to offer local residents choice of where to live.

Paragraph 3.6 Abbey Land and An amendment is proposed to reflect Para 3.6: Para 3.6: No – It is considered that Developments the importance that the Council High quality housing and High quality housing and the Council’s position and PS393 places on development to the west of neighbourhoods will be delivered in the neighbourhoods will be delivered in the policy is accurately Luton to the future growth of the Borough and in neighbouring authority Borough and in neighbouring authority reflected at Paragraph 4.8 town, consistent with the statement areas to ensure there is a sufficient supply areas. Land to the west of Luton should whilst the proposed at Paragraph 4.8 of the Pre- of appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes be the main focus for growth of the changes may prejudice the Submission Plan and tenures to offer local residents choice Town as a sustainable urban extension of outcome of any detailed of where to live. Luton comprising of market and assessment of the site to affordable homes, new local be considered as part of a employment opportunities, schools, future Growth Options retail and social and community facilities. Study. Discussions with Central Bedfordshire will be held through the Duty to Cooperate as part of the preparation of the new Central Bedfordshire Local Plan that is at the early stages of preparation. Development to the west of Luton has been a long-standing policy of this Council and will to ensure there is a sufficient supply of appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to offer local residents choice 30

of where to live.

Paragraph 3.9 Project Management It is considered that the reference to N/A – No detailed word changing proposed N/A – No detailed word changing No – It is considered that Company Luton BID the Town Centre should be proposed improvement across the PS90 broadened beyond the ‘flagship’ site Town Centre will be at Power Court and that the secured through objectives should more widely reflect application of the plan as a the need to improve the Town Centre whole and is reflected in environment SO4.

SO1 Friends of the Earth It is suggested that the objectives Strategic Objective 1: Retain and enhance Strategic Objective 1: Retain and enhance No – It is considered that PS115 should be strengthened to emphasise Luton’s important sub-regional role as a Luton’s important sub-regional role as a the objective is of the protection of Green Belt land and place for economic growth and opportunity place for economic growth and significant importance to delete objectives which are including the safeguarding of London Luton opportunity including the safeguarding of delivering net gains across considered to promote unsustainable Airport’s existing operations and to support London Luton Airport’s existing the outcomes for travel patterns and use of greenfield the airport’s sustainable growth over the operations and to support the airport’s sustainable development land (especially expansion of the Plan period based on its strategic sustainable growth over the Plan period (in-particular economic airport and provision of a new importance. based on its strategic importance. development) and that stadium) acceptability in social and environmental terms can be secured as part of achieving the range of objectives set out in the Plan.

SO3 Fenton Property Suggests that Strategic Objective 3 is N/A – No detailed word changing proposed N/A – No detailed word changing No – The comments are Management Ltd expanded to ensure that it is proposed welcomed however the PS169 consistent with NPPF Paragraph 50 objective is considered and encourages the need for all types sufficiently broad to inform of accommodation – including the specialist policies that student and assisted living – to be follow on these topics in met as part of creating sustainable subsequent sections e.g. communities LP17, LP18

SO5 Historic England The respondent considers that SO5 Strategic Objective 5: To improve the Strategic Objective 5: To improve the No – It is considered that PS69 would be strengthened by reference built and natural environment to deliver built, historic and natural environment to the objective as drafted is to “the built, natural and historic quality places, through high quality and deliver quality places, through high sufficiently broad to environment” although it does later sustainable design taking into account quality and sustainable design taking into support future policies e.g. consider the setting and character of the landscape, setting and character of account the landscape, setting and LP30 and reference is made heritage assets. the town and neighbourhoods within it's character of the town and to heritage assets. national (i.e. AONB) and local landscape neighbourhoods within it's national (i.e. settings, including heritage assets and AONB) and local landscape settings, providing safe environments which help including heritage assets and providing to reduce crime and the fear of crime. safe environments which help to reduce 31

crime and the fear of crime.

SO6 Abbey Land and The objective is generally supported Strategic Objective 6: Strategic Objective 6: No – The Council does not Developments however the proposed amendment agree with the proposed PS393 seeks to reflect the Council’s policy Reduce social, economic and environmental Reduce social, economic and wording removed from the statement supporting development deprivation, particularly where it is spatially environmental deprivation, particularly objective seeking to to the west of the town. concentrated, by taking priority measures to where it is spatially concentrated (such as achieve wider socio- reduce unemployment, improve skills and in west Luton), by taking priority economic benefits from education and renew housing, community measures to reduce unemployment, development and renewal. and environmental conditions. improve skills and education and renew housing, community and environmental It is considered that the conditions by bringing forward Council’s position and development to the west of Luton policy is accurately through cooperation with Central reflected at Paragraph 4.8 Bedfordshire that will facilitate urban whilst the proposed regeneration including the provision of changes may prejudice the market and affordable housing, local outcome of any detailed employment opportunities, community assessment of the site to and environmental benefits. be considered as part of a future Growth Options Study.

SO7 The Theatres Trust Amendment suggested to ensure that Strategic Objective 7: To enable new Strategic Objective 7: To safeguard and Yes – accepted as a helpful, PS47 the objective is able to protect exist community educational and cultural enable new community educational and minor clarification. cultural and civic assets. facilities to be delivered and expanded to cultural facilities to be delivered and meet the needs of a growing and diverse expanded to meet the needs of a growing borough. and diverse borough.

SO9 Friends of the Earth It is suggested that the objectives Strategic Objective 9: To deliver a new Strategic Objective 9: To deliver a new No – It is considered that PS125 should be strengthened to emphasise Luton football stadium in a location capable Luton football stadium in a location the objective is of the protection of Green Belt land and of good access to transport infrastructure capable of good access to transport significant importance to delete objectives which are along with associated uses, shared venue infrastructure along with associated delivering net gains across considered to promote unsustainable events, and ancillary sports related uses. uses, shared venue events, and ancillary the outcomes for travel patterns and use of greenfield sports related uses. sustainable development land (especially expansion of the (in-particular economic airport and provision of a new development) and that stadium) acceptability in social and environmental terms can be secured as part of achieving the range of objectives set out in the Plan.

SO10 Bedfordshire Local Nature The objective as a whole is welcomed Strategic Objective 10: Improve, No detailed wording suggested – Yes, in part – Spelling error 32

Partnership but should be broadened to refer to protect and enhance biodiversity of comments interpreted below to be corrected, reference PS210 the ‘River Lea Corridor’ to take natural areas within the town, including made to the River Lea account of greenspace and active the quality, accessibility, health and Strategic Objective 10: Improve, ‘Corridor’ but it is not catchment management and also to recreational value of green space, the protect and enhance biodiversity of considered necessary to include SSSIs, County Wildlife Sites River Lea, the Chilterns Area of natural areas within the town, including refer to SSSIs and wildlife and District Wildlife Sites as assets Oustanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the the quality, accessibility, health and sites here as they are covered by the objectives Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) recreational value of green space, the covered by the reference and Areas of Local Landscape Value River Lea Corridor, the Chilterns Area of to ‘natural areas’ in the (ALLV ) and their connectivity. Oustanding Outstanding Natural Beauty policy and then expanded (AONB), the Areas of Great Landscape on later in the plan Value (AGLV) and Areas of Local (Chapter 10). Landscape Value (ALLV ) and their connectivity.

SO10 Bedfordshire Local Nature It is considered that the objectives N/A – No detailed word changing proposed N/A – No detailed word changing No – It is considered that Partnership and subsequent policies and proposed some of the sites referred PS220 supporting text should take into to are beyond the area greater account the potential for covered by the Plan, and sites, including strategic allocations, that subsequent policies to impact upon the setting of including LP25 and LP29 protected landscapes including the provide guidance for the AONB. issues raised.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP1 – PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP1 – Presumption in 7 2 9 2 1 2 7 2 2 5 3 Favour of Sustainable Development

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Central Bedfordshire Council suggest that the legal compliance test is not met because the Sustainability Appraisal did not consider all reasonable options including the option of delivering a balance of growth in jobs and housing numbers has not been assessed. The Sustainability Appraisal does not therefore meet the legal requirements of the SEA Directive. Central Bedfordshire Council also suggest the Sustainability Appraisal does not identify negative effects arising from implementing the plan which under-delivers housing and over-delivers jobs incorrectly identifies positive impacts of implementing of the Local Plan on a number of objectives (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• With regard to soundness Central Bedfordshire Council consider the Local Plan is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. The Plan does not adequately consider a spatial approach to Green Infrastructure (the River Lea corridor) and could undermine the protection and enhancement of the wider green infrastructure network and risk a net loss. It also fails to recognise and address the impact of the strategic allocations on landscape character (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Friends of the Earth have suggested the policy is not effective because Luton has lost far too much of its heritage and requests that all buildings on the Local List are protected by Policy LP1B. Development proposals should respond to and enhance local character, the natural environment, heritage assets, and identity of the Borough (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Friends of the Earth express support the list of sustainable development principles in the policy (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Historic England welcomes the requirement at Part B for all new development to respond to Luton’s character, identity and heritage. They also welcome the inclusion of the historic environment as one of the sustainable development principles (Historic England 169722).

• The Environment Agency supports the commitment for all development to contribute towards the attainment of water neutrality (Environment Agency, 312797).

• The Home Builders Federation have indicated the as currently drafted in unsound because it is not consistent with national policy. They consider the Policy LP1 does not meet the NPPF’s Core Planning Principle (paragraph 17) (core planning principles) that local plans should “provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency ”. They suggest the policy has elements that that are ambiguous, introduce uncertainty, require developers to demonstrate sustainability of their proposals, inadequate sustainable development principles, subjective elements, superfluous, duplicates other policies and negative evading proper plan- making (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• The Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership have suggested that Policy LP1 is not effective since it should include a requirement to address existing deficiencies, particularly with regard to open space of recreational value and that greater reference should be made to the need to provide environmental infrastructure in order to support sustainable development. In respect of the latter the presumption in favour of development should include a commitment to assess and then value and protect the borough’s natural capital and ecosystem services in line with Central Government’s commitment towards a 25-year Natural Capital Investment Plan (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Mr David Logan’s objection queries the soundness of Policy LP1 and the supporting text in paragraph 4.3 concerns the potential expansion of Luton’s urban area into green spaces beyond the borough is in stark contrast to the protection given to the Chilterns AONB. While the Chilterns have statutory protection expansion elsewhere will encircle and undermine its setting (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• Redrow Homes support Policy LP1 as it adopts the same principles as Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It seeks to promote the delivery of sustainable development, which is welcomed. Redrow has recently acquired an interest in the site at Napier Park. The principle of residential development is established a part of the comprehensive redevelopment and there are ongoing discussions between Redrow Homes and the Council in respect of the development of the site for residential use (Redrow Homes, 956533).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

that the work on the SA has been undertaken by Urban Edge with a brief and expectation that it is fully complaint with all necessary legislation and regulations. It also already considers ‘reasonable alternatives’. The criticism in relation to the green infrastructure network and the River Lea corridor is not accepted. The plan clearly sets out the intent for the realistic improvement and enhancement of this corridor (such as Policy LP3 and LP9). No changes are needed.

• General support for the policy insofar as it relates to the historic environment (Historic England), commitment to the attainment of water quality (Environment Agency) and the list of sustainable development principles (Friends of the Earth) welcomed.

• The Council considers that Policy LP1B and Sustainable Development Principle F already provides the appropriate degree of support for heritage assets and does not support the need for clarification re the local list as suggested by Friends of the Earth.

• The Home Builders Federation representations are very critical on the approach in Policy LP1 concluding that it the Borough Council is evading proper plan-making. The Council are surprised at the extent of the criticisms since they both fail to recognise that the policy as drafted provides the foundation and signposting for all of the policies in the plan and that the local plan has to be read as a whole. The Council note that the Home Builders Federation’s response to this policy is exceptional and out-of-step with other responses to the plan, not least Redrow Homes who have support the approach in Policy LP1 and its consistency with national planning policy. No changes are proposed.

• The concerns of the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership that LP1 does not cover deficiencies in open space and recreational value are not shared by the Council since these concerns are covered in principle by this high-level policy and covered in detail elsewhere both in the plan and other planning documents.

• In respect of ecosystems services the Council are of the view that this is covered by the Plan but would wish to point out that its Green Infrastructure Plan has only recently been published (March 2015, Document ENV005 in the evidence base).

• With regard the Mr David Logan’s objection the Council propose no changes and point out that the scale of growth makes it inevitable that significant expansion onto sustainable urban extensions is inevitable.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP1B Friends of the Earth Please ensure that all buildings on the Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – Policy LP1B and PS130 Local List are protected by Policy the Representor. Sustainable Development LP1B Principle F already gives protection to heritage assets which includes buildings on the local list.

LP1 Bedfordshire Local Nature Policy LP 1 should include a Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – the intent expressed Partnership requirement to address existing the Representor. by the representor is PS226 deficiencies, particularly with regard already covered by the to open space of recreational value. policy and the detail is set out elsewhere in the plan and other planning documents.

LP1 Bedfordshire Local Nature The presumption in favour of Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – the plan covers Partnership development (LP1) should include a the Representor. ecosystem services and the PS214 commitment to assess and then value Luton Green Infrastructure and protect the borough’s natural Plan was published in capital and ecosystem services in line March 2015 providing an with Central Government’s up-to-date understanding commitment towards a 25-year of this matter. Natural Capital Investment Plan. This could become an additional Strategic Objective.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP2 – SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound – Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP2 – Spatial 73 3 76 8 8 4 68 33 18 33 23 development Strategy

Summary of issues raised by Representors

Objective Assessment of Housing Needs

• The approach is unjustified. The government’s unrealistic housing targets may have left the council little alternative to Policy LP2, but we fundamentally disagree with it, as stated above. Luton is virtually full, and unchecked immigration to the town and the near south-east cannot continue (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Mr David Logan questions the soundness of paragraph 4.5 since over 60% of the OAN relates to unsustainable accommodation of inward migration which is uncontrolled and which has been accelerating at a fast rate over the last 40 years. The Local Authorities appear to be oblivious of the threats this presents to local populations (present and future). Mr Logan goes on to make comments on paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9 on the implications of in- migration, for example in relation to access to affordable homes (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• The Home Builders Federation question if the plan is justified in its approach to growth set out because they consider the objective assessment of housing needs is based on unsound assumptions. There issues identified include net migration, unattributed population change, the housing shortfall of London, changes to Welfare Benefit regulations, household suppression, the treatment of the housing backlog and vacancies (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• The South East Milton Keynes Consortium has commented that the Objectively Assessed Need assumes much lower migration levels than ONS projections. We note that the Local Plan also proposes a relatively cautious economic growth strategy, and that the Plan does not yet incorporate

sufficient flexibility to provide for stronger economic growth than that limited by physical and environmental constraints within Luton. Provision should be made within the Plan for possible additional economic growth, and this would need to be accompanied by additional housing numbers to provide for employees. Discussions should be ongoing with Central Bedfordshire Council as to how these housing numbers are provided (the South East Milton Keynes Consortium, 956717).

• North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) have highlighted that housing is one of the issues over which the two Councils have engaged under the DtC. This has had led to a number of constructive outcomes. In particular, NHDC supports the draft plan and associated evidence insofar as it relates to; NHDC has participated in the steering group for the SHMA, the methodology of which is consistent with that employed in our own study and meets the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG, the Housing Market Area boundaries have been determined through a seven-authority commission in which both LBC and NHBC have participated, the identification of the eastern edge of North Hertfordshire as part of the functional Luton HMA, and the definition of ‘best fit’ HMAs. Luton / Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire / Stevenage have jointly conducted SHMAs on this basis to inform their respective plans (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900).

• Central Bedfordshire Council has an interest in Luton's regeneration based on mutual interdependencies but these are not adequately addressed within the Plan and fail to consider wider opportunities for sustainable growth across Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis. The decision to publish the Pre- Submission Plan which Central Bedfordshire consider is neither legally compliant nor sound has been a pragmatic one but fails to fully consider the findings of the latest SHMA in the context of the wider HMA and competing pressures for land use (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Abbey Land Developments have questioned soundness in relation to aspects of the objective assessment of housing need including the uplift figure of 5% and the allowance made for older persons and also that the OAN for housing includes not only affordable but also market housing and delivery of both will have to be part of the cooperation with adjoining authorities, especially Central Bedfordshire. (Abbey Land Developments, 856534).

• DLP has undertaken an assessment of the OAN for the Milton Keynes HMA on behalf of Claydon Land Developments and Templeview Developments Limited. The minimum OAN that Luton needs be planning for should be 1,597 dwellings per annum to 2031 or 31,940 over the 20 year plan period whereas the 2015 SHMA sets a combined OAN for Luton and Central Bedfordshire of 47,300 dwellings. They consider the OAN for Luton and Central Bedfordshire should fall between 69,880 and 87,380 dwellings over the plan period and then this figure should be increase by 5,880 to take account of un-met need from London (Claydon Land Developments, 497297),(Templeview Developments Limited, 662818).

• Gladman has concerns that an NPPF and PPG compliant methodology has not been used to derive the OAN for Luton thus rendering the plan unsound. Gladman commissioned GVA to critique the OAN and provide a compliant OAN for the Housing Market Area. GVA conclude that the OAN for Luton is between 860 and 943 dwellings per annum, with the upper level adjusted to provide for a market signals uplift and for Central Bedfordshire is 1,757 dwellings per annum. On the basis that the Plan is able to accommodate 6,700 dwellings, the unmet need for Luton at the upper level would be around 12,160 dwellings. The SHMA has a number of serious shortcomings including; underestimating net migration, unjustified market signals uplift,

unjustified assumptions about the local labour force dynamic and the level of ‘double jobbing’ as well as improper consideration of full affordable housing needs (Gladman Developments, 856720).

Joint Growth Options Study

• Given the significant scale of the housing shortfall, substantial evidence to demonstrate the plan has been positively prepared and provide certainty that the unmet needs identified have been arrived at by a fully objective study of the capacity of the LBC administrative area, and/or will be met in other local authority areas as suggested. At this point no evidence of this nature seems to have has been made available and the basis of the Council’s strategy in this regard is questioned (Templeview Developments, 662818).

• Bedford Borough Council supports the principle of carrying out a Joint Growth Options Study to determine a strategy for meeting the needs of the Luton HMA. For the plan to be justified they suggest the submission version of the plan should either await the outcome of the Growth Options Study or provide sufficient flexibility to enable the currently stated capacity of 6,700 dwellings to be adjusted to reflect its findings (Bedford Borough Council, 780706).

• North Hertfordshire District Council has noted the importance for Luton to continue seeking opportunities to maximise housing within its own boundaries. Para 47 of the NPPF is clear that plans should demonstrate how objectively assessed needs are being met across the HMA. This issue will need to be addressed. The ‘preferred options’ version of NHDC's plan included up to 2,100 homes to the east of Luton. NHDC question references in LP2 and elsewhere in the plan to LBC “ensuring” that unmet needs are delivered since LBC has no powers of compulsion over other authorities. Until further work is undertaken and / or the plans of others within the HMA reach a more advanced stage, there can be no certainty that all needs can, or will, be accommodated and therefore for the plan to be justified and effective. NHDC had expected more tangible progress on these issues (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900).

• Dacorum Borough Council have supported the soundness of the plan but remains of the view that the following key issues need to be resolved: a) Whether and how the collective housing need within the wider Luton HMA is met, noting there is little functional relationship between the Luton HMA and the SW Herts HMA; and b) If and how Luton’s own identified unmet housing need of c11,000 dwellings is to be met by other local planning authorities in the HMA and/or if the authority has fully considered the consequences of not meeting this need (Dacorum Borough Council, 662461).

• Sundon Parish Council consider this policy is not effective because it does not deliver the 17 800 new houses identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

• Bedford Borough Council has noted that the approach in paragraph 4.7 is different to the stance taken in the 2014 Consultation Draft Plan where it was stated that “If sufficient supply is not available it will then seek to ensure delivery of its housing needs further afield”. This implies that there is now no

expectation that any of Luton’s need will need to be met in Bedford Borough (Bedford Borough Council, 780706).

• Friends of the Earth consider the plan unsound by indicating that they do not agree that any housing shortfall should not necessarily be met within neighbouring councils, but proportionately across the UK. This demand should certainly not be met in the Green Belt or AONB around Luton’s borders. They also strongly disagree with paragraph 4.8 that the interests of the town and sustainability would best be served by meeting Luton’s unmet housing needs as close as possible to the communities from which the need arises. This could cause huge social, environmental and infrastructure problems. It is agreed in 4.5 that the Green Belt must be retained – but its loss has already gone too far. It would be better if children moved away from parents in directions which could be accessed by train, although there are some east-west destinations reachable by bus or coach (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Central Bedfordshire Council considers that the local plan is an insular document which is neither legally compliant nor sound. Whilst the Sundon Rail Freight Interchange is referenced (Para 11.13) major growth locations including transport infrastructure north of Houghton Regis and North of Luton are not mentioned. Support expressed for land west of Luton is surprising: it has previously been assessed as having numerous constraints. The Joint Growth Options Study should be used to identify the most appropriate strategy for delivering sustainable growth around Luton (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The SHMA (October 2015) is broadly supported by Central Bedfordshire Council on the basis of presenting on OAN for housing in-line with NPPF Para 159. Despite this progress, the LLP only goes as far as identifying the distribution and quantum of growth for the Borough (citing SHLAA Para 2.10). It does not identify how the suggested unmet housing need of 11,100 will be accommodated, for which the Growth Options Study is required. The Pre- Submission Plan sets out that Central Bedfordshire Council will take a significant proportion without providing the necessary evidence. Central Bedfordshire Council feels it is premature for Luton to pursue its own Plan without this consideration: especially as the new Plan for Central Bedfordshire Council will consider options across four Housing Market Areas. Para 47 of the NPPF is quoted re: meeting needs as far as consistent with other policies and the Ministerial Statement (Dec 2014) stating that testing should follow full consideration of other constraints e.g. Green Belt (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

Strategic Locations

• Highways England have made representations on the local plan seeking further modelling and assessment in relation to the impact of growth proposals on the M1 between Junctions 10 and 12 and also that capacity enhancements and infrastructure improvements that might be required arising from strategic growth (Highways England, 304012).

• Abbey Land Development have made representations supporting an urban extension to the west of Luton offering approximately 5,500 dwellings and 4,800 jobs and are seeking an amendment to policy LP2 and the Key Diagram to acknowledge the West of Luton as the preferred direction for sustainable growth of the town. The Plan will be a significant material consideration in the formulation of CBC's plan with Luton’s clear preference for

growth to the west of Luton satisfying its requirement to meeting unmet housing needs as close as possible to the communities from which the need arises. Failure to take a positive approach to identifying the land to the west of Luton as a preferred Direction for Growth could render the Luton Local Plan unsound. Even with development to the west of Luton, there is still a requirement to assess all options for growth to the north, east, south and west (Abbey Land Developments, 856534).

• D'Arblay Investments have commented that development west of Luton has a very important part to play in meeting housing needs that complies with the plan's objectives and aspirations. Central Bedfordshire has been reluctant to consider development west of Luton. They also note that development to the north of Luton has substantive traffic implications which can only be addressed with the construction of the East Luton circular (north) road (D'Arblay Investments, 954538).

• Caddington Parish Council have asked if LBC got a policy to consider developing land to the west of Luton and, if so, why, when and how many houses (Caddington Parish Council, 955489)?

• Bloor Homes consider that in order to make the Local Plan sound there needs to be parity between the assessment of development options to the east, north and south, as well as potential development to the west of the town and propose an amendment to paragraph 4.8 to clarify that North Hertfordshire would provide a sustainable location for new housing, being adjacent to Luton and in close proximity to existing and proposed strategic employment sites such as London Luton Airport, Century Park, Butterfield Green Technology Park and Napier Park. (Bloor Homes, 849600).

• Strategic locations for development expressed through adopted development briefs and draft allocations such as land north of Luton should be set out in evidence, including their ability to meet cross-boundary needs and provide essential road linkages. There are no ‘areas of search’ identified on the Policies Map and Key Diagram. There is little recognition in the plan, aside from the reference to the strategic examination of growth options, of each of the possible directions for cross-boundary growth. The inclusion of such references will assist in the provision and linkage of service provision cross- boundary (North Luton Consortium, 956709).

Potential Development Sites

• Legal and General Investment Management identify the shortcoming of the current supply of employment land in Luton, that there is unmet need in quantitative and qualitative terms and that a strategic employment site should be identified through joint working with adjoining local authorities. The requirement for employment land should be increased to at least 80 ha. To address the supply of employment land, consideration should be given to two potential sites. The first is on land south of London Luton Airport for airport-related development / employment and the other is on land to the south of J10A (Legal and General Investment Management, 955851).

• Crest Nicholson has a controlling interest in land, north of the A421, and adjacent to the Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) boundary to the south- west of Milton Keynes (MK). This could provide up to 2,000 dwellings and is considered well-placed to meet needs in AVDC and the wider housing market. Part of the Luton Housing Market Area falls within AVDC and that there is a significant unmet need. The objection is based on the lack of clarity for where this unmet need will be provided (Crest Nicholson, 956529).

• Trustees Old Bedford Road Estate and Manor Farm Estate suggest the inclusion of an additional housing allocation partly within the Borough Boundary and partly within Central Bedfordshire District. The is identified as Luton Green Infrastructure Network 2014 (Appendix 13) and is located within the Green Belt. The omission site is put forward on the basis of proven exceptional circumstances to release land in the Green Belt to meet housing needs and the requirement to work with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Cooperate (Trustees Old Bedford Road Estate and Manor Farm Estate, 956512).

Luton’s Urban Capacity

• The strategy is neither justified nor consistent with national policy in claiming that Luton’s capacity is 6,700 dwellings. It fails to take account of the changes to permitted development rights, shows no dwellings to be built by 2031 on sites of 4 dwellings or less that do not already have permission, and only 900 for all unidentified non-allocated sites of 5 dwellings or more. The estimate of 6,700 dwellings fails to consider the potential of urban regeneration and development of previously developed land to provide a net housing gain except in the strategic sites (CPRE, 72098).

• Claydon Land Developments and Templeview Developments Limited consider that Luton is unable to demonstrate a Five Year Supply of housing land so further sites should be allocated to meet this immediate need for housing. All options for sustainable development should be explored and if insufficient sites can be allocated, then consideration should be given entering into discussions with other authorities within the wider HMA to determine how housing need can be delivered (Claydon Land Developments, 497297),(Templeview Developments Limited, 662818).

• Friends of the Earth have queried the soundness of the plan suggesting that since Luton is the most densely populated, overcrowded town in the East of England a different ‘demand management’ concept should be extended to many sectors including housing (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• The Co-operative Group representations suggest the plan is not positively prepared since to the numbers of new homes to be delivered in the ‘housing allocations’ criterion A) iv i.e. 2,400 dwellings since it does not reflect or maximise the full capacity of the two sites at Stockingstone Road and Caleb Close under their control (The Co-operative Group, 746045).

• Abbey Land Developments consider that the Council has done everything reasonably possible to identify capacity within the town to meet housing needs (Abbey Land Developments, 856534).

• Redrow Homes has recently acquired an interest in the site at Napier Park where the principle of residential development has been established as part of a comprehensive redevelopment. The respondents endorse the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan in identifying the scale of unmet housing need (11,100 net additional dwellings) and the identification of Napier Park as part of the 2,500 dwellings allocated on strategic sites although they suggest some flexibility to the numbers identified is encouraged to enable more or less homes to be delivered following detailed assessments of individual sites (Redrow Homes, 956553).

• Chamberlain Holdings Ltd suggest changes to the housing numbers to reflect an increase in the capacity for housing on the mixed use redevelopment of the Britannia Estate (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 956602).

• Abbey Land Developments have questioned the soundness of the plan having noted several references in the plan, including Policy LP2 where there appear to be minor discrepancies in relation to housing numbers suggesting it would be helpful if the various components mentioned in the Plan are consistent, or explanations are provided as to why the figures shown might be different (Abbey Land Developments, 856534).

• Miss Helena Cotter has commented on paragraph 4.13 noting that green spaces are protected by Policy LP27 which requires new or enhanced multi- functional green space to be provided in accordance with standards set out in Appendix 12 but goes on to state that once a green space has gone, it’s gone. Building on it and then providing another space is not desirable. She also refers to building on allotments too which she considers a disgrace (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

Green Belt

• Buckinghamshire County Council expects further work under the DtC and cannot see any justification for not undertaking a Phase 2 GB review at this stage, due to the scale of unmet need. The Plan's reference for the need to prepare a Growth Options Study is noted and BCC expects to be consulted as part of this (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

Historic and Built Environment and Heritage Assets – LP2 Part E

• Heritage England welcome the requirement to protect and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets in Part E (Heritage England, 169722).

• In relation to Part E Miss Helena Carter suggesting the approach is not effective pointing out that the green belt is already being built on at various locations and will shrink. There is very little of Luton’s history and heritage left. The guts were ripped out of the town centre back in the day and continue to be destroyed due to poor planning decisions. Historic buildings in the town centre have fallen into disrepair and Listed buildings and properties in Conservation Area properties fall foul to developers. Luton appears to be weak when it comes to enforcement (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Open Spaces question the effectiveness of Part E if proposals for development of housing and roads in neighbouring green areas around the borough go ahead. The policy should not merely ‘enhance’ but address important deficiencies in open space and recreation, health and biodiversity (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 6657330).

• Item E seeks the protection of Green Belt in Luton, and paragraph 3.8 states that ‘Luton will respect its classic Chilterns gap town setting in the steep- sided upper valley of the River Lea’, yet promoting development of neighbouring areas close to Luton would require development in the Green Belt and expand Luton out of its Chiltern gap setting thus making the approach neither justified or consistent with national policy (CPRE, 72098).

Jobs/Homes Balance

• Highways England question if the growth levels are justified and effective emphasising the importance of a robust evidence base, which can clearly demonstrate how and why the eventual preferred growth levels are taken forward. Credible evidence, which may be open to external scrutiny, can reduce the risk of the transport evidence base becoming obsolete if growth levels were at a later point in time required to change significantly (Highways England, 304012).

• There is uncertainty over the extent to which identified housing needs will be met within Luton, elsewhere within the HMA or beyond. To be justified and effective the Council should satisfy itself that provision of 18,000 jobs represents a robust and balanced strategy and the most appropriate response. Should any of this employment be dispersed to locations where additional housing to meet Luton’s unmet needs is ultimately provided? Would such an approach, in turn, release any additional capacity for housing within the Borough (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900)?

• Central Bedfordshire Council considers that the provision for 18,000 jobs in the Luton Local Plan is highly optimistic and makes the plan neither legally compliant or sound. Given limited land supply, the balance is incorrect between economic interests, housing need and other uses. The LLP’s choices place greater alternative demands on neighbouring authorities and may lead to unsustainable in-commuting patterns. If the target stays at 18,000 jobs, part should be sought across the conurbation as a whole. Luton could focus on key assets like the airport with more footloose demand on land within major extensions. This should be considered as part of the Joint Growth Options Study (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Barton-le-Clay Parish Council consider this policy is neither sound nor legally compliant because it fails to deliver the 17,800 new dwellings identified in the Plan to support the population growth of Luton Borough over the Plan period. In addition, the Plan fails to deliver over the same period 31,000 net additional dwellings in the Luton Housing Market Area (which includes 17,800 dwellings in Luton Borough).The Plan is not justified on the basis that the Council has failed to consider an strategy whereby they reduce their aspiration to deliver “around” 18,000 new jobs and to use the employment land to deliver the additional housing within their own Borough. The Plan is not effective and cannot be delivered over the Plan period because the Council has failed to identify any meaningful evidence of effective joint working with Central Bedfordshire Council on cross boundary strategic priorities (Barton-le-

Clay Parish Council, 955510).

• In relation to paragraph 4.11 Mr David Logan has noted there is no guarantee that job increases will occur. Households are increasingly dependent on two incomes and on this basis alone the employment need for 6,700 new dwellings would be 13,400 jobs even if LBC could guarantee they all go to local people. The additional population will increase the need to travel significantly, driving up congestion and a likely outcome of increasing local populations will be an increase in out-commuting to London (Mr David Logan, 879188).

Town Centre

• Fenton Property Management Ltd have expressed support for the Spatial Strategy, especially Policy LP2 as it seeks to focus future investment provision including community facilities, housing and retail within existing town centres (Fenton Property Management Ltd, 955816).

Other Matters

• Mr Colin Chatwin has suggested that the plan is not positively prepared since there is no benefit in having a 2011-31 plan as the first 4 years are history. The representor suggests the achievements in the first four years should be recorded. In addition Mr Chatwin considers a plan for this length of time is 'meaningless' and not effective as things change over time given the number of years involved. Greater emphasis should be placed on the first five years and at the end of each year the plan could be rolled forward (Mr Colin Chatwin, 828261).

• Friends of the Earth suggest that paragraph 4.9 is far too optimistic about transport being sustainable, considering that it refers to ‘orbital road capacity’, yet the A6 could not take more traffic (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• In relation to paragraph 4.10, Friends of the Earth suggest that if the increasing ‘affordability gap’ is a ‘key issue’, 20% affordable housing is inadequate for real need, and should revert to 30% or more (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Objective Assessment of Housing Needs - In relation to the objective assessment of housing needs within the Housing Market Area it should be noted that this is based on evidence jointly commissioned by LBC and Central Bedfordshire Council. There is no intention to update this assessment, or depart from its findings in relation to the Luton Local Plan. In relation to the definition of the Housing Market Area it should be noted that this results from the technical study included in the evidence base (HOU 003d - Housing Market Areas in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas, November 2015) a report

jointly commissioned under the DtC by Central Bedfordshire Council, Bedford Borough Council, Luton Borough Council, Milton Keynes Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, Stevenage Borough Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council. LBC is content that the basis of both studies is sound and compliant with Government Guidance providing a sound basis for plan-making both within Luton and the wider Housing Market Area. Most of the representations have come from the development industry, effectively arguing for an uplift in the housing requirement but it is important to stress there is the counter viewpoint that the methodology in the SHMA is based on assumptions that are unsustainable in the long-term. In relation to the definition of the Luton Housing Market Area LBC notes that some minor modifications are required to paragraph 4.5 and elsewhere in the plan for consistency with document HOU 003d.

• Joint Growth Options Study - In seeking to deal with Luton’s housing shortfall a major Joint Growth Options Study is proposed. It is intended that should examine options looking into the scale and distribution of the housing shortfall and following agreement amongst the commissioning authorities that the results should be incorporated in local plans. So as not to undermine or delay the adoption of local plans it is proposed that, where appropriate, the implications can be taken forward through the review of local plans as long as sufficient safeguards are built into plans to enable this contingency arrangement to work. This is also important for those authorities that lie outside the Luton HMA since it is not necessary for those authorities to delay their plans in the event that the Joint Growth Options Study fails to deliver the objectively assessed levels of growth. In such circumstances a second further study would need to be commissioned. LBC has been using ongoing discussions under the DtC not only to both ensure that the Joint Growth Options Study is commissioned but also that emerging local plans include the necessary wording to ensure that reviews take place, should they be required. LBC does not accept that its local plan should be delayed until the Joint Growth Options Study is complete since to do so would almost certainly result in the Council failing to meet the Government’s target for the preparation of local plans. Following the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies LBC can see no effective alternative to this approach and none of the representors to the plan have been able to suggest a viable and realistic alternative. The suggestion by Friends of the Earth that the housing shortfall should be met across the UK cannot be supported. The supporting text in the plan requires a minor modification to update and clarify the approach to the Joint Growth Options Study.

• Strategic Locations – The potential for growth to the north, south, east and west of Luton is already built into the plan and proposals for major growth have been agreed or are emerging to the north and east. LBC’s policy towards major development to the West of Luton is already set out in the supporting text to Policy LP2 (paragraph 4.8) and it is considered there is no need to strengthen this reference. It is clear that the potential of this land, including the potential scale for development, will need to be considered alongside other potential options as part of the Joint Growth Options Study. The Luton Local Plan by definition covers the administrative area of Luton. The strategic growth locations that are emerging are covered by the local plans of neighbouring authorities. The Council accept that additional reference to the emerging proposals in the adjoining areas could be usefully made and proposes to do this by indicating the proposals on the Key Diagram. In relation to the representations by Highways England, discussions have been held to identify the necessary additional work required to satisfy the concerns to ensure that the levels and distribution of growth can be satisfactorily accommodated.

• Potential Development Sites – Several potential development sites have been proposed by representors. These either lie outside Luton’s administrative boundary or in one instance lie within the Green Belt straddling the boundary with Central Bedfordshire. The Council’s position is that development of such sites should be considered in the context of the Joint Growth Options Study and/or the relevant local plan within which the land is located. No changes to the local plan for are proposed.

• Luton’s Urban Capacity – LBC’s estimate of housing capacity within the town is informed by its evidence base, principally the SHLAA (based on land information as at April 2014 (as set out in the SHLAA dated April 2015) and work on viability. In addition there is also the limitation for the provision of supporting infrastructure, in particular school places which in itself is also driven by Luton’s land shortage. The Council considers that the resultant level of housing provision represents a reasonable and realistic assessment of likely capacity providing a c5% buffer in supply over provision. The representations received range from those supporting the Council’s position to those who consider the level should change either through; (1) the reallocation of land allocated as strategic employment sites, or (2) upward adjustment to capacities on several identified sites or, (3) through a more aggressive approach to regeneration through additional windfall sites. LBC’s position is that priority given to employment is correct and other than some flexibility on the balance of mixed uses considers that the plan’s proposals should remain unchanged. On the second point the Council accept that some variation to the housing land supply based on factual analysis of the development pipeline is appropriate but the key question is at what stage should the changes be introduced. After careful consideration the Council proposes to produce an update to the SHLAA including a new survey to an April 2016 base. It is anticipated that this SHLAA will consider and include as appropriate views on site capacities as well as provide an update on ‘extra’ sources of supply such as those from office to residential. Any increase in capacity can then be introduced through the Examination process. In relation to the third point the Council anticipate this will be focus of discussion at the Examination. It recognises the point that the estimate of capacity makes no specific windfall assumptions but in response points out that at each iteration of the SHLAA the understanding of the land supply situation in the Borough improves this reducing the likely frequency of windfall sites coming forward. It is accepted this is a cautious approach but an approach that also needs to be counter-balanced by the fact that the Council does not make any assumptions about discounting a proportion of capacity on identified sites to reflect an element on non-delivery. The updated of the information base on land supply will also enable the examination to consider the latest position respect to the Five Year Supply of housing land. The Council notes that some representations also consider the level of development proposed is too high placing undue pressure for the loss of open land.

• Green Belt - LBC’s position is that as a consequence of the scale of growth requirements it is inevitable there will be implications for the Green Belt. The Council carried out a review of the small amount of Green Belt falling inside its administrative area. This review concluded that at present no changes should be made to Green Belt coverage. Notwithstanding this conclusion LBC recognises that, as part of the Growth Options Study, there will be a need to further examine the implications for Green Belt within Luton, but in conjunction with adjacent areas covered by Green Belt designation across the administrative boundary. This process should enable all reasonable options to be comprehensively assessed in a way that a review within a single Council’s area is incapable of achieving.

• Historic and Built Environment and Heritage Assets – LP2 Part E – These thrust of the representations in this category are concerned with the growth of the Luton into adjoining areas and in particular affecting Green Belt and the setting of the town in the Chilterns AONB. In this context the support of Historic England is welcome and recognises the strong growth pressures facing Luton and the surrounding sub-region. LBC remains of the view that growth pressure arising from Luton should be met close to the town insofar as this is practicable and realistic to do so. It is inevitable that this will impact on Green Belt.

• Jobs/Homes Balance - The relationship of the number of homes vs jobs is also dealt in detail with elsewhere in evidence but it is important to point out that Luton, as an important sub-regional employment centre with its major international airport and an important hub for manufacturing, will inevitably continue to show a discrepancy between the two figures. The Council remains committed to growth in employment of 18,000 jobs and notes that not all representations received consider this figure to be too low. Of those arguing the figure is too high it should be noted that, in effect, the argument is the employment should be shifted from longstanding strategic employment sites onto new greenfield allocations which for the most part still form part of the Luton conurbation.

• Town Centre – LBC notes and welcomes the support toward investment in the town centre.

• Other Matters – In effect the representations under this category argue for an approach to plan-making that is different to the existing regulations, or refer to more detailed aspects of policy that are best dealt with in the relevant topic chapter. An example is Friends of the Earth’s comments on the affordable housing requirement.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Paragraphs 4.5 CPRE Paragraphs 4.5, 4.6 and LP2 need to 4.5 It proposes that the objectively Specific changes not specified by the Yes, accepted in-part. It is and 4.6 and LP2 PS148 be amended to reflect a greater assessed housing need for the borough is Representor the Council’s intention to housing provision in Luton based on a 17,800 net additional dwellings and update the SHLAA to a more realistic estimate of housing 31,200 net additional dwellings in the base-date of April 2016 capacity, to provide for a sequential Luton Housing Market Area over the plan prior to the public approach to setting a housing target period (2011 - 2031) as evidenced by the examination into the plan. and to seek alternatives to meeting Luton & Central Bedfordshire SHMA. The This will enable the most unmet need without the need for Luton Housing Market Area includes all of up-to-date data on the excessive development in the Green Luton Borough, a significant proportion of housing pipeline to be Belt and adverse impact on the Central Bedfordshire, and some of North reflected, if appropriate, in AONB. Hertfordshire District, Aylesbury Vale main modifications to the District and Dacorum Borough. In contrast plan, post examination.

49 to this housing need there is only capacity for 6,700 net additional dwellings (ensuring an additional buffer of 5% housing supply as required by the NPPF) in the borough over the plan period as evidenced in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Based on the objectively assessed housing need, and the lack of housing land to fully meet this need, there is a shortfall of 11,100 net additional dwellings in the borough over the plan period.

4.6 As a result of this mismatch and the need for the borough to seek to meet its objectively assessed needs whilst protecting other important existing land uses and designations in the borough such as open space and employment land, the Council is currently working with other local authorities in the area to seek the delivery of Luton’s unmet housing needs in these areas outside the borough through their local plans under the Duty to Cooperate. Luton is therefore capacity capped in terms of the amount of housing it can meet within its administrative boundary and options to meet Luton's unmet housing needs will need to be thoroughly tested through preparation of joint evidence and potentially met through neighbouring authorities' local plans.

LP2 E The natural environment, historic environment and heritage assets of the borough will be protected and enhanced as set out in Policies LP27, LP28, LP29, LP30 in the Local Plan including the protection and enhancement of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 4.5 Various including Dacorum To clarify references to background 4.5 It proposes that the objectively assessed 4.5 It proposes that the objectively Yes , to clarify references Borough Council, Bedford evidence dealing with the objectively housing need for the borough is 17,800 net assessed housing need for the borough is to background evidence Borough Council and Luton set level of housing needs in the additional dwellings and 31,200 net 17,800 net additional dwellings and dealing with the objectively Borough Council. Luton HMA. The change reflects the additional dwellings in the Luton Housing 31,200 net additional dwellings in the set level of housing needs PS163 latest position and discussions with Market Area over the plan period (2011- Luton Housing Market Area over the plan in the Luton HMA. The PS285 neighbouring authorities held under 2031) as evidenced by the Luton & Central period (2011-2031) as evidenced by the change reflects the latest the Duty to Co-operate. Bedfordshire SHMA. The Luton Housing Luton & Central Bedfordshire SHMA. The position and discussions Market Area includes all of Luton Borough, a Luton Housing Market Area includes all of with neighbouring significant proportion of Central Luton Borough, a significant proportion of authorities held under the Bedfordshire, and some of North Central Bedfordshire, and some of North Duty to Co-operate. Hertfordshire District, Aylesbury Vale Hertfordshire District, and Aylesbury Vale District and Dacorum Borough. In contrast District and Dacorum Borough. In to this housing need there is only capacity contrast to this housing need there is only for 6,700 net additional dwellings (ensuring capacity for 6,700 net additional dwellings an additional buffer of 5% housing supply as (ensuring an additional buffer of 5% required by the NPPF) in the borough over housing supply as required by the NPPF) the plan period as evidenced in the Strategic in the borough over the plan period as Housing Land Availability Assessment evidenced in the Strategic Housing Land (SHLAA). Based on the objectively assessed Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Based on housing need, and the lack of housing land the objectively assessed housing need, to fully meet this need, there is a shortfall of and the lack of housing land to fully meet 11,100 net additional dwellings in the this need, there is a shortfall of 11,100 net borough over the plan period. additional dwellings in the borough over the plan period.

Paragraph 4.7 Various including Bedford To clarify references to joint working 4.7 Luton Borough Council will seek to 4.7 Luton Borough Council will seek to Yes, to clarify references to Borough Council and Luton in dealing with the objectively set ensure delivery of the housing need that ensure delivery of the housing need that joint working in dealing Borough Council. level of housing needs in the Luton cannot be met within the Borough within cannot be met within the Borough within with the objectively set PS272 HMA. The changes reflect the latest the wider Housing Market Area. As the wider Housing Market Area. As level of housing needs in position and discussions with evidenced through the SHMA, Luton has the evidenced through the SHMA, Luton has the Luton HMA. The neighbouring authorities held under strongest functional links with Central the strongest functional links with Central changes reflect the latest the Duty to Co-operate. Bedfordshire, therefore it is expected that a Bedfordshire, therefore it is expected that position and discussions significant proportion of the Luton's unmet a significant proportion of the Luton's with neighbouring housing needs will be met in Central unmet housing needs will be met in authorities held under the Bedfordshire. However, North Hertfordshire Central Bedfordshire. However, North Duty to Co-operate. District, Aylesbury Vale District and Hertfordshire District, and Aylesbury Vale Dacorum Borough also fall within the Luton District and Dacorum Borough also fall Housing Market Area so Luton BC will look within the Luton Housing Market Area so to these local authorities to participate in Luton BC will look to these local joint working and, subject to the outcome of authorities to participate in joint working this work and preparation of joint evidence and, subject to the outcome of this work base, make provision for Luton's unmet and preparation of joint evidence base, housing needs in their local plans. make provision for Luton's unmet housing needs in their local plans or local plan reviews. Only in the event of the joint work failing to meet the scale of

objectively set housing needs within the Luton HMA would authorities further afield be approached. For clarity and in the event that the outcome of the joint working has implications for the Luton Local Plan then any necessary changes would be brought forward in a review of the local plan.

Paragraph 4.8 Bloor Homes Propose an amendment to give parity 4.8 The Borough Council considers that the 4.8 The Borough Council considers that Not agreed. The proposed PS206 to growth options to north, south, interests of the town and sustainability, the interests of the town and change is unnecessary east and west of Luton and if LBC would best be served by meeting Luton’s sustainability, would best be served by since the need to assess rejects the proposed revision then unmet housing needs as close as possible to meeting Luton's unmet needs as close as options to the north, south North Hertfordshire to the east the communities from which the need possible to the communities from which and west of Luton is should also be identified for meeting arises. Indeed under the duty to cooperate the need arises. Indeed under the duty to already reflected in some of this need. and in response to neighbouring plan cooperate and in response to paragraph 4.8. preparation, particular account should be neighbouring plan preparation, particular taken of this Council’s policy supporting account should be taken of this Council’s development to the west of Luton and policy supporting development to the requesting a thorough examination of west of Luton and requesting a thorough strategic cross boundary options around the examination of strategic cross boundary town (i.e. that an assessment of options options around the town (i.e. that an north, east, south and west of Luton should assessment of options north, east, south be examined). and west of Luton should be examined). a thorough examination of strategic cross boundary growth options north, east, south and west of Luton will be undertaken with neighbouring authorities including Central Bedfordshire Council, North Hertfordshire District Council and Dacorum Borough Council.

LP2 Part A The Co-operative Group The numbers of new homes to A Housing in the Borough will be delivered The Co-operative Group suggest Yes, accepted in-part. It is PS11 delivered in policy LP2 A iv housing through: consequential change to Part A should the Council’s intention to allocations and Appendix 4 should be i. historic completions 2011/12 - 2012/14 SHLAA data relating to sites in Appendix 4 update the SHLAA to a updated to 100 (from 56) for (1,000 dwellings) be updated. base-date of April 2016 Stockingstone Road and 181 (from ii. existing permissions on sites delivering prior to the public 94) in relation to land at Caleb Close. less than 5 homes (100 dwellings); examination into the plan. iii. strategic allocations at Power Court, This will enable the most Chamberlain Holdings Update the housing capacity (to 350 Napier Park, High Town, Marsh Farm and up-to-date data on the PS313 dwellings) in Appendix 4 and the Creative Quarter (2,500 dwellings); housing pipeline to be consequential changes elsewhere iv. housing allocations (2,400 dwellings); reflected, if appropriate in including LP2 A iv that can be v. identified non-allocated sites of at least 5 main modifications to the achieved on the mixed use homes (900 dwellings). plan, post examination.

redevelopment of Britannia Estate. See also section relating to Appendix 4.

LP2 and Bedford Borough Council The pre submission draft should not The Representors have not identified The Representors have not identified Yes, both accepted in-part. supporting text PS245 prejudge the outcome of the Growth specific changes specific changes – please refer to change LBC anticipates that some Options study in relation to housing proposed to paragraph 4.7 above. No minor updating of the plan capacity. The plan should either await changes are considered to be necessary to (please see paragraph 4.7 the outcome of the Growth Options Policy LP2. above) will be required to Study or provide flexibility to enable reflect the latest position the capacity to be adjusted to reflect on the Joint Growth its findings. Options Study and how its outcome can be North Hertfordshire In relation to housing to help meet incorporated into a review District Council Luton’s housing needs to be provided of the plan should this be PS466 in adjoining areas it is suggested the necessary. No changes are language of the plan be amended to considered to be necessary make reference to “investigating”, to Policy LP2. “supporting” and / or “negotiating” additional provision (as appropriate in each context).

LP2 Mr Colin Chatwin Show what you have achieved in the The Representor has not identified specific The Representor has not identified No change – Part A already PS8 first four years against what you set changes. specific changes. includes an allowance for out to do. This would give a measure historic completions in the for the future, including reasons for early years of the plan. non-achievement.

LP2 Mr Colin Chatwin Greater emphasis could be placed on The Representor has not identified specific The Representor has not identified Not agreed. The Local Plan PS9 the first 5 years with clear objectives changes. specific changes. has to be prepared in and measures. And at the end of each accordance with current year it could be reviewed and moved regulations. forward so the plan would be become 2016 - 2032 next year.

LP2 Abbey Land Development Omission in LP2 of support After the first paragraph of LP2, insert: Not agreed. Paragraph 4.8 PS400 development to the west of Luton. already includes reference In considering strategic cross-boundary to the Council’s existing options around the town to deliver policy support towards Luton’s unmet housing needs, the development to the West Borough Council’s policy support for of Luton. This paragraph is development to the west of Luton is the also clear that under the preferred Direction for Growth as DtC, LBC anticipate that the identified on the Key Diagram. option for development to Development to the west of Luton will the west of Luton should

ensure that Luton’s unmet housing needs also be considered can be met as close as possible to alongside other options as communities from which the need arises part of the Joint Growth and delivered through the ‘duty to co- Options Study. operate’ through meaningful cooperation with Central Bedfordshire It is not accepted that the Council and other local authorities. future direction of growth should be shown on the NB: There is a consequential amendment Key Diagram except where to the Key Diagram arising from this such proposals either have proposed modification. the benefit on planning permission or are included in an up-to-date version of a local plan for the area in which they are located. This is because the local plan for Luton is not able to make proposals outside the administrative area of Borough.

LP2 Gladman Developments GVA conclude that the OAN for Luton The Representor has not identified specific The Representor has not identified Not agreed. LBC consider PS402 is between 860 and 943 per annum, changes. specific changes. the SHMA is an up-to-date with the upper level adjusted to assessment of objectively provide for a market signals uplift and assessed housing needs for Central Bedfordshire is 1,757 per commissioned jointly with annum. The Council should be Central Bedfordshire planning on the basis of the upper Council. end of this range.

Key Diagram Central Bedfordshire Houghton Regis North and its Key Diagram Key Diagram: amended to show key Yes – minor clarification to Council associated key infrastructure, proposed urban extensions to the north show relationship to major PS422 including the new M1 Junction 11a, and east of Luton plus key highway links. committed development A5-M1 Link and Woodside Link proposals emerging and should be shown on the key diagram potential future directions in the same way as the AONB and of growth in close Green Belt. Furthermore, reference proximity to Luton’s to the town of Houghton Regis itself administrative boundary. is also omitted from the key diagram and should be included. Sundon Rail Freight Interchange and Land North of Luton, including the M1-A6 Link Road, must also be shown on the key diagram as potential locations for large scale growth.

LP2 Legal and General Consideration should be given to the The Representor has not identified specific The Representor has not identified Not agreed. Both sites Investment Management land south of London Luton Airport changes. specific changes. proposed by the PS95 for airport-related development / Representor lie outside employment. Work with other Luton’s boundary, within authorities to address any unmet Central Bedfordshire. needs in a sustainable location. The LGP land south of J10A.

LP2 Crest Nicholson Luton could include within its plan, its The Representor has not identified specific The Representor has not identified Not agreed. The Joint PS381 understanding of where its unmet changes. specific changes. Growth Options Study will housing need could be met, based on consider how the unmet a functional relationship. This could needs can be best met. The be travel to work, or migration data. outcomes will then be This process would increase the taken forward in local opportunity to properly influence plans. other authorities plans, and wider plan making.

LP2 Redrow Homes Provide some flexibility to the Housing in the Borough will be delivered Housing in the Borough will be delivered Not agreed. LBC consider PS349 housing numbers identified is through: ... through: ... that flexibility in respect of encouraged to enable more or less iii. strategic allocations at Power Court, iii. strategic allocations at Power Court, Napier Park is already homes to be delivered following Napier Park, High Town, Marsh Farm and Napier Park, High Town, Marsh Farm and covered elsewhere detailed assessments of individual the Creative Quarter (2,500 dwellings); ... the Creative Quarter (up to 2,500 (paragraph 4.42) and that sites. Redrow’s interest is at Napier dwellings); ... taken as a whole it would Park. not wish housing delivery on all of the strategic allocations included in the policy to fall below 2,500 dwellings.

Key Diagram North of Luton Consortium Amendment to the Key Diagram to Key Diagram Key Diagram amended to show key Yes – minor clarification to PS281 show emerging strategic proposals proposed urban extensions to the north show relationship to major close the administrative boundary. and east of Luton plus key highway links. committed development The changes will be indicative only proposals emerging and and will direct readers to the relevant potential future directions local plan. of growth in close proximity to Luton’s administrative boundary.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP3 – LUTON TOWN CENTRE STRATEGY

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP3 – Luton Town Centre 14 3 17 1 2 11 5 5 4 7 5 Strategy

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Historic England supports the approach in Policy LP3 and considers that Para 4.30 looks to positively deliver development within the historic urban fabric of the town to build on its existing strengths and distinctive character and builds on work by Historic England in the town and previous representations by the organisation. Re-use of heritage assets as part of regeneration (LP3 Avii), reference to the Plaiters Lea Conservation Area Historic Area Assessment (LP3 Aviii), historic features of the River Lea (LP3 Axi) and relationship of St Mary’s Church to the University Campus (LP3 B) are all welcomed. A request is made to ensure that the organisation’s name is recorded as ‘Historic England’ in the Plan (Historic England, 169722) • Capital and Regional, the owners of the Mall advocate the role of Policy LP3 in the wider context of support for the Town Centre first approach at Policies LP2 and LP21 and in the context of Strategic Objectives 1, 4 and 8 which collectively support a prosperous Luton economy based on a strong network of centres and improved accessibility. The respondents highlight the significant retail contribution made by the Mall and the owners’ contribution to redevelopment and the Town Centre Framework Plan. The response highlights that Policy LP3 should be amended to reflect the transformational change in shopping patterns and experiences in the face of online and out-of-centre competition. This will allow The Mall to evolve, with greater flexibility in providing eating, leisure, recreation and ‘click and collect’ services as part of the Town Centre experience and ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with national policy (Capital and Regional, 956604).

• North Hertfordshire District Council support the strategy and schemes that will have positive regeneration benefits in the town centre in principle, subject to ensuring that over-provision is avoided and based on updated evidence of the population catchment once housing issues have been resolved to ensure that the total of retail floorspace provided is not at the detriment of other towns in the catchment (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900) • Alternatively, Luton Town Football Club considers that this section is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy as it fails to support the intention to locate a new stadium at Power Court, which if delivered along with housing, leisure and entertainment uses will assist in the evolving role of the town centre as a vibrant and viable destination and also confirms that this development (along with limited provision at the Northern Gateway and Creative Quarter) will meet only a small proportion of the overall retail requirement and that other locations (principally out-of-centre due to a lack of alternatives) are required to achieve this (Luton Town Football Club, 856258). • Central Bedfordshire Council welcomes the identification of Power Court and the Northern Gateway as the primary locations for retail. However, up to 1788sqm of comparison and 1428sqm of convenience are shown as commitments at Napier Park. This location is considered more attractive due to airport links and mixed-use offer. This will negatively impact on the delivery of sequentially preferable sites and renders planned provision based on increased market share too high (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • The same respondent asserts that the Experian figures for population growth used in the retail evidence base are too high and inconsistent with the latest Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA (2015). Policy LP3 is not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy as a result (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • Central Bedfordshire Council recognises that the River Lea Corridor is an important cross boundary green infrastructure corridor through the River Lea Catchment Partnership. The policy commitments for improving the River Lea through development are considered limited in their ambition. Policy LP3 shows no ambition to enhance and restore the River and the respondent claims it is mentioned only in the context of the introductory text. Development on the River Lea corridor should at least be required to assess the potential for de-culverting – not only to protect water quality, and not increase capacity load. Positively planned enhancement would enable more effective cross boundary working and ensure that European targets under the WFD and restoring ecological status are met. Policy LP3 is not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy as a result (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • Luton Friends of Parks and Open Spaces express general support for the provisions of Policy LP3 (in-particular parts Axi, Axii and Axiv) but considers that in order to better achieve Strategic Objective 10 (protecting and enhancing biodiversity, natural areas and access to green spaces) further specific measures should be required by the policy including “green roofs” and additional areas of green space adjacent to the Silver Street Ground Level Car Park (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733). • Other respondents identify issues in respect of the strategy for the town centre as a whole and the relationship of the evidence base with recent development activity and the physical environment of the town, setting out concerns in relation to the design of new buildings, preservation of 57

heritage assets, limited observable demand for hotel accommodation and a lack of support for smaller and local businesses (e.g. Friends of the Earth Luton, 54044). Similar responses also highlight the loss of traditional retail uses (A1 premises) and lack of green spaces within the town centre environment (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183). It is suggested that opening up the River Lea offers one opportunity to improve amenity and open space. It is also considered that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) Action Plan prioritises the resolution of an ‘exclusion zone’ covering the town centre so that planners take greater account of links through the area and with strategic sites (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733). The Plan is considered unsound and not effective or positively prepared based on the above points. • David Logan considers that the approach to the town centre will fail to maximise public transport use in combination with ‘car-hungry’ development proposed within and in close proximity to the town, thereby increasing congestion and making walking and cycling less attractive (David Logan, 879188) • One respondent indicates that the location of the Castle Quarter cannot be identified on the Key Diagram shown for Policy LP1 (Mr David Oakley, 54044).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• A number of respondents express support for the overall strategy and this is welcomed. The Council considers that the retail assessment update (White Young Green, 2015) provides robust, up-to-date evidence of realistic trends in future demand and expenditure, including taking account of major extensions outside the administrative area of Luton and reflecting the diverse range of potential sites and existing commitments across the town centre.

• The Council can confirm that the input data for the Retail Study Update in terms of population within the retail catchment is taken from the projections for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2015). Postcode sector-based zones are carried forward from the original 2010 study. “Zone 1” (centred on Luton) is broken down into parts A-C to allow more finely grained analysis. As a regional centre Luton based stores serve large parts of the population of neighbouring areas therefore the catchment extends beyond the authority’s boundaries. The catchment is considered to be an area in which Luton can (and should) realistically serve as resident’s primary shopping destination, irrespective of whether they live in Luton authority area or just beyond in neighbouring authorities. The associated population for this catchment area (“Zone 1”) has been disaggregated from the main projections for the HMA by the consultants who prepared the SHMA, following a similar methodology to that used to identify the total population in the Luton and Central Bedfordshire Housing Market, which only covers part of the Central Bedfordshire area.

• Comments from the operators of The Mall are welcomed and highlight that the town centre fulfils a wider role than simply providing retail floorspace – something which is significant in the changing context of the town centre economy. It is considered that the strategy as a whole reflects this and anticipates provision of non-retail floorspace across a number of locations, whilst the policy framework is not so prescriptive that it 58

limits individual schemes and changes of use being considered on their merits within existing facilities. However, in response to representations from Luton Town Football Club, the Council is firmly committed to the ‘town centre first’ principle for the concentration of retail development, consistent with the objectives of sustainable development. It considers that the forecast for additional floorspace can be successfully provided at the town centre or sites in close proximity and does not consider that retail development in other out-of-centre locations would satisfy relevant sequential and impact tests or complement the strategy as a whole.

• Within the context of the points above, it is also considered that ongoing monitoring of the plan and review of evidence in the course of implementing policies is an important aspect of the strategy. For example, it is typically envisaged that the retail assessment would be updated within a five-year horizon, offering an opportunity to review population trends, the location of any additional housing commitments and update the net change in retail floorspace.

• For the benefit of clarification, respondents are directed to the Town Centre “Inset Map” as part of the Proposals Map, which gives more detail on the different locations (including the Castle Quarter) which together comprise the Town Centre Strategy. In the context of the physical environment of the town (including social, green and ‘blue’ infrastructure) respondents are invited to read the plan as a whole, which provides additional detail on these aspects within the overall policy framework (e.g. the reference to de-culverting of the River Lea repeated at Policy LP9 (Power Court) and LP36 (Flood Risk).

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Para 4.21 Luton Friends of Parks and Provide greater clarity and certainty 4.21 The River Lea is an important asset of 4.21 The River Lea is an important asset of No – Detailed Green Spaces in wording of supporting text to the town and in particular of the town the town and in particular of the town considerations for opening PS311 confirm overall support for the centre; proposals to open up the river may, centre; proposals to open up the river up the River Lea Corridor benefits of opening up the River Lea. if viable and feasible, improve the may will, if viable and feasible, improve are dealt with in specific environment by providing amenity spaces the environment by providing amenity policies and the supporting for residents and visitors. Improving access spaces for residents and visitors. text accurately introduces to the River Lea would help in extending the Improving access to the River Lea would how this may be achieved. existing Upper Lea Valley Walk. help in extending the existing Upper Lea Valley Walk.

Policy LP3 Capital and Regional The high street needs to be given N/A – proposed text would form additional The continued strengthening of the Mall No - Considered PS291 preference to out-of-centre ‘Part C’ to Policy LP3 shopping centre is fundamentally unnecessary as the Town competing development and to be important to the vitality and viability of Centre first approach is allowed to continually evolve to help Luton Town Centre. The refurbishment, already clearly set out at 59

achieve the objectives of the Local extension and introduction of Policies LP2 and LP21. Plan. Policy LP3 could be enhanced by complimentary uses within and around the addition of wording that the environs of the Mall shopping centre, specifically considers the area around including but not limited to being as part the Mall. Providing a supportive of the Creative Quarter allocation, will be policy context to guide development encouraged. In order to give preference over the plan period would be a to the town centre no proposals within welcome addition to the Plan as the borough that have a significant follows: detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Mall as a retail destination will be permitted.

Policy LP3 Historic England LP3 A should be updated to read LP3 Aviii - proposals that fall into the LP3 Aviii - proposals that fall into the Yes – Recent change to PS72 ‘Historic England’, not ‘English Plaiter’s Lea Conservation Area should have Plaiter’s Lea Conservation Area should organisation name Heritage’ due to the recent change in regard to the Historical Area Assessment have regard to the Historical Area name from the organisation. produced by English Heritage Assessment produced by English Heritage for this area; Historic England for this area;

Policy LP3 Luton Town Football Club An alternative, additional out-of- N/A – No detailed wording suggested The representors have provided detailed No – The strategy within PS364 and PS373 centre site(s) is needed to meet suggested changes to the wording of LP3 Is based upon a robust forecast demand and the Local Plan policies LP5 (Land at Stockwood Park) and assessment of retail needs should seek to deliver a mix of viable LP9 (Power Court) (PS371 and PS376) but and projected delivery on uses in the town centre in order to have not suggested any specific changes specific sites (for a range of ensure that it continues to be to this policy. town centre uses) that are relevant and attractive destination able to provide these in the within its catchment area. The most sustainable locations provision of a football stadium within consistent with national or close to Luton town centre fits policy. with this model.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

LP4 - GREEN BELT

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP4 Green Belt 12 1 13 2 1 1 12 2 6 3 5

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Historic England indicate that Part B refers to “safeguarded local transport infrastructure required in a Green Belt location”, which alludes to the route of East Luton Circular Road in LP31. The wording in the third bullet point of NPPF paragraph 90 reads “local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location”, which is slightly different from the wording used in Part B (iv). Safeguarded land that may not have been subject to the same scrutiny (e.g. schemes in a local transport plan) as required in the NPPF wording. This policy is believed to be unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy (Historic England, 169722).

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd have queried the key diagram and policies map which it claims includes two irregular areas of Green Belt land which fall within the airport’s operational site boundary. The respondent believes they do not serve any of the purposes outlined by paragraphs 79 and 80 of the NPPF. The policy is believed to be unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Clayton Land Development argues that this policy and supporting text simply re-iterates Section 9 of the NPPF and it is unclear what additional purpose its inclusion serves. This policy is believed to be unsound as it is not justified or effective (Clayton Land Development, 497297).

• The Home Builders Federation refer to the proposition that the plan is only able to provide for 335 dwellings per year. The annual affordable housing need figure exceeds this. Because Luton is still required by national policy to meet its OAN in full, it ought to have released land from the Green Belt to accommodate that need. LP4 is therefore considered not justified (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• North Hertfordshire District Council argues that it should not be considered as restricting the opportunities for surrounding authorities by properly considering the future of the Green Belt in their own area. However, HNDC believes that these areas need to be considered in conjunction with neighbouring authorities. This policy is, therefore, not justified (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900).

• Central Bedfordshire Council objects to Para 4.36 of the local plan which implies that because the Green Belt in Luton is found to meet all five purposes (NPPF Para 80) it has not been further considered. CBC considers that exceptional circumstances are demonstrated on the basis of unmet needs, which cannot be met as close as possible to Luton without considering release. CBC has taken this approach on sites such as land North of Luton. The Luton Green Belt Study (2014) should only be referred to as a Phase 1 Study to accurately reflect its content. A Phase 2 study is needed to fully assess Luton’s urban capacity all options to meet housing need in-line with NPPF Para 47 have not been considered. Evidence such as the SHLAA [see Reps to Policy LP15] should also be updated to consider Green Belt sites (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). Further to this, Bedford Borough Council contends that given the large shortfall in housing provision and the presence of Green Belt in both Luton and Central Bedfordshire where the majority of need is to be accommodated, it is necessary for further work to be undertaken to consider if any Green Belt land will need to be released. (Bedford Borough Council, 780706). The respondents therefore consider the LP4, to be unsound.

• Legal and General Investment Management believe that the Land south of the Airport and east of Someries has potential as an area for employment development associated with the expansion of Luton Airport. The site at Someries could be released from the Green Belt without prejudicing the purpose of the Green Belt in this area. Therefore, LP4 is considered unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy, not positively prepared or justified (Legal and General Investment Management, 955851).

• Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum consider that the approach to the Green Belt is sound, and that appropriate secondary purposes are recognised such as amenity for the urban population and that this allows future opportunities for joined-up planning beyond administrative boundaries (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

• Various respondents highlight that they consider that the remaining Green Belt land in Luton makes an important contribution to preventing urban sprawl and that the intention to keep land permanently open should be respected (NPPF Paragraph 79), particularly in light of the proposed release of land from the Green Belt for development north of Houghton Regis and the contribution remaining areas in Luton make to local wildlife corridors (Friends of the Earth Luton, 54044 and Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733). Other respondents the additional impact of highways issues on the Green Belt, including congestion related to existing commitments and future proposals (David Logan, 879188).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representation (Historic England) regarding a suggested change to Policy LP4 to reflect NPPF wording in relation to the route of East Luton Circular Road in LP31 fails to recognise that the Local Plan should not repeat national policy. The policy as it is currently worded reflects that the land is required for safeguarding as the route for East Luton Circular Route has not yet been determined due to the need for neighbouring authority plans to progress further. Removing such a safeguard may prejudice options for delivery of the Circular Route.

• The representations (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd & Legal and General Investment Management) claim that the two irregular areas of Green Belt land which fall within the airport’s operational site boundary do not serve any purposes of the NPPF and should be released for employment. The Green Belt Study however is clear that these parcels do serve Green Belt purposes and should be retained as Green Belt:

• The Green Belt Study (Page 28) concludes for Site 5 (Dane Street) that: “This site in Luton Borough makes a medium contribution to Green Belt purposes and meets the criteria for designation as Green Belt. It is open and contiguous with a much larger area of rural Green Belt land in adjoining local authorities. The airport perimeter fence represents a permanent well defined Green Belt boundary. This small area of Green Belt, together with the adjoining Green Belt land performs the purpose of checking urban sprawl and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.” • The Green Belt Study (Page 30) concludes for Site 6 (Sommeries) that: “The site is open and contiguous with a much larger area of rural Green Belt land in adjoining local authorities. The site is part of the wider Green Belt countryside stretching south in Central Bedfordshire District and east in North Hertfordshire District. The airport perimeter fence represents a permanent well defined Green Belt boundary. This small area of Green Belt, together with the adjoining Green Belt land performs the purpose of checking urban sprawl and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.”

• The representation (from Clayton Land Development and Templeview Developments Ltd) argues that this policy and supporting text re-iterates Section 9 of the NPPF and it is unclear what additional purpose its inclusion serves however the representation fails to recognise that the policy does not repeat national policy wording and only includes provision of the NPPF which are relevant to Luton.

• The Home Builders Federation representation suggesting that Luton ought to have released land from the Green Belt to accommodate its housing need fails to take into account the important role of Luton’s Green Belt against the purposes of the NPPF as set out in the Luton Green Belt Study.

• The representation (North Hertfordshire District Council) which considers that Luton’s Green Belt needs to be considered in conjunction with neighbouring authorities fails to acknowledge that NHDC were engaged by Luton BC in the preparation of Luton’s Green Belt Study and NHDC were invited to undertake a joint Green Belt Study with Luton.

• Central Bedfordshire Council’s objection to Para 4.36 of the LLP implies that because the Green Belt in Luton is found to meet all five purposes (NPPF Para 80) it has not been further considered and that a Phase 2 study is needed to fully assess Luton’s urban capacity all options to meet housing need. CBC will recall that it was previously invited to prepare a joint Stage 2 Green Belt Study with Luton. Proposals for such a Study have now been agreed.

• Bedford Borough Council’s contention that given the large shortfall in housing provision and the presence of Green Belt in both Luton and CBC where the majority of need is to be accommodated, it is necessary for further work to be undertaken to consider if any Green Belt land will need to be released. Luton did request that such as Stage 2 Green Belt Study be undertaken jointly with its neighbourhood authorities and is a key recommendation of the Luton Green Belt Study.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

LP4 London Luton Airport LLAOL therefore continues to No – The Green Belt Study Operations Ltd respectfully request that two small is clear that these parcels PS247 areas of Green Belt designation to do serve Green Belt the south of the airport be removed. purposes and should be retained as Green Belt.

LP4 Claydon Land The policy cannot be considered No – The policy does not Development Ltd sound as it is not justified or repeat national policy PS270 effective and therefore should be wording and only includes & removed from the plan. provision of the NPPF

Templeview which are relevant to Developments Ltd Luton. PS294

LP4 Legal and General Land south of the Airport at No – The Green Belt Study Investment Management Someries should be removed from is clear that these parcels PS95 the Green Belt (Appendix F). do serve Green Belt purposes and should be retained as Green Belt.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP5 – LAND SOUTH OF STOCKWOOD PARK STRATEGIC ALLOCATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP5 – Land South of 18 18 1 3 18 12 8 15 12 Stockwood Park Strategic Allocation

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• As currently drafted, Historic England consider the plan to be unsound as it is not effective, deliverable or consistent with national policy. To meet the concern the Representor suggests reference to Luton Hoo Registered Park and Garden is required, and consider this could be added to Part B (v). Without such reference, it is not clear that this is a heritage asset that needs to be properly addressed and may result in it being overlooked or underplayed. Furthermore, Part B (i) should make clear that development proposals should consider impacts from the surrounding landscape, including Luton Hoo (Historic England, 169722).

• Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership highlight the policy involves land that is in a very sensitive location, being adjacent to Stockwood Park, Luton Hoo and Kidney Wood. The proposed development would have a negative impact upon these historic landscape features and important ancient woodland site and stress the importance of involving Historic England and Natural England in the development of proposals to ensure they are positively prepared (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Slip End Parish Council consider the plan is not justified since the policy makes no provision to meet the need for schools and homes suggesting the plan is heavily weighted towards employment with insufficient regard placed on the provision of new housing particularly affordable and the construction of new schools. Newlands Road would not be able to cope with the additional traffic accessing and leaving the site, in conjunction with existing and proposed housing developments along that road (Slip End Parish Council, 498776).

• Sundon Parish Council consider the policy is unsound because there is no master development plan for the area that could possibly achieve the policy objective of conserving and enhancing the appearance of the adjoining Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, County Wildlife Site, QE11 Playing Fields and the Chilterns AONB. (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

• Sport England have responded to indicate that the proposal would provide a new, fit for purpose stadium for LTFC that addresses the deficiencies of Kenilworth Road. Ancillary sports facilities and development would enable its delivery. However, the FA have questioned whether this site is deliverable as there is no evidence of whether the landowner is willing to sell the site for the proposed uses. The site has been allocated for many years for this use but there has been no progress made. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a feasibility study for the mix of uses proposed to respond to market demand and generate the required funding. The FA and Sport England only want this site to be allocated if there is realistic potential for it to be delivered. Without such evidence it is challenged whether the allocation would meet the justified and effective tests of soundness (Sport England, 660493).

• Luton Town Football Club’s representations suggest the plan is unsound because an edge-of-town site is not a suitable or sustainable location for a football stadium. It is much further from the Luton community than its current operations and would not be able to support the community, including local charities and schools, as effectively as is currently the case. Recent research strongly indicates that town centre locations are often most appropriate for sports stadia and that new sports stadia can act as a catalyst for regeneration to help deliver long-term economic and social benefits to the immediate and surrounding areas. The Club has acknowledged this research and given the strong community links of the Club, which the Club wants to retain, it considers that a new stadium in Luton town centre would be the preferred to an out of town location. The new town centre stadium, preferably to be located at Power Court, coupled with a retail-led mixed use development on the land south of Stockwood Park would deliver development and regeneration of two strategic sites (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• Luton Town Football Club considers that the plan is not effective, justified, consistent with national policy or positively prepared in continuing to support relocation of the stadium to the Stockwood Park site. It is argued that a well-planned retail-led scheme at J10A would act as a gateway to the town; complement the town centre retail offer; capture comparison spend above the 43% of market share sought by the White Young Green Retail Study Refresh – Update (2015); and enable the delivery of a stadium at Power Court in a more sustainable edge-of-centre location (complementing other key town centre sites and uses). The respondent claims that a range of employment uses will also be included on any revised allocation, suitable and attractive to blue-chip companies (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• Luton Town Football Club also claim that the mixed-uses proposed for Power Court, and limited retail provision in the Creative Quarter, will fail to meet the needs for comparison floorspace (especially beyond 2025) therefore an alternative strategy is justified and there are no alternative sites for retail within the town centre. It is claimed that there are no other sequentially preferable sites for the stadium, but that re-allocation to Power Court will allow this site to come forward, address site specific remediation and mitigation and maximise public transport use and regeneration as a community

asset (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• The respondent identifies that the Sustainability Appraisal finds no significant effects from development at the Stockwood Park site. It is also highlighted that Paragraph 6.1.7 of the SA notes that Power Court is under-utilised but highly accessible and that an option to relocate the football club to the site scores well; albeit rejected due to preventing the town meeting its retail capacity (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• Capital and Regional Plc is aware of the need for Luton Town Football Club to relocate during the lifetime of the Local Plan and is aware of the club's desire for a town centre site at Power Court (Policy LP9). Regardless of the final location of Football Club, there is concern that a major out-of-centre retail development is being promulgated as 'enabling development'. Capital and Regional Plc consider that while the relocation of the football club is a valid objective this cannot be achieved at the detrimental expense of other more important considerations, such as the vitality and viability of the town centre (Capital and Regional Plc, 956604).

• Dacorum Borough Council has questioned the effectiveness of this policy by asking how this development can be linked with the wider town and the how the increase in traffic flows on and off the M1 at Junction 10a can be managed. Dacorum Borough Council understand that Hertfordshire County Council have raised some concerns about this in terms of its potential impact on the road network within Hertfordshire. It is important that these concerns are addressed (Dacorum Borough Council, 662461).

• While the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum welcome some of the amendments that have been made to Policy LP5 they feel that LP5 viii to "improve connectivity to nearby cycle and footpaths and existing public rights of way ..." is not strong enough. Also, given the Plan envisages the football stadium will be located at this site, pedestrian and cycle access is critical for thousands of people to walk to and from matches (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

• Central Bedfordshire Council have made representations on the soundness of this policy citing three areas of concern: (1) That confirmation has not been sought from Luton Town Football Club regarding its intentions for relocation and whether residential uses were considered as part of the scheme for Policy LP5 to help improve its viability. Notwithstanding this, in the absence of a football stadium Central Bedfordshire Council indicate support for a mixed use development incorporating residential, which would assist in meeting housing needs within the Borough and reduce any burden placed on neighbouring local authorities. (2) Surprise by the need for the policy requirement regarding Highways England acceptance of potential impacts on Junction 10a. If this is not the case, there is a risk that the site could fail to meet Highways England requirements and would therefore be undeliverable. (3) The need for the development of Stockwood Park to address its location on the Luton Hoo Plateau and Caddington / Slip End Plateau, which is a sensitive location and a buffer between the wider rural and parkland landscape (and woodland setting of Luton Hoo).The policy must highlight the need for landscape mitigation and highly creative design. (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222)

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Central Bedfordshire Council’s representations on legal compliance mostly relate to the Sustainability Appraisal. Luton BC does not accept the basis of these representations but the detail of the response is covered elsewhere (in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal). It is important to stress, however, that the work on the SA has been undertaken by Urban Edge with a brief and expectation that it is fully complaint with all necessary legislation and regulations. It also already considers ‘reasonable alternatives’.

• The Council agrees that the concerns of Historic England can be accommodated by minor amendments to the policy. These amendments also address the concerns of the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership.

• LBC does not share the view of Slip End Parish Council that this strategic site is a suitable location for housing and educational uses. The site has been carried forward from the extant local plan earmarked for a new stadium for Luton Town Football Club and supporting facilities in part enabled through additional development for business use. Alternative use for residential-led development has been considered and rejected during preparation of the local plan.

• The Council does not accept Sundon Parish Council’s criticism that the development proposals cannot take full account of conserving and enhancing the appearance of the adjoining Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, County Wildlife Site, QE11 Playing Fields and the Chilterns AONB.

• Sport England’s confirmation of the suitability of the site for a new stadium for Luton Town Football Club is welcomed. In relations to ownership and viability, events have moved on. LBC understands the site is now controlled by the football club. Viability will be influenced by the nature and scale of the supporting development but the improving economic context will assist in this respect.

• The relocation of Luton Town Football Club is a longstanding proposal carried forward from the extant local plan. While the Club’s proposal for a town centre site certainly has merit it is understood this is dependent on, and tied to, the transfer of large-scale new retail investment from Luton town centre to an out-of-town location. This approach involving the retail floorspace is not consistent with either national or local planning policy, nor has it been subject to testing of both its qualitative and quantitative impact. In such circumstances it cannot be supported. It is noted that a number of other football stadia have been successfully relocated to out-of-town sites. Acceding to this objection would also appear to undermine the town centre focus of the plan. The response submitted by Capital and Regional highlights the importance of these issues.

• With respect to the comments of Dacorum Borough Council the Council have carried out traffic modelling work to underpin the proposals within the plan and will be liaising with Highways England and neighbouring highway authorities to ensure the proposals can be effectively delivered.

• The Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum’s suggestions for amendments to the policy are not accepted since they are can be addressed during the development of detailed proposals.

• In respect of Central Bedfordshire Council’s concern LBC wished to highlight the following:

(1) The Council have not expressed support for LTFC’s town centre proposal. The Council’s policy is for its location on the land south of Stockwood Park. (2) High level modelling work has demonstrated the acceptability of the plan’s proposals as a whole. Continuing discussions with Highways England and neighbouring highway authorities will resolve outstanding issues. It is not reasonable to expect all issues to be signed and sealed during local plan preparation and in advance of detailed development proposals and master planning taking place. (3) Regarding the urban edge location of the land south of Stockwood Park, LBC do not accept that policy LP5 or the local plan when read as a whole are deficient in respect of the acknowledged sensitive location adjacent to the AONB. The development will be expected to take account of the Chilterns Conservation Board’s planning policies and include appropriate mitigation and safeguards. The proposed change in response to the objection by Historic England will also help in this respect.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP5 - Policy Lp5 – Historic England Clarification to wording of policy to B.Subject to the following: B.Subject to the following: Yes – minor clarification to Land South of PS77 overcome HE’s concerns. policy Stockwood Park i.development proposals should be i.development proposals should be Strategic accompanied by a comprehensive accompanied by a comprehensive Allocation masterplan for approval, which includes an masterplan for approval, which includes indicative layout and phasing plan, an indicative layout and phasing plan, sustainable construction methods and sustainable construction method and materials, landscape and biodiversity materials, landscape and biodiversity schemes and sets out details of how this will schemes and an analysis of impacts from be achieved; the surrounding landscape and heritage assets and sets out details of how this will v.the development will provide a high be achieved; quality southern gateway to the town and will use public art, green space, built design, v.the development will provide a high lighting and topography to conserve and quality southern gateway to the town and enhance the appearance of the adjoining will use public art, green space, built Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, design, lighting and topography to County Wildlife Site, QE II playing fields and conserve and enhance the appearance of

the Chilterns AONB; the adjoining Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, County Wildlife Site, QE II playing fields, the Registered Park and Garden of Luton Hoo and the Chilterns AONB;

LP5 - Policy Lp5 – Luton Town Football Club The football club have suggested OPTION 1: Neither option is accepted. Land South of PS371 linked changes to Policies LP5 and Stockwood Park LP9. The revised development at LP5 Policy LP5 - Land South of Stockwood Park Policy LP5 - Land South of Stockwood While the Club’s proposal Strategic would enable the viability of the Park for a town centre site Allocation redevelopment of a stadium-led certainly has merit it is redevelopment of Power Court. The A.Land identified on the Policies Map south A. Land identified on the Policies Map understood this is football club control the land at LP5 of Stockwood Park adjacent to Junction 10a south of Stockwood Park adjacent to dependent on, and tied to, enabling this linkage. of the M1 is allocated for a 14 ha prestige Junction 10a of the M1 is allocated for a the transfer of large-scale mixed-use gateway development according 14 ha prestige mixed-use gateway new retail investment from Two alternatives are suggested. to the following scales: development according to the following Luton town centre to an scales. This can include a mix of the out-of-town location. following uses: This approach involving the • B1 business uses; retail floorspace is neither • A1 retail uses; consistent with national or • C1 hotel uses; local planning policy and • D2 leisure uses; and has not been subject to • Park and ride facility including scope to testing of both its secure enhanced public transport to the qualitative and quantitative town centre. impact. In such circumstances it cannot be i.a new 15,000 seat stadium on 2.5 ha of i.a new 15,000 seat stadium on 2.5 ha of supported. land for the use of Luton Town Football Club land for the use of Luton Town Football including appropriate shared venue events; Club including appropriate shared venue ii.0.7 ha for ancillary sports facilities for events; which there is an identified need e.g. ii.0.7 ha for ancillary sports facilities for conference and corporate entertainment which there is an identified need e.g. suites, indoor and outdoor training pitches conference and corporate entertainment and sport activities for skills, health and suites, indoor and outdoor training fitness; and pitches and sport activities for skills, iii.0.3 ha of enabling provision is for small health and fitness; and scale A1, A3 and A4 uses associated with the iii.0.3 ha of enabling provision is for small sport, health and fitness focus of the scale A1, A3 and A4 uses associated with football stadium and shared venue events; the sport, health and fitness focus of the iv.park and ride facility comprising 2 ha football stadium and shared venue including scope to secure enhanced public events; transport to the town centre; iv.park and ride facility comprising 2 ha v.B1 business use on 9.5 ha of land to meet including scope to secure enhanced an identified shortfall of office employment public transport to the town centre; space over the plan period. v.B1 business use on 9.5 ha of land to

meet an identified shortfall of office employment space over the plan period.

B.Subject to the following: B. Subject to the following: i.development proposals should be i. Development proposals should be accompanied by a comprehensive accompanied by a comprehensive masterplan for approval, which includes an masterplan for approval, which includes indicative layout and phasing plan, an indicative layout and phasing plan, sustainable construction method and sustainable construction method and materials, landscape and biodiversity materials, landscape and biodiversity schemes and sets out details of how this will schemes and sets out details of how this be achieved; will be achieved; ii.the development will not take place until ii. the development will not take place Highways England is satisfied the proposals until Highways England is satisfied the do not have an unacceptable impact on proposals do not have an unacceptable Junction 10a improvements and upon the impact on Junction 10a improvements M1 motorway, and shall not compromise and upon the M1 motorway, and shall the safety of road users; not compromise the safety of road users;The development shall not take place until any impact on Junction 10a improvements and upon the M1 motorway have been identified and shall not compromise the safety of road users; iii.public transport services are secured to iii. Public transport services are secured to meet the expected demand arising from the meet the expected demand arising from development; the development; iv.car parking provision meets the maximum iv. Car parking provision meets the standard specified in Appendix 2, and is in- maximum standard specified in Appendix keeping with its surroundings and is in 2, and is in-keeping with its surroundings compliance with Policy LP25 (High Quality and is in compliance with Policy LP25 Design); (High Quality Design); v.the development will provide a high v. The development will provide a high quality southern gateway to the town and quality southern gateway to the town and will use public art, green space, built design, will use public art, green space, built lighting and topography to conserve and design, lighting and topography to enhance the appearance of the adjoining conserve and enhance the appearance of Green Belt, Area of Great Landscape Value, the adjoining Green Belt, Area of Great County Wildlife Site, QE II playing fields and Landscape Value, County Wildlife Site, QE the Chilterns AONB; II playing fields and the Chilterns AONB; vi.the development will be of a height and vi. The development will be of a height with lighting that does not compromise the and with lighting that does not safety of the operations of London Luton compromise the safety of the operations Airport; of London Luton Airport; vii.the development will protect features of vii. The development will protect features nature conservation interest and heritage of nature conservation interest and assets; heritage assets;

viii.improving connectivity to nearby cycle viii. Improving connectivity to nearby and footpaths and existing public rights of cycle and footpaths and existing public way and the rights of public utility providers rights of way and the rights of public will be safeguarded; utility providers will be safeguarded; ix.enabling development will be of a scale ix. enabling development will be of a that does does not adversely affect the scale that does does not adversely affect regeneration of Luton Town Centre. the regeneration of Luton Town Centre.It can be demonstrated that the development will not adversely affect the regeneration of Luton Town Centre.

OPTION 2:

Ai.a new 15,000 seat stadium on 2.5 ha of land for the use of Luton Town Football Club including appropriate shared venue events unless a more suitable site can be identified in a suitable location closer to the town centre;

iii.0.3 ha of enabling provision is for small scale A1, A3 and A4 uses associated with the sport, health and fitness focus of the football stadium and shared venue events; A1, A3 and A4 and leisure uses to facilitate the delivery

NB: other elements of the policy remain unchanged

LP5 - Policy Lp5 – Central Bedfordshire and Suggest strengthening on policy Bviii NB: Only the affected part of the policy is No – the Council considers Land South of Luton Joint Local Access reproduced that the existing policy Stockwood Park Forum coupled with the plan read Strategic PS61 B.viii. improving connectivity to nearby cycle No specific proposal for wording change as a whole provides a Allocation and footpaths and existing public rights of put forward in relation to B.viii sufficient basis for the way and the rights of public utility providers development of detailed will be safeguarded; proposals which, in turn, will be the subject of This additional text is proposed, probably consultation where as an additional point under B. detailed concerns can be Developers will need to submit a addressed. Transport Assessment demonstrating how large numbers of pedestrians can easily and safely access the site from Luton town centre and adjacent areas. Where this will require improvements to

the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure outside the site then the developer(s) will need to pay for this.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP6 – LONDON LUTON AIRPORT STRATEGIC ALLOCATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP6 – London Luton 11 5 16 2 5 11 4 3 7 3 Airport Strategic Allocation

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The policy is unsound (not positively prepared or effective) and should be deleted. To build a stadium beneath the flight path would be to plan for a major disaster. It conflicts with policy LP6A. LP6B iv & v are not achievable; vi, vii, viii are not credible (‘over time’ can mean anything); and ix - on no account can a new access road be permitted through Wigmore Valley Park, impact on amenity and environment, loss of open space – current deficit. Century Park and Wigmore Valley Park developments are unnecessary and unsustainable. LP6E 1-4 is nonsense and impossible - airport operations will degrade bio diversity. Fiii is undeliverable, de-icing chemicals, run-off already affects wildlife in Luton Hoo lakes. The results would conflict with the Integrated Impact assessment (Friends Of The Earth, 54044)

• The policy is unsound (not justified) since it would allow off-site vehicle parking - airport related land uses must be accommodated within the airport strategic allocation - delete reference to “off-site” parking provision (and insert an on-site requirement in policy LP32) to ensure land better serves other uses, and in be keeping with the plan’s vision, the town’s setting and the surface access strategy (CPRE, 72098).

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd welcomes inclusion of airport safeguarding since the Regulation 18 consultation. However, policy LP6 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy - object to section B (iii) which is overly restrictive stipulating compliance with the latest planning permission (ref:12/01400/FUL) and Airport Master Plan (which in any case will be reviewed) the latter runs to 2028 short of the plan period to 2031 and so policy will be out of date/inflexible, constraining sustainable growth of the airport which should be to the end of the plan period (Ref NPPF para 19 and 21 seeks to build strong economies through flexible policies)(London Luton Airport Operations

Ltd, 335867).

• The policy is not positively prepared and does not fully reflect that the airport plays a significant role in the national and regional economy. The airport is the single largest centre of employment in Luton. It supports approximately 8,400 local jobs with an annual economic value of nearly £800 million. The extra revenue generated through business and personal taxes, business rates and airport duty, is estimated to bring the overall economic value of the airport to approximately £1 billion per annum. The strategic importance of the airport was further reflected in the government’s announcement on 25 November 2015 confirming the Luton Airport Enterprise Zone. The existing airport and master plan represent sustainable development. Support for its ongoing and future sustainable growth should be more clearly reflected (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Section B (iii) of LP6 should be amended to remove the planning permission and Master Plan restriction in order for the plan to manage growth at the airport over the entirety of the plan period (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Section B (iv) of LP6 is similarly too restrictive and should be amended to clarify and provide certainty on how amenity impacts (e.g. an adverse effect’) would be measured and assessed (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• The policy section B (v) should retain the specific quantifiable noise levels specified in the Reg18 version, in order that future growth/expansion can be measured and provide clarity on defining “excessive noise” (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• The policy is unsound (not effective) as the terminology is imprecise e.g. ‘the latest permission’, ‘the latest Master plan’ etc. (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• The policy is sound. Dacorum Borough Council acknowledge the sub-regional benefits of planned airport expansion and is keen to ensure that the scale and frequency of night flights is not increased and all reasonable measures are taken to reduce disturbance caused by aircraft noise. Clauses (iv) to (vii) of Policy LP6 which refer specifically to the objectives of reducing noise and the impact of airport operations on local residents are welcomed (Dacorum Borough Council, 662461).

• North Hertfordshire District Council believes that the policy is sound in principle and supports the employment allocation at Century Park subject to access and ensuring that any development east of Luton remains achievable. Joint master planning between the airport and any development east of Luton is encouraged and the role of the airport in the future is supported (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900).

• The policy is unsound. Green Infrastructure and access must be planned with continuity across boundaries and in keeping with LP2 and objective 10 should not sustain losses of green space (which is beneficial for health and wildlife habitat) ) in a town of deficit/uneven distribution and so oppose any development on Wigmore Valley Park and want to have continued access to Century Park green fields building here would result in further loss of habitat, the airport already has sufficient land for its needs (roads or anything else) (Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• The policy is sound. London Luton Airport Limited welcomes the revised policy which recognises the pivotal role the airport plays for the economy of the sub region and inclusion of the broader scope and emphasis for aviation and other appropriate uses to deliver needed employment while protecting and enhancing public amenity (London Luton Airport Limited, 847151).

• The policy is unsound (not effective) it is premature to restrict airport-related car parking from Century Park and Wigmore Valley Park - such parking should be a matter for rationalising uses within the strategic allocation as a whole (provided the conditions set out in the policy are met) otherwise the airfield on the eastern side would have to be retained as the only available option for parking. Remove the words “(excluding Century Park and Wigmore Valley Park),(London Luton Airport Limited, 847151).

• The policy is sound. London Luton Airport Limited welcomes the removal of the indicative route to Century Park across (or under) the airfield shown in previous local plans (London Luton Airport Limited, 847151).

• The policy is unsound. Century Park and Wigmore Valley Park are on an elevated plateau, and are therefore visible from a wide area. Development must provide mitigation for this visual impact. LP6 (Ei) refers to a net increase of open space, this must be useful, valuable open space for people and wildlife (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• The policy is sound and supported in principle because Luton is a key economic centre in the sub region and provider of jobs (the role of the airport is acknowledged) – Century Park will provide employment in close proximity to homes. However, support is conditional on access to Century Park and development east of Luton being accessible via the existing road network, noise and traffic mitigation ; welcome extension of airport Way; willing to explore joint Master planning including off setting of open space (Wigmore Park) to deliver Century Park and make a positive open space contribution towards development east of Luton (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900)

• The policy is sound and the changes that have been made to Policy LP6 are welcomed (London Luton Airport/Century Park/Wigmore Valley Park), and note your comments in relation to the Policies for the other Strategic Allocation sites. (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

• The policy is unsound (not justified or effective) need to deliver policy LP31 transport improvements and cross boundary coordination with neighbouring authorities - the impact of Luton Airport expansion /Strategic Allocation is also key - Buckinghamshire can benefit from the potential sub-regional economic improvements and well maintained transport links will be essential in this case, including improvements to Luton and Luton airport via public transport (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

• The policy is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy, the policy does not adequately regulate development impacts (design, massing, form, and mitigation) on sensitive wider open countryside over a distinct elevated plateau extending in to Central Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire outside Luton (AONB, landscape character) against the plans objectives (Ref SO5 (quality places) and SO10 (improving and protecting biodiversity and natural areas). The Strategic Allocation would extend development further out into rural countryside (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Central Bedfordshire Council also express concern regarding parking outside the airport confines, such as that at Slip End which could affect the setting of this village and associated hamlets (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The policy is unsound (not effective or consistent with national policy) but can be fixed though minor modifications to B v) (noise) B iv (ATMs) B vii (diminution, betterment and amenity) section C (airport related car parking) to include addressing impacts on the wider sub-region and road network including St Alban’s District instead of focussing just localised impacts (St. Albans City & District Council, 955561).

• The policy is unsound as it does not address the need for airport expansion to protect the natural beauty and tranquillity of the AONB (Chilterns Conservation Board, 956824).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

There is a degree of support for the amended Regulation 19 version of the policy although there are objections relating to soundness, the clarity of terminology used and regulatory restrictions placed on airport growth including references to the latest planning permission and Master Plan and regarding ‘on-site airport related car parking’. There are also objections based on adverse local impacts including safety, transport, noise, open space, landscape, bio-diversity and amenity including within the wider sub region. However, the Council is satisfied that no major changes are needed. Minor modifications to clarify the wording will address these objections with regard to;

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd concern for the plan policies to give greater recognition of the strategic importance and role of London Luton Airport for Luton’s regeneration and sub regional employment function is already clearly recognised in Strategic Objective 1; policy LP2 Spatial

Development Strategy sections B i) and C iv); and policy LP6 London Luton Airport Strategic Allocation; paragraph 5.7 and policy LP13 clause ii and B.

• The Council can clarify to London Luton Airport Operations Ltd that the planning permission and master plan – this means the application or master plan that is applicable at the time, not the current planning permission to 18mppa and so allows flexibility and so this concern is a misunderstanding of the policy intent and can be clarified in the supporting text (paragraph 4.45).

• To clarify the car parking concerns raised by the CPRE and London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, Airport related car parking means long term passenger car parking is necessarily restricted to the airport strategic allocation (including in Policy LP32) – the policy already includes provision for exceptions where long term need cannot be met in this way and provided other policy considerations are satisfied. To further clarify, for London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, other ancillary parking associated with aviation and the uses to be accommodated in the development of Century Park (including land use re-configuration involving Wigmore Valley Park and Century Park) is not so restricted.

• Friends of the Earth raise concerns about safety. The Strategic Allocation area is not affected by the Public Safety Zone except for a very small margin of Century Park where PSZ restrictions will apply. Measuring and defining adverse environmental impact will be a matter for the existing regulatory regime and operational measures including; surface access strategy, night time noise and abatement procedures and planning conditions in relation to noise, amenity, air quality. This does not need to be repeated in detail in the policy as new planning permissions and operational procedures would quickly outdate the policy.

• To address landscape concerns raised by Luton Friends of the Earth, Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, North Hertfordshire District Council, Central Bedfordshire, Bucks County Council and St Albans Council, the plan must be read as a whole in terms of protection of wider landscapes and designations e.g. LP1 and LP29 and LP6 clause F ii) while any loss of open space, necessary mitigation and quality is regulated by LP6 clause D ii) and clauses E i)- vi) which include the need for a net increase of replacement open space which is accessible and of equal quality and in clauses F i) and ii) on the need for sensitive design and for strategic on-site and off-site landscaping to address the potential visual prominence within the wider area. To ensure that there is effective coordination for cross boundary planning – the local plan is also supported by the Green Infrastructure Study and other studies addressing landscape designations and character and open space considerations and a transport model which considers the local network and key parts for the Strategic Route Network e.g. M1 J10a and future J11a and A5-M1 link.

• To address wider environmental concerns raised by Central Bedfordshire and St Albans Council, the plan cannot prescribe Development Management regulation outside of the Borough - the sub regional and cross boundary impact of the airport and necessary mitigation is a matter already determined via the existing planning consent, imposed conditions and s.106 contributions. Any future expansion will be regulated through national policy considerations, further detailed applications (supporting by noise and transport assessments, and Strategic Environmental 79

Assessment) a revised Master Plan process with the applicant and stakeholders and consultation with neighbouring planning authorities. However, see also comments above on cross boundary planning evidence for environmental mitigation e.g. Green Infrastructure and transport.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Policy LP6 – CPRE Modification for clarity:- No specific wording changes proposed Not accepted –policy LP6 London Luton PS146 and LP32 already provides Airport Strategic Delete reference to “off-site” parking necessary guidance for on- Allocation provision (and insert an on-site site (passenger) parking requirement in policy LP32) to ensure provision within the airport land better serves other uses, and in strategic allocation be keeping with the plan’s vision, the town’s setting and the surface access strategy.

Policy LP6 – London Luton Airport Modification to wording of policy to No specific wording changes proposed Para 4.45 Partly accepted – the policy London Luton Operations Ltd remove reference to restriction already provides sufficient Airport Strategic PS251 referring to most recent planning Para 4.45 guidance and provides Allocation permission and Master Plan, clarify flexibility with criteria adverse impacts and insert noise …to grow to an operating capacity of 18 …to grow to an operating capacity of 18 regulating impacts in order section B (iii), iv) PS253and PS256 limits mppa. The airport provides infrastructure… mppa. This is supported by the policy LP6 to help determine any new and v) which includes criteria to allow proposals and planning additional proposals to be considered in applications without accordance with the latest planning enshrining the conditions permission and Master Plan (i.e. that of the current planning planning permission or Master Plan permission which may which is applicable at the time of become out of date within determination). The airport provides the plan period. infrastructure… However, a minor modification to para 4.45 in the supporting text will help to clarify the policy terminology.

Policy LP6 – London Luton Airport Given the importance of the airport in No specific wording changes proposed Para 4.51 Partly accepted. London Luton Operations Ltd the context of the wider strategy for Airport Strategic PS247 development within Luton, and the Para 4.51 The strategic importance Allocation significant economic contribution and role of London Luton that it makes to the area (both …Given the strategic relationship between …Given the strategic relationship between Airport for Luton’s directly and through indirect and Century Park, the airport , the sub-regional Century Park, the airport (and their regeneration and sub catalytic effects), its future and economy… substantial inclusion within the Luton regional employment ongoing sustainable growth should be Airport Enterprise Zone designation -see function is already clearly explicitly referenced, reflected and Appendix 14), the sub-regional economy… recognised in Strategic supported in the draft policies of the Objective 1; policy LP2 Local Plan. Spatial Development Strategy sections B i) and C iv); and policy LP6 London Luton Airport Strategic Allocation; para graph 5.7 and policy LP13 clause ii and B.

However, a minor modification to supporting text para 4.51 to clarify the latest position of the Enterprise Zone should be made to reflect the most up to date position and the Luton Airport Enterprise Zone added as an Appendix 14 Map to the Submission plan.

Policy LP6 – London Luton Airport Major modification proposed to …Proposals for airport related car parking …Proposals for airport related car parking Not accepted. The policy London Luton Operations Ltd remove the words “(excluding should be located within the Airport should be located within the Airport applies a necessary Airport Strategic PS5 Century Park and Wigmore Valley Strategic Allocation, as shown on the Strategic Allocation, as shown on the restriction to airport Allocation Park)”. proposals plan (excluding Century Park and proposals plan (excluding Century Park passenger related car Wigmore Valley Park) and will need to and Wigmore Valley Park) and will need parking being provided demonstrate that the proposals:… to demonstrate that the proposals: within the airport estate however, it does not restrict ancillary car parking associated with development of Century Park/Wigmore Valley Park for business and aviation related occupiers.

Policy LP6 – Bedfordshire Council If the Strategic Allocation were to be N/A – No specific wording changes N/A – No specific wording changes Not accepted. The policy London Luton PS460 brought forward the need to consider proposed proposed criteria regulated by LP6 Airport Strategic the landscape setting and seek clause D ii) and clauses E i)- Allocation enhancement via appropriate vi) already include the landscape mitigation and sympathetic need for a net increase of - highly creative design - of built form replacement open space must be sought and this must be which is accessible and of highlighted in the description and equal quality and in clauses policy of the SA if progressed. F i) and ii) on the need for sensitive design and for strategic on-site and off- site landscaping to address the potential visual prominence within the wider area

Policy LP6 – St. Albans City & District LP 6 is an outward looking policy. St N/A – No specific wording changes LP6 B Partly accepted. Minor London Luton Council Albans City and District Council proposed Proposals for expansion of the airport and clarification. The sub Airport Strategic PS368 considers that its scope needs to its operation, together with any regional and cross Allocation appropriately address the impacts on LP6 B associated surface access improvements, boundary impact of the the wider sub-region, including St Proposals for expansion of the airport and will be assessed against the Local Plan airport and necessary Albans City and District, instead of its operation, together with any associated policies as a whole taking account of the mitigation is a matter this being limited to the “adjoining surface access improvements, will be wider sub-regional impact of the airport. already determined via the highway network” and “neighbouring assessed against the Local Plan policies as a Proposals for development will only be existing planning consent, occupiers”. This Council suggests that whole. Proposals for development will only supported where all of the following imposed conditions and in order to become sound, reference be supported where all of the following criteria are met:- s.106 contributions. Any to the impact on the wider sub-region criteria are met:- future expansion will including this District needs to be similarly, be regulated added to Sections B iv (impact of an through national policy increase in Air Traffic Movements), v considerations, further (noise), and vii (diminution and detailed applications betterment of the effects of aircraft (supporting by noise and operations on amenity) and to transport assessments, and Section C (airport-related car Strategic Environmental parking). Assessment) a revised Master Plan process with the applicant and stakeholders and consultation with neighbouring planning authorities.

Policy LP6 – Chilterns Conservation Policy LP6 on London Luton Airport LP6 B LP6B Not accepted – the policy London Luton Board providing for the expansion of Luton iv. do not result in a significant increase in iv. do not result in a significant increase in already provides sufficient 82

Airport Strategic PS265 Airport should also protect the Air Transport Movements that would Air Transport Movements that would guidance and provides Allocation natural beauty and tranquillity of adversely affect the amenities of adversely affect the amenities of flexibility for new planning AONB. surrounding occupiers or the local surrounding occupiers, the tranquillity of applications and conditions environment (in the Chilterns AONB or the local regulating impacts terms of noise, disturbance, air quality and environment (in including when applied climate change impacts); terms of noise, disturbance, air quality with the other material and climate change impacts); polices of the plan on wider landscape considerations. This representation is also likely to be resolved by the minor clarification above in relation to PS368.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP7 – BUTTERFIELD GREEN TECHNOLOGY PARK

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP7 – Butterfield Green 12 1 13 3 2 1 12 6 4 5 5 Technology Park

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Central Bedfordshire Council suggest that the legal compliance test is not met because the Sustainability Appraisal did not consider all reasonable options including the option of delivering a balance of growth in jobs and housing numbers has not been assessed. The Sustainability Appraisal does not therefore meet the legal requirements of the SEA Directive. Central Bedfordshire Council also suggest the Sustainability Appraisal does not identify negative effects arising from implementing the plan which under-delivers housing and over-delivers jobs and incorrectly identifies positive impacts of implementing of the Local Plan on a number of objectives (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• In relation to soundness, Central Bedfordshire Council suggest that Butterfield Green should be re-designated for a mix of uses including residential because of its poor location/motorway access for B uses , low uptake and more suitable alternatives (e.g. Napier Park and Land South of Stockwood). This would stimulate the remainder of the site and CBC will consider land within in its administrative area in the Green Belt with potential to provide for unmet needs close to Luton. Central Bedfordshire also contends that the policy commentary does not adequately recognise its location abutting rural landscape including the AONB, impacts on landscape character and consideration for matters relevant under objectives SO5 (quality places) and SO10 (improving and protecting biodiversity and natural areas).The policy describes built development will occupy no more than 30% of the SA, and future built form should refer to design and materials ‘in-situ’ to continue character of development. The Representor feels recent urban character is already dated. It is essential that development layout, massing and design reflects and complements the sensitive rural interface, which will extend development into a closer relationship with the AONB. This ‘need’ should be identified in the Local Plan / SA description as a basic principle of development. The proposed inclusion of Park and Ride facility is also of concern due to lighting and night-time glow from Luton (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Henry Boot Ltd have indicated that the policy is legally compliant but query the soundness of the policy to provide further evidence to support both B1 and B2 uses at the site. Substantial support is expressed for the retention of the employment allocation although the Representor is concerned that the allocation for the site in the extant Local Plan 2001-2011 does not limit use of the site to B1 uses, using more flexible terminology such as “innovation centre” and technology village. The policy allocation for 55,000sqm of high quality B1-uses is therefore disputed as inflexible and not reflective of the wider evidence base. This recognises changes in the nature of advanced manufacturing and the similarity with B1(c) uses and ability to maintain the amenity of adjoining occupiers. The Representor refers to the high number of enquiries are received from industrial occupiers. The policy will not be effective as drafted, but should be made more flexible to support take full advantage of Luton’s attractiveness for high quality manufacturing. In addition, the representor has also questioned the need for, and scale of, a Park and Ride facility in this location and the requirement for the Representor for implementation of the facility (Henry Boot Ltd, 856665).

• Friends of the Earth have questioned the soundness of the policy since there is no mention of provision for more burial land. (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Friends of the Earth consider that the Park and Ride proposals for the allocation should have been provided at the start of development but must be addressed now as a priority to reduce traffic to the town centre from the A505 (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Historic England have welcomed the reference in the policy to Putteridge Bury Registered Park and Garden following our comments on the 2014 consultation. Reference to protecting views from Stopsley Common is also welcomed and should address the newly designated scheduled monument (Historic England, 169722).

• The Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership suggest the policy is not sound because Butterfield is in a rural edge location of high visual sensitivity, particularly given its location in relation to the Chilterns AONB indicating that development layout (and landscaping of the area not being developed) will need careful consideration. The inclusion of a park and ride facility is of great concern, with lighting and large expanses of hard surfacing having a significant visual impact which will be impossible to mitigate (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• The Chilterns Conservation Board note that Butterfield Green Technology Park is adjacent to the Chilterns AONB While this is recognised at para 4.57 reference should be added to the policy to protect the setting of the AONB and include policy measures to address potential harms. Of particular concern is potential light pollution from the proposed Park and Ride. Useful advice which could be incorporated can be found in the Chilterns Conservation Board’s Position Statement on Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB, 2011: "Avoiding Harm to the Setting of the Chilterns AONB" (Paragraphs 18 and 19) (Chilterns Conservation Board, 956824).

• Other respondents highlight concern regarding whether the requirement for low density development provides sufficient clarity to support high quality design outcomes or detail on how existing rights of way and green infrastructure will be incorporated and enhanced (Helena Cotter, 663183).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces urge emphasis on protection and enhancement of green spaces, biodiversity and access to the open countryside however, it is considered that proposals for development in North Hertfordshire District adjoining the Luton Borough boundary should be resisted as this will affect the landscape character enjoyed by Lutonians and the setting of Putteridgebury (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum consider that the policy should include a site-specific requirement for a multi-user route between Butterfield Green Road and Great Marlings running along the north side of the Crematorium site (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• With regard the Central Bedfordshire Council’s representations regarding mixed use residential development - this would conflict with the primary purpose of the Strategic Allocation and its operation and attractiveness. The Council needs to maintain a strategic approach to delivering economic restructuring and innovation - this site is the only viable greenfield site with serviced plots for this purpose. With regard to Central Bedfordshire’s concerns on the urban edge location of Butterfield - LBC do not accept that policy LP7 or the local plan when read as a whole are deficient in respect of the acknowledged sensitive location adjacent to the AONB. The development will be expected to take account of the Chilterns Conservation Board’s planning policies and include appropriate mitigation and safeguards.

• In relation to the representations by Henry Boot Ltd the Council welcome the continuing support to this strategic employment allocation and are sympathetic to the Representor’s aspirations although it is felt these can be best achieved within the scope of the policy, as drafted. In particular, the suggestion that a Masterplan is not required is not supported since a masterplan already exists and a review of the existing masterplan would provide the scope and basis for the concerns and detail – including realistic scope and terms for an element of B2 uses compatible with the Technology Park concept - to be satisfactorily addressed. The Council remains committed to the provision of the Park and Ride facility.

• In relation to comment regarding the burial ground it is understood that there is sufficient capacity within the curtilage of the existing site to accommodate needs falling within the plan period.

• In relation to the representations by the Bedfordshire Nature Local Partnership the Council recognise the concerns that have been raised but consider that these are recognised in the plan (see, for example, paragraph 4.57) and are matters that will be addressed as detailed proposals are brought forward. The Council that appropriate mitigation measures can be introduced. The Council does not have any decision-making power on land outside its administrative control, but is confident that acceptable outcomes in landscape and visual impact terms can be secured through any developments in neighbouring areas.

• The Council feels that similar response is appropriate to the concerns of the Chilterns Conservation Board. In addition the development of the site would already be expected to take account of the planning policies embodied in the Conservation Board’s documentation.

• Continuing the commitment to the preparation of a masterplan for the site is the most appropriate way in which the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum’s representation can be addressed.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP7 Henry Boot Ltd Detailed changes to the policy are Policy LP 7 Butterfield Green Technology After paragraph 4.54 it is suggested No – while the Council are PS384 proposed to provide flexibility to Park the following text be inserted: sympathetic to the deliver 55,000sqm (removing Representor’s aspirations it reference to jobs) of B1 or B2 The undeveloped land (23 hectares) at Whilst employment land studies have is felt these can be best floorspace to serve research and Butterfield Green is allocated for the traditionally focused on B1, B2 and B8 achieved within the scope development and high quality development of high quality, technology- uses, the boundaries between uses of the policy, as drafted. In manufacturing. Ancillary uses should relatedB1 uses which could provide are now increasingly blurred and cut particular, a review of the also be supported such as C1, D2 or approximately 55,000 sqm of employment across use classes. Automotive, Masterplan would provide A1 and A3 premises. The proposed floorspace (or 4,800 jobs) in the research aerospace, and broader advanced the scope and basis for the changes also amend reference to the and development sectors complementing manufacturing and engineering concerns and detail – Park and Ride element of the the existing Innovation Centre and sectors occupy B1 and B2 floorspace. including realistic scope allocation, citing that it lacks evidence Enterprise hub and contributing to the Policy LP7 therefore seeks to and terms for an element and justification for the principle of expansion of the sub-regionally important accommodate such uses. of B2 uses compatible with the allocation, the scale of the facility Technology Park. Support will also be given the Technology Park The actual physical differences in the and its direct relationship to provision to the provision of a park and ride facility to concept - to be buildings required by ‘office’ as of employment at Butterfield mitigate traffic in the borough. satisfactorily addressed. against ‘industrial’ occupiers can be requested within previous quite marginal. Many industrial representations. Subsequent changes A. Development should accord with the The Council remains processes are now ‘clean’ and design, also amend the detailed criteria of Spatial Development Strategy, other policies committed to the provision product development and the policy so it can effectively meet in the plan and follow the site-specific of the Park and Ride manufacturing activities can all take

the needs of business occupiers; requirements: place within a single building. Indeed facility. removing the need for a detailed individual companies in many masterplan, relaxing restrictions on i. development proposals should be instances are engaged in activities storey heights where justified and accompanied by a comprehensive which cut across Use Class retaining existing landscape where masterplan which should include an boundaries. possible. indicative layout, sustainable construction methods and materials, a landscape and The aspiration for Butterfield is to biodiversity plan and a phasing plan for the create a high-quality business park necessary infrastructure to deliver the which is a home for ‘clean’ scheme; technology related uses and ii. new development shall have regard to businesses. Planning applications for and where possible replicate or exceed the development at Butterfield will be high benchmark of sustainability achieved determined in this context. The by existing developments at Butterfield and existing Outline Planning Permission be an exemplar of high quality and energy for the Site provides control over the efficient modern office development in the nature of uses and operations that town; can take place, and applicants will be iii. materials should reference those used in required to demonstrate the the existing structures and create continuity compatibility of the proposed with the existing development; iv. density development with the restrictions of should be low with the footprint of the Condition 15 of the Outline buildings typically occupying no more than Permission. 30% of the gross area, with significant landscaping between buildings/uses Policy LP7 Butterfield Technology Park throughout the site; v. access to the site should be provided by the existing access “The undeveloped land (23 hectares) at from the A505 (Hitchin Road); Butterfield Green is allocated for the vi. integrated sustainable drainage systems development of high quality, technology- are particularly appropriate for this site; related B1 and B2 uses which could vii. existing landscape features such as provide approximately 55,000 sqm of hedgerows and ponds shall be retained; viii. employment floorspace (or 4,800 jobs) in the views from the adjacent Stopsley the research and development and Common and Oaket Wood County Wildlife advanced manufacturing sectors Site and the setting of the Registered Park complementing the existing Innovation and Garden at Putteridge Bury should be Centre and Enterprise hub and protected and should retain their rural contributing to the expansion of the sub- character. Buildings will be restricted to two regionally important Technology Park. storeys, increased to three storeys where Support will also be given to the use can be made of roof space; ix. existing provision of a park and ride facility to rights of way shall be safeguarded; mitigate traffic in the borough. x. the Park & Ride facility should be located Complementary ancillary uses which near the entrance of the existing Innovation support the overall success of Butterfield Centre and will serve the wider urban and as a modern business park will also be rural areas; supported. Such uses could include small xi. pedestrian and cycle routes will also be scale retail (Class A1 and A3) and/or essential to link the site to the surrounding leisure uses such as a gym (Class D2) and

and wider urban / rural area. hotel (Class C1). A. Development should accord with the Spatial Development Strategy, other policies in the plan and follow the site- specific requirements guidance:

i. Development proposals should be accompanied by a comprehensive masterplan which should include an indicative layout, sustainable construction methods and materials, a landscape and biodiversity plan and a phasing plan for the necessary infrastructure to deliver the scheme; ii. New development shall have regard to and where possible replicate or exceed the high benchmark of sustainability achieved by existing developments at Butterfield and be an exemplar of high quality and energy efficient modern office development in the town; iii. Materials should reference those used in the existing structures and create continuity with the existing development; iv. Density should be low with the footprint of the buildings typically occupying no more than 30% of the gross area, with significant landscaping between buildings/uses throughout the site. A higher density of development will be permitted where this can be justified and a comprehensive landscaping scheme can still be implemented within the development plot. v. Access to the site should be provided by the existing access from the A505 (Hitchin Road); vi. Integrated sustainable drainage systems are particularly appropriate for this site; vii. Existing landscape features such as hedgerows and ponds shall be retained as far as possible having regard to the need to install the necessary infrastructure develop the site for business purposes;

viii. the views from the adjacent Stopsley Common and Oaket Wood County Wildlife Site and the setting of the Registered Park and Garden at Putteridge Bury should be protected and should retain their rural character. Typically buildings will be restricted in general to two storeys, although where development can be demonstrated not to impact upon views into the site, three storey buildings may be permitted increased to three storeys where use can be made of roofspace. ix. Existing rights of way shall be safeguarded or redirected as necessary. New public routes to the adjacent greenspaces and the new recreational facilities of the Inspire Luton Sport Village introduced within well landscaped corridors and away from traffic routes; x. The scale and form of the Park & Ride facility will be determined through further studies and should be located in the most suitable location within the business park to serve the wider area whilst also having regard to the deliverability and viability of Butterfield. xi. The Park & Ride facility should be located near the entrance of the existing Innovation Centre and will serve the wider urban and rural areas; xii. Pedestrian and cycle routes will also be essential to link the site to the surrounding and wider urban / rural area.

LP7 Friends of the Earth The policy should refer to the Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – there is already PS141 provision of additional burial land. the Representor sufficient burial capacity to meet the needs arising within the plan period.

LP7 Central Bedfordshire and LP7 should include a site-specific Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – Consideration of this Luton Joint Local Access requirement for a multi-user route the Representor matter can be best handled Forum between Butterfield Green Road and as part of the preparation

PS62 Great Marlings running along the of the masterplan for the north side of the Crematorium site. site.

LP7 Chilterns Conservation Reference should be added to the Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – it is considered that Board policy to protect the setting of the the Representor the plan and existing PS266 AONB and include policy measures to planning policies adopted address potential harms including by the Chilterns potential light pollution from the Conservation Board are proposed Park and Ride facility. adequate to ensure these matters are satisfactorily addressed as proposals are brought forward.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP8 – NAPIER PARK

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP8 – Napier Park 4 4 2 4 3 2 1 2

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• It does not deliver a large enough contribution towards meeting Luton’s need for new houses. Land for office and industrial uses at Napier Park has been available since November 2014 and the site is yet to deliver any employment space (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

• The mix and quantum of commercial floorspace and residential units should more accurately reflect that already approved. The development of the site in phases and by different parties is possible and to require a masterplan for the whole site is unreasonable and unnecessary. The site has the ability to provide for different uses and designs which could be delivered simultaneously or over a period of time. So long as individual schemes demonstrate how they relate to the surrounding site and area and illustrate how they will not compromise the ability of elements of the site to subsequently be brought forward, there should be no requirement for them to be brought forward as part of a comprehensive masterplan (Augur Group Ltd, 956519),(J2 Global, 957878).

• Approximately 600 residential units are identified to be delivered and this flexibility in the numbers is supported. The representations support preparation of an accompanying comprehensive Masterplan. At Part B iv, integrated parking is supported. Part B vi Housing Density is supported (Redrow Plc, 956553).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• At approximately 53 dwellings per hectare on the residential plots, Napier Park is making a significant contribution to housing supply while also meeting the needs for other development types including retail and employment. The proposals have developed over many years with consideration to

viability, site specific constraints and environmental quality.

• The requirement for a masterplan will not be removed. The majority of this requirement has already been provided through the current planning permission. The policy wording is required in the case that a new planning application is submitted for the whole of the site. The requirement for a masterplan is seen as positive by the developers of the residential element of the site (Redrow Plc).

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No reference Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP8 Augur Group Ltd Remove the reference to the LP8 LP8 No - A site-wide plan is supported by PS358 need for a Masterplan. A. Development proposals should be A. Development proposals should be the relevant housing developer and has and accompanied by a comprehensive accompanied by a comprehensive mostly already been provided for the J2 Global masterplan for approval, which masterplan for approval, which extant permission. PS248 includes an indicative layout and includes an indicative layout and phasing plan and Landscape Plan and phasing plan and Landscape Plan and sets out details of how these will be sets out details of how these will be achieved. achieved.

LP8 Augur Group Ltd Amend the policy to make it No – This aspect is covered in the PS358 clear that the site has the supporting text to this policy and and potential to deliver a strategic elsewhere in the plan. J2 Global contribution both in terms of PS248 commercial and residential floorspace.

LP8 Redrow Plc Suggest that the wording is LP 8 LP 8 Yes – Minor change to tighten-up the PS351 amended to provide clarity that Napier Park is a brownfield site of Napier Park is a brownfield site of policy text and reduce ambiguity. the figure of 600 dwellings is around 25 hectares, located on the around 25 hectares, located on the approximate. We would also former Vauxhall car plant. The site is former Vauxhall car plant. The site is suggest that the word ‘around’ allocated for a mixed use allocated for a mixed use is removed from the second neighbourhood development including neighbourhood development sentence of the policy. around approximately 35,000 sqm of including around approximately B1a office space and 20,000 sqm of 35,000 sqm of B1a office space and B1c industrial uses, 600 residential 20,000 sqm of B1c industrial uses, units, a foodstore of 2,500 sqm 600 residential units, a foodstore of floorspace, and a hotel. 2,500 sqm floorspace, and a hotel.

LP8 Redrow Plc Suggest an amendment to No – The policy does not prevent PS351 enable ‘undercroft’ parking to undercroft parking. Any such proposals be provided. This will allow would be assessed as part of a planning greater flexibility for providing application. an integrated parking solution, as the gradients on site are a significant constraint.

LP8 Redrow Plc Suggest an amendment in line No –The policy does not prevent PS351 with para 4.68, which notes additional access points. Paragraph that vehicular access will only 4.68 has been written in the light of be permissible off Kimpton concerns over the potential traffic Road. The policy does not allow impacts that alternative access points for flexibility for further access might cause. points to be provided.

4.67 Redrow Plc Suggest an amendment to para No – The supporting text covers access PS351 4.67 to ensure that the concerns in a general manner that difficulty in providing encompasses pedestrian movements. convenient and direct pedestrian connections through the site, due to site gradients, is acknowledged.

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP9 – POWER COURT STRATEGIC ALLOCATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP9 – Power Court 3 3 6 1 3 3 2 1 1 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Welcome reference in text and policy and requirement to respect and enhance grade 1 St Mary’s Church setting and also reference to River Lea as a historic landscape feature (Historic England, 169772).

• Support in particular LP9 A iii) and amendments made to address opening up the River Lea and wider access (Friends of Parks & Green Spaces, 665733 and Beds & Luton Joint Access Forum, 857043).

• Other respondents consider that the policy is not sound unless it can provide greater certainty and detail in order for developer’s to exercise a duty to improve the river corridor (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• Not sound, positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy - the quantum of the required 30,096 sqm retail floorspace for comparison shopping by 2025 requires 6 hectares of land which cannot be delivered along with the mixed uses convenience, residential, and leisure on the 7 hectares available at Power Court (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• It is unlikely Power Court can accommodate an A1 foodstore of 3,393 sqm (requires 2 hectares of land) as well as the mixed uses (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• A purely comparison led scheme would not deliver the councils objectives for town centre regeneration e.g. boosting the evening economy (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• It is unlikely Power Court could attract the high profile retailers given its constraints (on site costs/conservation area) and track record being unimplemented to date (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• An alternative additional out-of-centre site is needed (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• A new stadium should be delivered on this site close to the town centre and this would not allow as much retail provision (Luton Town Football Club, 856258).

• Not sound or positively prepared - allocation does not deliver large enough contribution towards Luton’s 17,800 housing need, not implemented for allocated mixed housing/business over last 10 years – no developer master plan since 2006 (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• There is some support for the policy approach for addressing access environmental and heritage matters on Power Court (e.g. Historic England, Friends of Parks & Green Spaces Beds & Luton Joint Access Forum).

• In response to Miss Helena Cotter, the Council, considers that policy LP9 (including policy LP3 Luton Town Centre Strategy clause xi)is quite clear on the need to ensure the River Lea corridor is correctly dealt with in terms of opportunities for de-culverting and wider Green Infrastructure access.

• No legal issues have been raised although two objections questioning soundness are made. Luton Town Football Club object to the policy allocation for mixed use retail, housing and employment on Power Court stating that this development cannot be delivered on this site (insufficient land) and the allocation would also preclude delivery of a new football stadium requiring an alternative strategy.

• The Council is of the view that the policy is sound and provides enough flexibility as currently drafted to accommodate different format and configuration of uses on site including multiple storeys, to achieve provision. Consideration should also be given to the other material policies for accommodating future retail need including the Creative Quarter which includes the Northern Gateway (0.5 ha site). The Northern Gateway provides potential for multiple floors and retail format including potential reconfiguration of adjacent highway and other land and buildings in the

Creative Quarter. Power Court together with the Creative Quarter, provide sufficient options to deliver the required retail need and also to secure the Council’s objectives for Power Court and wider town centre regeneration via retail, leisure, housing and other town centre uses.

• Retail need forecasts provide an industry standard guide for retail need over the first 10 years and as circumstances change it will be for the further plan reviews and the development industry to identify opportunities to accommodate retail provision against the guide levels in the policy. The Council’s long standing policy is to see the Luton Town Football club relocated to Junction 10a. National policy on retail is subject to the sequential and impact tests and no such evidence has been provided.

• The objection from Sundon Parish Council is similarly not substantiated as the site will make one of the largest contributions in the SHLAA (600 dwelling units) towards meeting Luton’s OAHN and the economy is improving the prospect of delivery.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id iState reason (as appropriate) LP9 Power Court Luton Town Football Club Modification(s) to wording of policy LP9 LP9 PS376 to overcome LTFC’s concerns. Power Court is a brownfield site of around 7 Power Court is a brownfield site of Not accepted. Modification hectares located in Luton Town Centre’s around 7 hectares located in Luton Town not justified. northeast gateway bounded to the north by Centre’s northeast gateway bounded to the route of the Luton-Dunstable Guided the north by the route of the Luton- Busway and the railway line and to the Dunstable Guided Busway and the south by the St Mary Road. railway line and to the south by the St Mary Road. Power Court is a key site for achieving regeneration objectives of the plan which Power Court is a key site for achieving Not accepted. Modification includes providing a sustainable mixed use regeneration objectives of the plan not justified. development, the Master Plan and future which includes providing a sustainable consent which will extend the primary mixed use development, the Master Plan shopping area to improve the town centre and future consent which will extend the retail offer and as an accessible, convenient primary shopping area to improve the and attractive location in which to live, shop town centre retail offer and as an and be entertained. Power Court will deliver accessible, convenient and attractive a mix of town centre uses forming a retail, location in which to live, shop and be leisure, cultural and entertainment hub entertained. Power Court will deliver a mixed with housing and business. This mix of town centre uses forming a retail, development will enhance the offer of the leisure, cultural and entertainment hub 97

town to residents and students of mixed with housing and business. This Bedfordshire University and also the wider development will enhance the offer of community, as well as visitors, and tourists. the town to residents and students of Bedfordshire University and also the wider community, as well as visitors, and tourists.

Land at Power Court, as shown on the 'Land at Power Court, as shown on the Not accepted. Modification Policies Map is allocated for town centre Policies Map is allocated for flexible town not justified. uses in a mixed use redevelopment of centre uses mixed use regeneration and around 600 dwellings and a need for circa redevelopment of around 600 dwellings 3,393 sqm net retail convenience floorspace and a need for circa 3,393 sqm net retail and provision for sport, leisure and convenience floorspace and provision entertainment. Comparison floorspace will for sport, leisure and entertainment. also be accommodated in accordance with Comparison floorspace will also be the borough’s overall identified need for the accommodated in accordance with the town centre. borough’s overall identified need for the town centre. to deliver the either of the following combination of uses:

• A new football stadium for the use of Luton Town Football Club and ancillary uses;

• A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 retail uses;

• C1 hotel uses;

• C3 residential uses; and

• D2 leisure uses.

Allowance should also be provided for health and education related facilities.

• A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 retail uses; Not accepted. Modification not justified. • C1 hotel uses; .

• C3 residential uses; and

• D2 leisure uses. 98

Development should accord with the Spatial Development should accord with the Development Strategy, other policies in the Spatial Development Strategy, other plan and address the following policies in the plan and address the requirements: following requirements: i. Proposals should be accompanied by a i. Proposals should be accompanied by a Not accepted. Modification comprehensive masterplan which includes comprehensive masterplan which not justified. indicative layout, materials, access, massing, includes indicative layout, materials, uses and a phasing, the proposed delivery access, massing, uses and appropriate mechanism, and should comply with the details including a phasing plan , the Luton Town Centre Development proposed delivery mechanism, and Framework and its updates; should comply with the Luton Town Centre Development Framework and its updates; ii. Development should respect and enhance ii. Development should respect and Minor modification the setting and context of the site in terms enhance the setting and context of the accepted with respect to of using quality design to complement site in terms of using and its high visual high visual profile, integral adjacent landmark buildings and the public profile. High quality design should be high quality design and realm, including the Grade I listed St Mary’s integral to the scheme to complement adjacent vistas. Church and grounds, the University of adjacent landmark buildings, and the Bedfordshire Campus and the UK Centre for adjacent vistas, and the public realm, Carnival Arts; including the Grade I listed St Mary's Church and grounds the University of Not accepted. Modification Bedfordshire Campus and the UK Centre not justified. for Carnival Art; iii. Consider opportunities for making more iii. Consider opportunities appropriate Not accepted. Modification effective use of the River Lea as an and realistic options for making more not justified. accessible strategic green infrastructure for effective use of the River Lea channel the town providing habitat and an running through the site as an accessible accessible historic landscape feature, and strategic green infrastructure for the consider options for deculverting and town providing habitat and an accessible redirecting the River Lea channel where historic landscape feature, and consider feasible to link with nearby walking and options for deculverting and redirecting cycling networks; the River Lea channel where feasible to link with nearby walking and cycling networks; iv. Proposals will need to mitigate flood risk iv. Proposals will need to use suitable Not accepted. Modification issues of the site by integrating Sustainable measures to mitigate flood risk issues not justified. Drainage Systems (SuDS) and or other associated with of the site by reasonably suitable mitigation measures; integrating Sustainable Drainage Systems 99

(SuDS) and or other reasonably suitable mitigation measures;

v. Ensure that development elevations v. ensure that development elevations maintain the high visual profile of the site maintain the high visual profile of the and maintain views to other adjacent vistas site and maintain views to other adjacent in the town (e.g. Hart Hill and the railway vistas in the town (e.g. Hart Hill and the line); railway line); and

vi. Land decontamination and works vi. Land contamination and works Minor modifications affecting the River Lea should be carried out affecting the River Lea should be carried accepted. with the best practice available and be in out in line with the best practice available accordance with Policy LP38 to avoid any and be in accordance with Policy LP38 to harmful impact on the water resources. avoid any harmful impact on the water resources.'

Minor modification to wording of Alternatively, the policy could be policy to overcome LTFC’s concerns. amended as follows:

The mix of uses that Power Court will ….Power Court will deliver a mix of town Not accepted. Major deliver to include a new specific centre uses forming a retail, leisure, modification not justified. reference to a new stadium. For including a new stadium for Luton town The policy is flexible example, referring to ‘including a new Football club, cultural and entertainment enough. stadium for Luton Town Football hub mixed with housing and business. Club’ after the references to ‘leisure’ This development will enhance the offer in the policy. of the town to residents and students of Bedfordshire University and also the In addition to the policy wider community, as well as visitors, and amendments, relevant related tourists…. amendments need to be made the supporting text for policies LP5 and ….Land at Power Court, as shown on the Not accepted. Major LP9 to reflect the changes made to Policies Map is allocated for town centre modification not justified. each policy. uses in a mixed use redevelopment of The policy is flexible around 600 dwellings and a need for circa enough. 3,393 sqm net retail convenience floorspace and provision for sport, leisure including a new stadium for Luton town Football club, and entertainment. Comparison floorspace will also be accommodated in accordance with the borough’s overall identified need for the town centre….

100

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP10 – HIGH TOWN

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP10 – High Town 4 4 1 4 1 2 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Efforts to regenerate High Town should ensure the enhancement of the conservation area and other heritage assets and the removal of the conservation area from being ‘at risk’. The masterplan and delivery strategy should help with these efforts. Heritage England not involved in this to date. Amendment to policy wording suggested to meet the concern (Historic England, 169722).

• The policy sounds very pretty and nice. The reality ought to live up to the dream. Outsiders don’t want to come to Luton because of the grossly unfair negative publicity it receives in the national press. Just what is the vision for Luton? It is no longer an industrial town. It could be the leading town in the area if planned properly. Not half-hearted, short term gain development mistakes (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• The representation supports more public open space and improved natural environment in High Town. The planting a small orchard has been previously suggested and the Representor would like the land allocations to include public open space for this to happen (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• The representation suggests a change to the policy to include specific references to improved pedestrian linkages to Peoples Park/Bell Close, Wardown Park and the River Lea corridor (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

101

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The responses are generally supportive of the approach in Policy LP10, subject to some detailed changes to the policy wording which are considered below.

• The Council intend to publish the High Town Master Plan for a period of consultation and, subject to the responses, to consider its adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document. This more detailed plan builds on Policy LP10 and sets out the approach to the area in much greater depth.

• The regeneration and revitalisation of High Town has been an ambition of the Council for some considerable time. The improving economic outlook for Luton significantly improve the prospects for this to happen which, in turn, will help the wider vision for the town, as set out in the local plan to be achieved.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP10 Historic England Clarification to wording of policy to LP10 LP10 Yes – minor clarification to PS77 overcome HE’s concerns. The vision for the area is to create a The vision for the area is to create a policy sustainable vibrant, historic neighbourhood The vision for the area is to create a destination delivered through residential- sustainable vibrant, historic led mixed use development whilst neighbourhood destination delivered protecting the historical environment and through residential-led mixed use assets including small scale offices / development whilst protecting and workshops, live work units and increased enhancing the historical environment retail provision which will enhance the area and heritage assets including small scale including increased footfall, better offices / workshops, live work units and pedestrian access and permeability, more increased retail provision which will public open space and an enhanced natural enhance the area including increased environment. footfall, better pedestrian access and permeability, more public open space and an enhanced natural environment.

LP10 Luton Friends of Parks and 4.97 and LP10D, The Representor Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – the policy (para 2) Green Spaces would like the land allocations to the Representor already recognises the

102

PS317 include public open space enable the need for more public open planting of a small orchard. space and an enhanced natural environment. The High Town Master Plan provides the opportunity for greater detail.

LP10 Central Bedfordshire and LP10 should include a site-specific Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A No – the importance and Luton Joint Local Access requirement to improve routes to the the Representor improvement of pedestrian Forum town centre and also connectivity to linkages is already reflected PS63 Peoples Park/Bell Close, Wardown in the policy. The High Park and the River Lea corridor. Town Master Plan provides the opportunity for greater detail.

103

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP11 – CREATIVE QUARTER

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representation Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP11 – Creative Quarter 5 5 1 - 5 2 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Welcome references to the historic environment and considers the plan to be legally compliant however, the policy is not sound (effective or consistent with national policy) needing further modification to provide detail and a positive strategy in line with the NPPF (Historic England, 169772).

• Plaiters Lea Conservation Area is on the national Heritage at Risk Register and covering paragraphs should refer to new Conservation Area appraisals and management plans and historic significance in relation to the Northern Gateway - the policy part B iii) should make clear that 49 – 51 Cheapside should be retained and part B v) clarify the extent of ground floor use and include Cheapside (Historic England Advisor, 169772).

• Another respondent considers that in order to be sound, the Policy should improve access to and connectivity with the river corridor (in-line with strategic objective SO10 and Para 4.21) by providing a strategic access route through the Brache site, connect with other neighbourhood centres and open up public space as a linear park and provide new routes to other areas e.g. High Town. A green space alongside any development at Power Court is also proposed (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• The policy is unsound. If a café were built in part of The Gap next to the library, it could be made attractive, with a clear ceiling and glass floor with a light shining on to the river. Please bring back a mural on the library wall too (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

104

• The policy is unsound – part C iii) need to ensure a more pleasant healthy environment around the Station quarter as a gateway to the town through green spaces and a Station Square was promised – also relates to para 4.19 4.1114-5 (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• The policy not sound (effective) - seek greater assurance the policy will foster the creative sector (links to Policy LP13 economic strategy) and the offer of the Hat factory which is not mentioned in the policy (Luton Culture, 855411).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• There is no need to amend the supporting text or policy – Policy LP30 Historic Environment already includes safeguards and criteria for assessing proposals affecting Conservation Areas and heritage and the local plan should be read as a whole and the nature and extent of specific ground floor uses in the Northern Gateway and proposals in The Gap site and Station quarter will be determined through detailed application proposals which must accord with the polices. Similarly, the existing Hat factory is already addressed in the supporting text although it is partly accepted that the facilities it offers can be included in the supporting text to clarify. It is considered that the Local Plan sets out a positive vision for the River Lea corridor, which will be achieved through provisions of several policies and therefore the plan must be read as a whole in terms of how improvements can be achieved.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP11 Creative Historic England Advisor Minor modification to wording of No specific text changes suggested by the No specific text changes suggested by the Not accepted –change to Quarter and parts PS78 policy to clarify significance of the representor. representor. policy not necessary as B iii) and B v) Northern Gateway, a requirement for concerns are adequately conservation area appraisals and cover by Policy LP11 and management plans, for the LP30 and other polices of protection of 49-51 Cheapside. the plan which must be read as a whole.

LP11 Creative Co-Chair Luton Friends of Minor modification to wording of No specific text changes suggested by the No specific text changes suggested by the Not accepted –change to Quarter and parts Parks and Green Spaces policy to clarify proposals for the Gap representor. representor. policy not necessary as will 3 Di) PS308 site and Station Quarter. be determined through LP C iii) PS310 detailed application proposals which will accord with the policies. 105

LP11 Creative Chief Executive Luton Minor modification to wording of No specific text changes suggested by the No specific text changes suggested by the Partly accepted – the policy Quarter Culture supporting text to clarify the offer of representor. representor. gives sufficient guidance PS208 the Hat factory. for all stakeholders in the Para 4.114 Para 4.114 creative sector. The presence of restaurants and pubs also The presence of restaurants and pubs make this area suitable to encourage a (including venues such as the Hat Factory However modification to vibrant night time economy. Creative Arts Centre providing a theatre, gallery supporting text for clarity businesses globally are also seen as the and basement live venue) also make this on the contribution of the conduit to a thriving café culture and to area suitable to encourage a vibrant night Hat Factory. active and vibrant public spaces. time economy. Creative businesses globally are also seen as the conduit to a thriving café culture and to active and vibrant public spaces.

106

CHAPTER 4 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

POLICY LP12 – MARSH FARM

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP12 – Marsh Farm 3 1 4 - - 1 2 1 0 3 0

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• One respondent identifies that changes have been made to other policies covering strategic allocations in the Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan seeking to improve connectivity to the walking, cycling and green infrastructure network and cross-boundary recreation and leisure benefits. The approach followed in Policy LP12 is now considered to be inconsistent and should include a site-specific requirement to improve connectivity of the urban area to the Right of Way network north of the town in order to be effective and positively prepared (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043). • Miss Helena Cotter does not consider that Parts Aiii and Avi of Policy LP12 are effective as they do not adequately look to protect and enhance existing green infrastructure and ecological features in the regeneration area with existing trees lost as part of other recent development activity. The same respondent queries the supporting text at Paragraph 4.121 and whether existing and potential walking and cycling routes will effectively connect with the network of green infrastructure extending to the open countryside north of the site (Miss Helena Cotter, 663183). • Paragraph 4.121 and Parts LP12 Aiii and Avi are supported by another respondent, with the caveat that they would not wish to see development north of the Luton Boundary jeopardising this (Friends of the Earth, 665733).

107

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• There are no issues with Legal Compliance mentioned on this section. Comments on Policy LP12 are limited and have been concentrated on the relationship of the regeneration area with existing landscape and green infrastructure connections and features and the scope to improve these are part of new development. There is a general recognition and support that Parts Aiii and Avi of Policy LP12 seek to improve landscape character, local identity and green infrastructure connections and will be sought as part of a comprehensive Masterplan.

• The future development of greenfield land north of the existing Marsh Farm estate is not controlled by the Luton Local Plan as this area lies within the administrative area for Central Bedfordshire Council. This area is covered by the Central Bedfordshire Council ‘Luton North’ “Framework Plan”, which will seek to provide for a wide variety of informal open space, recreational facilities and green infrastructure connections and has regard to existing Rights of Way connecting with the urban area in Luton and how these may be utilised. It is considered that a strong foundation is therefore provided to overcome concerns regarding the relationship of the Marsh Farm estate with potential further comprehensive development nearby.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Policy LP12 Central Bedfordshire and To provide consistency with policies Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording not proposed by the No - A site-wide plan is Luton Joint Local Access for other Strategic Allocations in the the respondent but considered closely respondent but interpreted below. supported by the Council Forum Plan and include a site-specific related to Policy LP12 Aiii: and relevant developers PS64 requirement to improve connectivity Change would either add to criteria Aiii or and has mostly already of the urban area to the Right of Way “proposals must improve the opportunities comprise a new criteria ix been provided for extant network north of the town. for creating places of local identity and permission covering the amenity easily connected to services by proposals must improve the opportunities allocation. walking and cycling via identifiable routes for creating places of local identity and Criteria Ai – Aviii of the that may connect with Green Infrastructure amenity easily connected to services by Policy as drafted are to the wider countryside to the north of the walking and cycling via identifiable routes considered to have been urban area;” that may connect with Green met and are appropriate to Infrastructure to the wider countryside to inform the requirements of the north of the urban area; and secure any modified or opportunities to link site access via replacement scheme that walking, cycling and bridleways to the may otherwise come wider network of routes within the forward. strategic allocation and support access to the countryside to the east and south; The “identifiable routes” referred to in Criteria LP12

108

Aiii could be clarified to include mention of the Rights of Way network. However, the Council considers that the plan read as a whole provides adequate protection for these assets and connections, such the specific reference at Part B of Policy LP29.

109

CHAPTER 5 – GROWING LUTON’S ECONOMY

LP13 – ECONOMIC STRATEGY & LP14 – EMPLOYMENT AREAS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Chapter 5 – Growing Luton’s 12 1 13 4 2 1 12 7 9 6 8 Economy including:

LP13 – Economic Strategy

LP14 – Employment Areas

Summary of issues raised by Representors

Supporting text

• In relation to paragraph 5.2 Friends of the Earth oppose as unsound (justified) since jobs should not be at the expense of green space and health when there is already a deficit (J10a; Wigmore; Century park) when emphasis should be on green technology/renewable businesses and food; proposing an Eco-Centre on Stockwood Discovery Centre to foster partnerships and local skills sustainable practice; modal shift reducing congestion and pollution; using business rates to foster local firms (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• On paragraph 5.11 Friends of the Earth suggest the emphasis should be on regeneration of Power Court for SMEs with opportunities for green links via the river to the town centre, the Mall, stations and the Brache (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• In relation to paragraph 5.11 Project Management Company Luton BID consider that Power Court should be seen as a mixed use scheme (i.e. retail, B1 and residential and final phase ring road) and integral part of the development of the town centre as a whole- not isolated (see Vision comments) (Project Management Company Luton BID, 955840).

110

• Mr David Logan considers that paragraph 5.13 is unsound - Luton’s role as a sub-regional employment centre is threatened by the additional traffic congestion arising from increased car ownership together with the developments pursued by Luton, North Hertfordshire and Central Bedfordshire Councils omitting account for the adverse social, economic and environmental consequences including loss of already inadequate greenspace; failure to control unsustainable inward migration driving over-crowding and the lack of affordable housing. Pursuing limited housing within its own area and encouraging extensive, unsustainable housing within Luton’s hinterland is no solution. Also see comments on paragraph 4.11 (Mr David Logan, 879188).

Policy LP13

• Friends of the Earth object and suggest deletion of Policy LP13 – loss of a green lung at Century Park – the allocation should not just be carried forward - there is sufficient capacity within the airport terminal for additional business; junction 10a is not necessary – risk of aviation accidents – conflicts with policy LP34 (Public Safety Zone); previous highway objections (e.g. to Kohlerdome proposals for a 20,000 seater sports dome at J10a in the 1990s) and recent M1 junction 10 capacity improvements are for north-south movements not a football stadium; there are other sustainable rail-based options e.g. Vauxhall parts site (Friends of the Earth, 54044).

• Highways England have objected to Policy LP13 since it is considered to be unsound (not effective) noting that 18,000 jobs are expected to be created within Luton between 2011 and 2031. Any allocated development sites for the shortfall of dwellings should optimise opportunities for internal trips between employment and residential sites (Highways England, 304012).

• Dacorum Borough Council indicate that Policy LP13 is sound. Dacorum’s concerns earlier in the plan-making process about the imbalance of the jobs target with housing have largely been addressed with an explanation of the wider role Luton plays in the sub-region, especially the planned expansion of Luton Airport/employment generation. Dacorum also share concerns with Luton regarding Central Bedfordshire's employment land oversupply and allocations which would be better used as housing sites to help meet Luton’s unmet needs. Dacorum note that work to define Luton’s Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) is being co-ordinated with Central Bedfordshire Council with interim reporting/consultation early next year (Dacorum Borough Council, 662461).

• CPRE consider Policy LP13 is unsound (not justified or consistent with national policy) - it seeks to apply a blanket policy to prevent; changes of use and redevelopment under permitted development; the replacement of employment land with housing (CPRE disagree that recycling brownfield sites tends to be uneconomic without major intervention) to address less than 40 percent of the assessed housing need, contrary to the NPPF and use of previously developed land (provided it is not of high environmental value). See also, comments on Policy LP2 (CPRE, 72098).

111

• CPRE suggest that Part ‘C’ of LP13 should be amended to facilitate the use of category ‘B’ and unspecified employment sites for housing where this would meet site-specific planning criteria to prevent environmental and other harm to the local area (CPRE, 72098).

• Abbey Land Developments Ltd consider that Policy LP13 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy) – due to its omission of the Council’s policy supporting development to the west of Luton (para 4.8). Specific changes to LP13 and paragraph 5.13 proposed (Abbey Land Developments Ltd, 856534).

• While Henry Boot Ltd suggest that Policy LP13 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy) they do consider, however, the plan is legally compliant. Henry Boot is LBC’s development partner for LP7 Butterfield Strategic Allocation. These comments to be considered with draft plan comments which support LP7 continued allocation for employment but not as drafted which will deter investment and jobs. Polices LP7 LP13 iii) and LP14 conflict and do not reflect the wider evidence base of the ELR 2013 or the Councils Investment Strategy (driving growth in high-tech and advanced manufacturing uses – not office-based professional / business services e.g. aerospace, airport-related, engineering, automotive, green technology, medical and ICT). This requires greater flexibility of acceptable uses - adopting broader terminology from the current plan “innovation centre” and technology village - while removing reference to 55,000sqm of high quality B1-uses or referring to both B1 and B2 reflecting the blurring between advanced B1 c) and B2 manufacturing with converging plot densities to maintain the amenity of adjoining occupiers (including existing planning conditions restricting industrial processes) ,(Henry Boot Ltd, 856665).

• Henry Boot Ltd draw attention to NPPF Para 158 requires a response to market signals. A high number of enquiries are received from potential industrial occupiers. The respondents cite an oversupply of B1 accommodation and shortage of B2, as evidenced by Lambert Smith Hampton’s letter re ‘Employment Land Availability’ dated 28th August 2015 (856665 Henry Boot Ltd).

• Central Bedfordshire Council consider that Policy LP13 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy) and is not legally compliant - the strategy delivers unbalanced economic growth at the expense of social needs, mainly under delivery of housing (and particularly affordable housing) which consequently must be picked up by neighbouring authorities; the Sustainability Appraisal and SEA do not consider all reasonable alternatives/options (e.g. balancing housing and employment growth) or reflect adverse effects and necessary mitigation and incorrectly displays positive outcomes (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Central Bedfordshire Council also consider that using over-optimistic and out-of-date (2012 based) East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM) with an 18,000 dwelling assumption for Luton is questionable; EEFM conflicts with evident B use job decline in the ELR 2013 - which has not been updated and only delivers 55% non-B Class jobs compared to 60% (i.e. land for 800 jobs which could be used for housing); ELR 2013 underplays role of ‘footloose’ industry for rebalancing and provides no evidence translating jobs into land requirements and employment sites assessment dated 2015 is unclear on jobs contribution; Luton Airport and Century Park proposed access requires significant but unfunded infrastructure; J10a 112

unimplemented and Butterfield only a third built; a failure to satisfy the Duty to cooperate on the cross boundary strategic priorities (e.g. employment, retail transport and infrastructure or across the wider conurbation) and should pause its plan pending outputs from the Growth options Study (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Legal & General Investment Management indicate that LP13 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy). They suggest the jobs target is too low compared to Luton’s sub regional role; insufficient quantity and quality of employment land; Luton’s limited capacity for higher order jobs and land would need to be met in adjacent local authorities; the Council should not have dismissed more robust scenarios in the Employment Land Review, the Council’s Prospectus and Corporate plan and as set out in the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy which, although withdrawn, remains a valuable guide to sub regional priorities in step with SEMELEP Strategic Economic Plan 2015-2020 (Legal & General Investment Management, 955851).

• Legal & General Investment Management go on to indicate that there is no forecast based on labour supply – first two ELR scenarios are labour demand and “policy off” and ignore economic restructuring and market trends – scenarios 3, 4, and 5 based on completion rates in an unconstrained context are more realistic and aspirational, scenario 5 (80 ha) builds in policy on trend and should be the preferred scenario in a growing market since the ELR 2013, which recognises key sites could be delivered within and outside Luton to aid airport, knowledge based and sub regional growth and restructuring; Luton should have followed this evidence in order to cast a positive strategy in accordance with the NPPF Legal & General Investment Management, 955851).

• Legal & General Investment Management acknowledge that there is unmet need based on 80 ha that a prime strategic location site south of Junction 10a (L&G land) be allocated via adjoining local authorities (technical reports support) (Legal & General Investment Management, 955851).

• The Augur Group and J2 Global consider that Policy LP13 A iv) is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, or consistent with national policy). Planning permission was granted in April 2015 for the redevelopment of Napier Park. The permission includes for up to 625 residential units; up to 8,725 sqm of A1 - A5 retail floorspace include a foodstore with a floor area up to 4,625 sqm; up to 30,150 sqm of B1 office; up to 16,500 sqm of B2 and B8 floorspace; up to 15,200 sqm of hotel floorspace; up to 2,500 sqm of casino floorspace. The draft should be amended to accurately reflect this position - the permission is shortly to be implemented. Remove reference to small scale A1 and to 'predominantly B1' and instead insert 'mixed use commercial uses alongside housing' (Augur Group Ltd, 95619),(J2 Global, 857878).

Policy LP14

• CPRE consider that Policy LP14 is unsound (not justified). Part ‘B’ of Policy LP 14, by only accepting mixed use proposals at small unspecified employment sites, fails to follow current national planning policy for the re-use and regeneration of previously developed employment land to 113

meet housing needs within the local authority area to avoid imposing on neighbours. Part ‘B’ of LP14 should be amended to allow the change of use and redevelopment of sites for residential purposes where the stated criteria in the Policy would apply (CPRE, 72098).

• Bedford Borough Council have commented that Policy LP14 is not sound (not justified) but is Plan is legally compliant. The plan does not explain whether sites assessed as red or amber with potential for housing have been taken into account in Policy LP15 or why some of these may be retained as category B sites. An allowance should be made on the potential capacity arising from category B sites within the overall housing trajectory e.g. New Town Trading Estate, Telmere Estate, Frederick Street, Empress Road, Flowers Estate, Holly Street, Langley Terrace, Sarum Road, Sunrise Estate, Greenwood Court. Bedford Borough Council doubt the policy can be operated with respect to B1 residential permitted development rights (Bedford Borough Council, 780706).

• Central Bedfordshire consider that Policy LP14 is unsound (not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy) and is not legally compliant [See also rep under Policy LP13] - the strategy delivers unbalanced economic growth at the expense of social needs, mainly under delivery of housing (and particularly affordable housing) which consequently must be picked up by neighbouring authorities; the Sustainability Appraisal and SEA do not consider all reasonable alternative/options (e.g. balancing housing and employment growth) or reflect adverse effects and necessary mitigation and incorrectly displays positive outcomes (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222)

• Tejpartap Sahota suggests that Policy LP14 is unsound (not positively prepared or consistent with national policy) since land at Vauxhall Way is identified for long term protection under the policy as a ‘Key Employment Area A’ which is over restrictive, stifling development of the site and conflicts with paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The site has not been reviewed or has no reasonable prospect for B1, B2 or B8 employment uses but for alternative beneficial/sustainable economic uses such as a mixed-use retail, leisure and residential development (Tejpartap Sahota, 956915).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

Supporting text

• With regard to comments on paragraph 5.2 Policy LP6 will address any concerns held by Friends of the Earth because any loss of open space will result in commensurate replacement and mitigation of an equal quality with respect to Wigmore Valley Park; Century Park already has planning permission and is an existing allocation necessary to support economic and aviation elated growth. J10a improvements is designed to serve permitted expansion of London Luton Airport as well as strategic movements on the M1 from land at Junction 10a and the proposed football stadium at this location which is a long standing policy of the Council. Transport modelling looking at cumulative impact from development allocated in the local plan has not identified any ‘show stoppers’. Century Park is mostly outside of the Policy LP34 Public Safety Zone (PSZ) except 114

for a small area close to the runway which will be regulated by the PSZ restrictions. Butterfield Green is already allocated to foster sustainable innovation (having the Business Base and Innovation Centre linking with the University).

• In response to Project Management Company Luton BID and Friends of the Earth, in relation to paragraph 5.11, Power Court is a strategic allocation of importance for the town centre in terms of mixed use development including employment but also key retail provision to increase the retail offer and to extend and complement the town centre shopping area and the Mall through fully integrating access opportunities including de-culverting and opening up the River Lea.

• The Council does not agree with the concern expressed by David Logan, Highways England or Central Bedfordshire regarding the apparent mismatch of jobs to housing in relation to Luton’s sub regional economic role. This is because the overall balance is broadly matched when understanding that the distinction between Luton’s administrative area and the wider functional urban conurbation is artificial. The spatial strategy within the plan builds on the spatial relationship of sites to the town centre and a hierarchy of District and Neighbourhood Centres (DNS) for town centre and mixed use development – locations which can sustain and are encouraged to consider appropriate densities and connectivity by sustainable transport and linked trips to services, leisure and employment. This includes opportunities to link to the Luton guided busway which connects up the conurbation’s key town centres east –west (including potentially urban extensions north of Houghton Regis and potentially north of Luton) and also south to housing and employment sites including London Luton Airport and Napier Park (mixed use employment and residential development) linking with the Luton Parkway Station. Power Court mixed use housing, commercial and employment development is also close to the main railway station and Luton guided bus interchange. Stockwood Park/ Junction 10a and Butterfield will make provision for Park and Ride and access local services either on or off site via nearby DNS. The sustainability appraisal has been undertaken independently and considers alternatives and their impacts

• Luton will continue to work with Central Bedfordshire and the other authorities within and adjacent to the wider Luton Housing Market Area to accommodate the unmet needs of Luton and the wider HMA, as sustainably close to where need arises including opportunities to ensure any oversupply of employment land within the HMA is balanced with the need to deliver housing through a Growth Options Study. National policy requires Luton to meet its objectively assessed needs as far as it is sustainable to do so in accordance with the NPPF. The Local Plan sets out a development strategy and growth level which is sustainably within the limits of the town as measured by the evidence base and the sustainability appraisal and secures the sub regional economic role of the town while ensuring that commuting and congestion do not compromise the town’s economy and transport network or the health of local communities, including green space, landscape, heritage and environmental habitats.

115

Policy LP13

• To address concerns raised by CPRE, Policy LP13 applies to the existing land and allocated strategic sites portfolio that has been assessed for its fitness for purpose as employment land – this includes the qualitative and quantitative issues to ensure that the economy can grow to facilitate Luton’s sub regional economic role which is of wider importance to neighbouring local authorities as an economic driver and jobs provider but also to ensure that there is a supply of affordable industrial land to serve existing firms as evidence by high occupancy even of sub-prime industrial land and acute demand for industrial land. As significant proportion of employment land has nevertheless also been earmarked for mixed use, housing and other development needs e.g. Napier Park (former Vauxhall Plant) Power Court industrial estate; Britannia Estate; Caleb Close; Dalroad Industrial Estate including significant employment sites within High Town regeneration area for housing and other uses. It is Policy LP14 which allows for poorer category B employment land (and smaller unidentified sites) to come forward for redevelopment for employment or to meet other needs (including housing) provided suitable replacement stock is built out and available to accommodate local firms and that other specific criteria in the policy are met. The plan should be read as a whole in order to address other social and environmental considerations of redevelopment.

• Abbey Land Developments Ltd contention to amend para 5.13 and LP13 to refer to supporting land west of Luton is not accepted. This would be a major change to policy and is premature. The Council’s policy in para 4.8 is to seek a review of all sustainable options around the Luton/Dunstable /Houghton Regis conurbation which includes to the west of Luton. However, this will be subject to testing as proposals to meet Luton’s remaining unmet need and that of the surrounding wider Luton are matters for the Joint Growth Options Study and Green Belt Study, to be pursued with neighbouring local authorities within Luton’s HMA.

• Policy LP13 has sufficient range and flexibility to address Henry Boots concerns about B2 demand and is compatible with policy LP14 in that this particular strategic allocation is a component of the category A land provision dealing specifically with B1 requirements. The Council are sympathetic to the Representor’s aspirations although it is felt these can be best achieved within the scope of the policy LP7, as drafted. In particular, the requirement for a Masterplan is - since it is felt that such an exercise would provide the scope and basis for the concerns and detail – including realistic scope and terms for an element of B2 uses compatible with the Technology Park concept - to be satisfactorily addressed. However, Century Park will now progress more quickly (e.g. revised more deliverable access road alignment) and will help to address the need for B2 accommodation.

• The Council does not accept Central Bedfordshire’s assertion that that the 2012 based EEFM is optimistic or out of date. The EEFM forecasts have been updated on an annual basis before and since 2012 and show volatility depending on the point they are undertaken in the economic cycle. In this wider context the 2012 based forecasts are a reasonable scenario for the local plan being neither at an economic peak or trough whereas the 2013 and 2014 EEFM runs reflect the down turn in the economic cycle and do not represent a positive approach to planning and securing a prosperous economy. Scenarios addressed in the ELR 2013 translate EEFM forecasts into floor space and land requirements and also provides 116

scenarios on development uptake. Evidence from property agents (Lambert Smith Hampton and Kirkby & Diamond) suggests that there is little evidence of significant footloose industrial activity in the town. The employment sites assessment 2015 needs better explanation and interpretation. The employment background paper will explain how the red sites will been treated. Butterfield has been affected by the property cycle and Century Park now has alternative deliverable access.

• Legal and General are incorrect in that the 2012-based forecasts are a reasonable scenario for the local plan being neither at an economic peak or trough and while arguably representing a modest outlook the Council has been mindful of the need to avoid overheating/commuting pressures which would accompany a more aspirational scenario. Legal and General are also incorrect in their understanding of the EEFM is an integrated model which addresses labour supply. The SHMA Update 2015 also considers the impact of delivering the policy based employment targets across Luton and Central Bedfordshire within the wider housing Market Area in terms of labour supply. Any net additional proposals outside of Luton at J10a are outside the scope of the Local Plan being a matter for neighbouring authorities and would exceed Luton’s positive but cautious economic strategy. No such cross boundary proposals have been raised or substantiated by duty to cooperate discussion with Central Bedfordshire or Dacorum (or indeed any evidence presented including transport modelling). Luton BC and Central Bedfordshire were unable to agree a joint FEMA commission but have agreed to coordination of two separate FEMA studies for consistency. Luton is progressing its FEMA and completed an initial workshop on 11 February 2016 looking at methodology which identified the need for additional work. The outputs of this FEMA will feed into the Joint Growth Options Study in the summer/autumn 2016.

Policy LP14

• Augur Group’s concerns are unfounded - the minor modifications to reflect the planning permission are not necessary as the policy provides the necessary flexibility and guidance on the mix of uses in the longer term should the planning permission lapse or need to be re negotiated.

• CPRE Hertfordshire misinterpret the policy LP14 part B which makes no restriction in relation to small unspecified employment sites. Category B sites include a range of industrial estates of different sizes. B1 office to residential conversions (and potentially in the future B1 office redevelopments should this become part of national policy), are by definition outside of the scope of the policy approval and planning application process and are limited to specific prior consent criteria unless the site or area is subject o an Article 4 direction removing permitted development rights. The potential capacity of housing coming forward from this source is being picked up in the SHLAA and monitoring work and has already contributed together with other sources, to the revised housing target increasing from the 5,700 dwellings in the Draft Local Plan to 6,700 dwellings in the Pre-submission Local Plan.

117

• The Council is sympathetic to Bedford Borough’s request for clarity on the impact of the evidence set out in the ‘Employment Land Review 2015 – Employment Site Assessments’ study in relation to policy LP15 Housing Provision. However, this sites assessment study has very little impact as it confirms that only a few sites changing status from Green to Amber (and visa-versa) and identifies a few Red category sites on small scale previously unidentified industrial estates. The modest re-categorisation has been reflected on the Polices map for the identified sites. It cannot be assumed that any re-categorised sites would automatically be suitable for housing. The employment background paper will explain how the Red sites will been treated. The potential capacity of housing coming forward from this source is therefore insignificant and is nevertheless being picked up in the SHLAA and monitoring work.

• Central Bedfordshire’s assertion concerning the apparent imbalance of jobs and housing is not accepted and has been addressed under their similar representation under policy LP13.

• The representation that land at Vauxhall Way should be excluded from category A designation is not accepted. Key employment land has been robustly assessed and is fit for purpose. Policies LP13 and LP14 provide the policy framework for considering emergent circumstances over the plan period.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id itate reason (as appropriate) Economic Director Abbey Land To make reference to the economic The Borough’s existing 1.4 million sqm. The borough’s existing 1.4 million sqm Not accepted – such a Strategy Developments Ltd. potential of growth to the west of stock of employment land (78% industrial stock of employment land (78% industrial change to text premature – paragraph 5.13 PS394 Luton. and 22% Office) is significantly ageing and and 22% Office) is significantly ageing and The Council’s policy is to needs renewal and replacement. The needs renewal and replacement. The seek a review of all replacement or renewal of industrial land is replacement or renewal of industrial land sustainable options around happening but lags behind the region is happening but lags behind the region the Luton/Dunstable especially for completed new/ modern especially for completed new/ modern /Houghton Regis offices space. Uptake of land has been offices space. Uptake of land has been conurbation which includes modest due to the subdued economic modest due to the subdued economic land to the west of Luton situation, although local demand remains situation, although local demand remains as part of the Growth healthy. healthy. The Council’s policy is to support Options Study. development to the west of Luton as a preferred Direction for Growth (as identified on the Key Diagram). This area would need to be brought forward in cooperation with Central Bedfordshire Council through Duty To Cooperate 118

discussions and could contribute around 4,850 jobs and deliver modern employment provision close to an area containing some of the most deprived wards in the country.

LP13 CPRE Hertfordshire. Major modification. Part ‘C’ of LP13 Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A Not accepted – Policy LP13 Employment PS147 to allow the change of use and the Representor. already incudes sufficient Areas redevelopment of category B criteria for determining employment sites for housing where such proposals. The plan this would meet site-specific planning should also be read as a criteria. whole to ensure compliance with other policies.

LP13 Economic Director Abbey Land To make reference to the economic A. Planning applications will be granted A. Planning applications will be granted Not accepted – such a Strategy Developments Ltd. potential of growth to the west of where they deliver sustainable economic where they deliver sustainable economic change to policy premature PS394 Luton. growth and prosperity to serve the needs of growth and prosperity to serve the needs – The Council’s policy is to Luton and the wider sub region. There is a of Luton and the wider sub region. The seek a review of all need to generate ...... Council will work with Central sustainable options around Bedfordshire Council in order to seek to the Luton/Dunstable deliver a sustainable urban extension to /Houghton Regis include major new employment conurbation which includes provision west of Luton. This to the west of Luton. As development being an important part of the Growth Options component of the Council’s Spatial Study. Development Strategy for delivering new jobs and regeneration in an area of the town that has been suffering from long- term deprivation issues. There is a need to generate … …

LP13 iii) Henry Boot Ltd. Propose modification to remove B1 A. iii. Butterfield Green Technology Park; A. iii. Butterfield Green Technology Park; Not accepted. Policy LP13 Economic PS386 restriction to include both B1 and B2 high quality technology-related B1 uses (see high quality technology-related B1 and B2 has sufficient range and Strategy uses. Policy LP7); uses (see Policy LP7); flexibility for B2 land to come forward – this matter is best addressed via the Policy LP7 Master Plan - please cross refer to response to this representor’s representation on Policy LP7.

119

LP13 Economic Augur Group Ltd. Minor modification to accurately A. iv. Napier Park; predominantly B1 office A. iv. Napier Park; predominantly B1 Not accepted. The minor Strategy PS359 reflect planning permission April light industry and small scale affordable B2 office light industry and small scale modification is not J2 Global. 2015, i.e. to remove reference to use and ancillary hotel use; small scale A1 to affordable B2 use and ancillary hotel use; necessary as the policy PS250 small scale A1 and to 'predominantly assist regeneration and housing provision small scale A1 mixed use commercial provides the necessary B1' and instead insert 'mixed use (see Policy LP8). uses alongside housing to assist flexibility and guidance on commercial uses alongside housing'. regeneration and housing provision (see the mix of uses in the Policy LP8). longer term should the planning permission lapse or need to be re- negotiated.

LP14 CPRE Hertfordshire. Major modification. Part ‘B’ of LP14 Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A Not accepted - B1 office to Employment PS145 should be amended to allow the the Representor. residential conversions Areas change of use and redevelopment of (and potentially in the sites for residential purposes where future B1 office the stated criteria in the Policy would redevelopments should apply. this become part of national policy), are by definition outside of the scope of the policy approval and planning application process and so this policy change is not necessary.

LP14 Tejpartap Sahota. Major modification. Remove Vauxhall Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A Not accepted. Key Employment PS261 Land from policy LP14 as it is too the Representor. employment land has been Areas restrictive and the site has not been robustly assessed and is fit reviewed or come forward – LP14 for purpose. Policies LP13 stifles the sites other sustainable and LP14 provide the policy economic uses retail, leisure and framework for considering housing. emergent circumstances over the plan period.

(See Also Appendix 4)

120

CHAPTER 6 - HOUSING - SUPPORTING TEXT

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 6 – Housing 11 1 12 2 - 1 10 2 4 6 2

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Dacorum Borough Council has welcomed the increase in housing capacity in the urban area (c.1,000 dwellings) as a result of the reviewed SHLAA. This chapter summary is considered sound through this approach having been adopted (Dacorum Borough Council, 66246).

• Representors argue that densification is too great within Luton’s area and that housing should not reflect migration-led demand, but local housing need and other local authorities should help carry this burden of delivery, in addition to Luton lobbying the government for fairer distribution. The need for North Hertfordshire District Council to identify land to meet Lutons’ needs (specifically citing the areas of Cockernhoe and Tea Green) is highlighted in this context (Friends of the Earth, 54044). Another representor reinforces this point, indicating that the housing provision set out within the Local Plan is likely to have little benefit for the affordability of housing as a whole or the provision of defined affordable housing products to meet specific local needs. The strategy, which it is also highlighted will require further development outside of the administrative area of Luton in order to meet identified needs, is not considered to be effective (David Logan, 879188)

• David Logan contends that based on an average of 2.4 persons per dwelling, delivery of the stated objectively assessed need for the Luton part of the HMA is equivalent to another 42,720 people above the 2011 population of 203,200, i.e. a growth of 21.02%. In the 1991 to 2011 Plan period the average natural change in population was around 5% for the UK or around 10% for England. By 2011, England had become the most densely populated country in Europe and Luton had become 11.6 times more densely populated than the average for England. Therefore the policy is not sound and should not be considered positively prepared, justified, Effective, or consistent with national policy (David Logan, 879188).

• Bedford Borough Council argue that it is not clear what process has been followed in identifying sites and how the decision to retain as employment sites rather than allocate for housing has been made. This could be allied with an explanation of the policy alternatives which were explored in

121

developing the plan particularly the balance between the level of housing and employment land to be provided. Therefore the policy is not considered to be justified and should be supported by a background paper (Bedford Borough Council, 780706).

• Highways England note there is a shortfall of dwellings which is proposed to be met in surrounding local authorities. It is necessary to allocate sites for these dwellings as soon as possible to establish their sustainability and impact on the highway network. Cooperation between all local authorities concerned will be essential in order to ensure that any new developments are well-integrated with the existing urban area and sustainable transport networks, as well as to establish some degree of certainty that the development identified within the local plan is deliverable. The policy therefore is not believed to be effective (Highways England, 304012).

• Caddington Parish Council argues that the housing strategy as a whole will not be effective in shaping the location and type of development, stating that Luton has set a precedent allowing high density housing such as at land in Newlands Road without any affordable houses. Safeguards are sought to stop developers overriding policies (Caddington Parish Council, 955489)

• The Home Builders Federation identifies a significant issue with paragraphs 6.19-6.22 of the supporting text. Any standards need to be articulated in policy rather than in supporting text. The respondent also highlights that elsewhere the plan refers to now revoked standards e.g. Lifetime Homes at Paragraph 9.9. The respondent is not satisfied that the viability evidence base has adequately assessed the cost implications or that their necessity has been justified against overall levels of need. Chapter 6 is therefore not considered justified or effective (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• A number of representors introduce potential alternative or omission sites as part of comments on the supporting text. The majority of these are repeated in subsequent submissions against more relevant sections of the Plan e.g. Policy LP15 and Appendix 4 (e.g. Clayton Land Development Ltd, 497297 and Templeview Developments, 662818).

• One respondent introduces an alternative site in their control on land at Checkley Wood (north of Leighton Linslade) (Arnold White Estates Ltd, 955824). The respondent supports the need for and principle of a Joint Growth Options Study referred to in Paragraph 6.10. The respondent also highlights that the emerging Local Plan refers at Paragraph 4.8 to the Council’s ‘policy’ of supporting growth west of Luton and that this should be taken into account when assessing cross-boundary options around the town and meeting needs as close as possible to where they arise. The respondent highlights that this land is not within the control of Luton Borough Council who cannot therefore support development at this location. The respondent considers it necessary that the Growth Options Study is completed before either the Luton Local Plan or new Local Plan for Central Bedfordshire are submitted for Examination and that it must consider all potential locations that could meet needs across the housing market, including unmet needs for Luton, taking account of the close proximity and good A5-M1 links of land at Leighton Linslade. The respondent considers this necessary to satisfy the Duty to Co-operate.

122

• Aylesbury Vale District Council identifies that failings under the Duty to Co-operate are interrelated with soundness issues, claiming that the Strategy is not positively prepared, not effective, not justified and not consistent with national policy. It is claimed that there has been no robust evidence presented that the housing strategy has addressed whether it will be able to meet full OAHN, particularly through joint working for the mutual benefit of neighbours (NPPF Para 178) or looking at wider strategic priorities (NPPF Paragraph 179). The respondent authority compares this with the recent Joint Issues and Options Consultation for Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and Wycombe undertaken on this basis and states that preparation of the Luton Local Plan should cease while conclusions on how similar evidence can be prepared are reached (Aylesbury Vale District Council, 954792).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• LBC welcomes the comments that recognise the extensive evidence base which informs both the housing requirement and overall approach to providing housing as set out in the introduction and supporting text to the policies in this Chapter. In summary, respondents are reminded that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2015) provides the latest evidence on objectively assessed housing needs and that as part of the requirements of national guidance these should take account of migration and demographic change (NPPF Paragraph 159).

• The majority of comments identified better-relate to specific policies for the issues identified or the overall spatial strategy in the plan set out first at Chapter 4. Therefore detailed responses to those representations are available under the relevant sections. Comments in relation to the Duty to Cooperate are also considered separately elsewhere on the same basis, but it is highlighted that Chapter 6 does itself set out the extensive range of stakeholders engaged in the preparation of the SHMA and whose involvement continues to be sought in seeking to address any unmet requirement from the housing needs arising in Luton.

• The supporting text also provides clear links to evidence for land availability and housing capacity (in-particular the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) which supports the housing requirements set out in the Local Plan and the assessment of individual locations. It is acknowledged that a revised SHLAA, with a base date of April 2016, will be prepared to support the Examination of the Local Plan and provide further justification for the sites identified.

• LBC welcomes the detailed comments on aspects of the supporting text which address the broad range issues for housing delivery covered by policies within this Chapter (Home Builders Federation). Aspects such as Paragraphs 6.19 – 6.22 (covering “Housing with Specific Needs”) recognise the extensive evidence base which informs the requirements for housing, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2015). This introduces issues raised in National guidance as part of the “Housing – Optional Technical Standards”. The Council considers that relevant evidence showing the increasing elderly population in the housing market area should be referred to in order to provide guidance to developers and applicants and thereby ensure appropriate provision is made to address matters e.g. projected rates for wheelchair user populations. Such evidence is an important material consideration for decision-making. The supporting text on these aspects recognises that Luton provides a diverse housing

123

mix and pattern of new development that may not always be consistent with achieving these standards. Paragraph 6.21 in-particular notes that meeting requirements for accessibility may have implications for viability. The indicative targets suggested by Paragraphs 6.19 – 6.22 are given weight by Policy LP15 which seeks to support development that meets needs identified by the SHMA, but the Council does not consider that the approach as presented will over-burden the requirements of development or prevent a flexible approach being applied at the development management stage. The Plan should also be read as a whole, with policies such as LP25 (“High Quality Design”) adding further guidance on where and how such requirements can best be achieved in new development alongside aspects such as internal space standards.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Paragraph 6.4 North Hertfordshire Paragraph 6.4 might be interpreted 6.4 National planning policy requires that 6.4 National planning policy requires that Yes, agreed – minor District Council as suggesting that the whole of Local Plans ...... The SHMA indicates that Local Plans ...... The SHMA indicates clarification to explain the PS466 North Hertfordshire lies within the Central Bedfordshire Council, North that parts of Central Bedfordshire territorial extent of the Luton HMA. This point should be Hertfordshire District Council Aylesbury Council, North Hertfordshire District Luton Housing Market clarified. Vale District Council and Dacorum Borough Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Area. are within the Luton Housing Market Area. and Dacorum Borough are within the NB: this comment was Luton Housing Market Area. originally made under Policy LP2 and transferred here.

Chapter 6 – Home Builders Federation Undertake a more localised Delete or amend relevant paragraphs 6.19 N/A – No detailed proposed wording No – the paragraphs of Paragraphs 6.19 Ltd assessment to identify the extent of – 6.22 suggested supporting text identified – 6.22 PS348 existing wheelchair needs, forecast by the respondent set out future needs and assess the important material adequacy of the existing dwelling considerations to ensure stock to adapt to accommodate that wherever appropriate wheelchairs. Part M optional the full range of housing technical standards should be needs identified by the removed from the plan. SHMA Update (2015) is delivered. The supporting text provides an indicative range of targets to be applied through policy LP15 which are capable of being applied flexibly and are not considered to overburden development.

124

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

Policy LP15 – HOUSING PROVISION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP15 – Housing Provision 14 2 16 3 1 2 14 6 9 5 8

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• It should be noted that a large number of representations to this section must be read across with representations on the protection and re-use of employment land (Policies LP13 and LP14); and LP2 (Spatial Strategy) which first introduces the level of dwelling provision which it is considered can be met through the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031. It follows that there is a degree of overlap in the issues raised. Policy LP15 provides detail on how this quantum can be achieved and where other applications will be considered favourably in the interests of maintaining housing supply. • Objections are identified to Paragraph 6.5 of the supporting text, which is not considered justified or consistent with national policy in stating that “all other sources of suitable housing supply have been considered” (e.g. CPRE, 72098). • It is identified by Mr Barry Pliskin, based on LP15 Ai-v, that there is no provision for any delivery to 2031 on small sites (4 or fewer dwellings) beyond those with extant consent. An estimate of 900 dwellings from identified, non-allocated sites is considered too low. Criteria Av may not be considered effective, justified, positively prepared or consistent with national policy as it hinders efforts at brownfield regeneration and bringing forward 90% of previously developed sites by 2020 in-line with Government objectives (Mr Barry Pilskin, 956742). • Several respondents express that the level of housing provision identified does not take account of the likely level of office-to-residential conversions and is therefore not justified or consistent with national policy (e.g. CPRE, 72098). • Several representations from neighbouring Local Authorities also question whether the evidence base supports the approach and claim that the policy is not justified, effective, consistent with national policy or positively prepared.

125

• Specific criticisms highlight the SHLAA and include the use of blanket densities compared to historic delivery; the treatment of open space; and the need for a more detailed capacity assessment covering the whole HMA with a more positive approach to brownfield regeneration (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • Bedford Borough Council considers that the plan does not set out a clear calculation of Five Year Land Supply (Bedford Borough Council,780706). • Redrow Homes (956553) confirm that their interests are accurately reflected in the proposed allocations and that Policy LP15 is sound in providing flexibility to respond to site-specific circumstances. • A number of submissions from representatives of the development industry indicate that the Plan is not positively prepared as the housing requirement set out is too low and could be increased through the addition of omission sites which they promote or by reviewing the capacity of proposed allocations to take account of the latest information (such as the Co-operative Group, 746045). These will be considered separately but include land at Newlands Road (Luton RFC) (to include relocation of the club to alternative facilities) (Templeview Developments Ltd, 662818) and land at Lynwood Avenue, said to have been previously allocated for development (Claydon Land Development Ltd, 497297). • One respondent submits representations against this policy to identify additional allocations which lie partly within the Luton Borough Boundary and partly outside, thereby increasing supply beyond the 6,700 set out in Policy LP15 and providing additional capacity to meet remaining unmet needs (Trustees of Old Bedford Road Estate, 956512) – See Appendix 4 for a full list of potential omission sites. • Some representors express support for the additional allocations identified in the Pre-Submission Draft but that necessary detail should be provided to support their delivery and ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with national policy. For example, it is highlighted that where a proposed allocation is associated with other material considerations (e.g. effects upon a Conservation Area) this should be expressed in the Policy or against the relevant allocation (Historic England, 660493) and that redevelopment of certain sites (e.g. Kenilworth Road) may only commence once existing users have relocated (Sport England, 660493). • One respondent feels that the inclusion of certain allocations are not consistent with NPPF Paragraph 74 and is not Justified based on the available evidence – for example proposed redevelopment of indoor sports facilities at Stockingstone Road with inadequate safeguards for alternative provision and the loss of playing fields at the Orchard Centre allocation (Sport England, 660493). • The capacity of road and education infrastructure to accommodate some of the proposed allocations is questioned (Slip End Parish Council, 498776) • One respondent indicates that elements of Policy LP15 are not consistent with national policy (in-particular NPPF Paragraph 50) and its approach is not justified or positively prepared. Reference to ‘self-build’ provision is considered to be too limited (mentioned only in supporting text at Paragraph 6.26) with insufficient evidence gathering (beyond find-a-plot) or recognition of the benefits for site deliver and the affordability of housing (National Custom and Self-Build Association, 956595). 126

• It is also considered that the detail of the policy means it will not be effective as it fails to sufficiently account for the specialist accommodation needs of older people (in the final paragraph of the policy) and how this may affect the detailed nature of appropriate proposals. The policy should therefore take account of site specific circumstances and viability considerations (Fenton Property Management Ltd, 955816) • Chamberlain Holdings Ltd highlight that the total capacity of “additional allocations for housing and mixed-use” as a source of land supply is given as 2,500 dwellings at LP15 Aiv. This is 100 units greater than the equivalent total for this source in Policy LP2 and would represent a ‘rounding up’ of the total of 2,420 for the ‘Housing Allocations’ as listed separately in Appendix 4. The respondent considers that the total of 2,500 is more accurate, specifically on the basis that this would reflect the suggested increase in the capacity for housing regarding their interest at the mixed use redevelopment of the Britannia Estate by an additional 56 units (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 956602). The same respondent also highlights that the totals for the different sources in LP2 and LP15 equal 6,900 and 7,000 dwellings respectively, which both exceed the 6,700 dwellings given as the main requirement in the plan. • Central Bedfordshire Council considers that the key point on legal compliance relates to the view that the Luton Local Plan seeks to deliver unbalanced growth (and excesses of jobs compared to housing capacity) and has not considered all reasonable alternatives or accurately reflected the significant effects arising from this strategy through SA/SEA (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• It is considered that a number of issues of Legal Compliance and whether the Plan satisfies the Duty to Co-operate which have been directly related to the provisions of Policy LP15. LBC considers, however, that a response to these issues is best provided against the approach in the strategy as a whole and against Policy LP2 in-particular where the approach to setting the housing requirement and the balance between homes and jobs to be provided is set out in more detail. This also provides the wider context for the range of alternatives considered in the course of preparing the Plan.

• LBC welcomes comments on various detailed aspects of the framework provided for by Policy LP15. In this regard, respondents are invited to read the Plan as a whole, and in-particular for delivering the specialist needs of older people which is separately addressed at Policy LP18; design criteria at LP25 which are considered appropriately flexible for site-specific circumstances; and the regard had to viability throughout the plan. With regards issues relating to self-build accommodation, the recognition of this source of supply within the representations is welcomed. However the latest evidence in the SHMA (2015) is considered to be robust and in the context of the nature of site allocations and development considerations on identified capacity within Luton, alongside the policy framework’s wider support for development on unallocated sites, Policy LP15 is believed to provide sufficient support.

127

• The total of 2,500 dwellings as a source of housing land supply from additional allocations for housing and mixed use is considered to be a rounding error. The schedule of sites at Appendix 4 clearly shows the cumulative total of such sources as 2,420 dwellings based on the best information at the time of preparing the Pre-Submission Local Plan, which correctly rounds to 2,400 dwellings. The respondent (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 956602) is thanked for raising the discrepancy, which will be corrected as part of minor modifications and to be consistent with the totals given in Policy LP2.

• It is intended to provide an updated SHLAA with a base date of April 2016 as part of the evidence prepared alongside the Luton Local Plan. This will ensure that the latest position in terms of development consents and any phasing issues is identified to support the Local Plan Examination. Background Papers will also be prepared as part of the evidence submitted alongside the Local Plan to make clear the relationship between the provision for 6,700 dwellings expressed by the Local Plan and the assumptions regarding the delivery for the different sources of supply and contingency.

• The updated SHLAA will also provide the wider context to consider additional locations for development identified through representations, which may also be referred to as ‘omission sites’. The SHLAA will give the latest information and a fresh assessment of these sites, many of which have been considered as part of previous rounds of the SHLAA and not progressed further for a variety of reasons. It will also be necessary to consider these assessments (and their outcomes) in the context of the balance of land uses provided for by the Plan – including the supply of employment land set out in Policies LP13 and LP14.

• Observations have highlighted potential delivery through sources such as ‘windfall’ on sites of 4 or fewer dwellings or through activity outside the control of the planning policy e.g. office-to-residential permitted development. Conclusions on these topics, and their relationship to the overall spatial strategy, will be set out in Background Topic Papers to support Submission and Examination of the Local Plan.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Para 6.5 CPRE The housing target should be N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – The respondent’s PS144 reconsidered to take into account the proposed change is not changes to permitted development [The respondent anticipates a accepted as ongoing rights and planning regulations. consequential increase in the housing monitoring of the plan and Paragraph 6.5 should be amended to supply sought through Policy LP15 and housing supply position indicate that all other sources will be allocations made within the town] means that potential considered in seeking to maximise changes in sources of the proportion of Luton’s Housing supply are regularly taken needs that can be met within Luton. into account. Many of 128

these are outside the direct control of the Local Plan, such as Prior Approval schemes for office-to- residential conversion.

LP15 – Housing Chamberlain Holdings The respondent has identified that LP15 Part A: LP15 Part A: Yes – This is a rounding Provision PS473 the total for the ‘housing allocations’ error. The schedule of as a source of supply is given as 2,500 Housing provision will be made through the Housing provision will be made through proposed Housing dwellings within this policy but 2,400 following sources of land supply: the following sources of land supply: Allocations at Appendix 4 dwellings at LP2 and rounds to 2,400 clearly indicates that the based on the schedule of sites at i. historic completions 2011/12- 2012/14 i. historic completions 2011/12- 2012/14 total of 2,420 units from Appendix 4. (1,000 dwellings) (1,000 dwellings) the sites listed correctly rounds to 2,400 as shown NB: The respondent does not ii. existing permissions on sites delivering ii. existing permissions on sites delivering in Policy LP2. It is therefore consider that the figure given as part less than 5 homes (100 dwellings) less than 5 homes (100 dwellings) necessary to correct Policy of Policy LP15 should be amended, as LP15 as shown in this it more accurately reflects the iii. strategic allocations at Power Court, iii. strategic allocations at Power Court, modification. emerging proposals for their site. This Napier Park, High Town, Marsh Farm and Napier Park, High Town, Marsh Farm and issue is dealt with separately under the Creative Quarter (2,500 dwellings) the Creative Quarter (2,500 dwellings) The Council’s approach to comment PS319 at Appendix 4. taking into account new iv. additional allocations for housing and iv. additional allocations for housing and and emerging information mixed use identified on the Policies Map in mixed use identified on the Policies Map for specific sites as part of accordance with Appendix4 (2,500 in accordance with Appendix4 (2,500 the Background Papers and dwellings) 2,400 dwellings) update to the SHLAA to support the Examination of v. identified non-allocated sites of at least 5 v. identified non-allocated sites of at least the Local Plan is a separate homes (900 dwellings) 5 homes (900 dwellings) matter dealt with elsewhere (see Appendix 4 and final entry in the table below).

LP15 – Housing Sport England The respondent considers it N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – The allocations Provision PS37 and PS38 necessary to provide additional suggested have been guidance for development of subject to detailed identified allocations through the assessment in order to addition of a further column to establish that they are Appendix 4 setting out any potentially suitable for requirements for acceptable development. The Plan proposals e.g. relocation of existing should be read as a whole sports facilities. The inclusion of such and many of the other details should be referenced in Policy detailed policies within it LP15 (relating to LTFC and will ensure acceptable Stockingstone Road Bowls Club). outcomes are achieved. 129

Many are already subject to planning proposals which will provide further clarity on any development requirements.

LP15 – Housing Mr Barry Pliskin The local plan should include specific N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – The policy is clear at Provision PS267 reference to the Ministerial Part B that additional Statement and how it proposes to development proposals will support brownfield and windfall sites be supported in through the plan period. The total appropriate circumstances. currently anticipated to be delivered National Policy is clear that through these sources appears too the housing requirements low. in adopted plans should not be treated as a ceiling.

LP15 – Housing National Custom and Self- Further evidence should be sought on N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – The SHMA (2015) is Provision Build Association the realistic demand for custom and considered to provide PS325 self-build properties. The LPA should robust evidence on these further consider and demonstrate issues therefore the whether a requirement for large justification for the change developments to include the is considered inadequate. provision of a percentage of self-build plots (perhaps 5%) could be added to The issue will be kept the plan to meet the demand of self- under review in the course builders. of the Examination pending any new legislation or revision to national guidance.

Policy LP15 – Bedford Borough Council The policy should be amended to N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – A current calculation Housing Provision PS271 include more detail on the of Five Year Land Supply is assessment of Five Year Land Supply provided by the SHLAA and to demonstrate how delivery will be AMR. More detail on maintained. maintaining land supply to meet the policy requirements will be provided through background papers for the Examination.

Policy LP15 – Fenton Property The respondent considers that the Policy LP15C – Final sentence: Policy LP15C – Final sentence: No – The reference to ‘local Housing Provision Management Ltd. provisions of the policy may be circumstances’ in the policy PS171 onerous in certain circumstances, Development will achieve a mix of different Development will should achieve a mix of as drafted is considered to 130

especially town centre locations, housing sizes, types and tenures informed different housing sizes, types and tenures provide adequate where development costs are greater by the latest housing market assessments informed by the latest housing market flexibility, taken against the and formulating viable schemes to and local circumstances. assessments and local circumstances and policies of the Plan read as regenerate vacant and derelict subject to viability and site-specific a whole and in the context buildings is more challenging considerations associated with the of considering each site on location and costs of development. its own merits.

LP15 – Housing Trustees of Old Bedford The respondents listed seek changes N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed Partial – Provision Road Estate (PS365); The to the housing provision set out in Co-Operative Group LP15 (and consequential Any further assessment of (PS12); Templeview amendments to Appendix 4) due these representations will Developments Ltd. either adding additional sites as be undertaken through (PS299); Claydon Land further allocations or altering consideration of omission Development Ltd. (PS280) capacity as currently shown sites. Many of the locations have been subject to previous assessment in the SHLAA providing reasons for their rejection. The SHLAA will be reviewed regularly and as appropriate e.g. to take into account recent planning application activity.

(See Also Appendix 4 listing representations for Omission Sites)

131

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP16 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP16 – Affordable 11 2 13 4 1 2 11 5 5 3 5 Housing

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• A number of comments indicate broad support for the approach to providing affordable housing and the levels of contributions sought and consider the policy sound. This is caveated with reference to potential additional site costs which may arise (such as foul water sewage) (Anglian Water, 507162) and ensuring its application generally reflects viability and site specific circumstances (Fenton Property Management, 955816) • A number of respondents consider that Policy LP16 is not consistent with national policy, positively prepared or justified and is unsound on this basis. Respondents highlight that the 20% level of contributions sought is beyond the maximum considered reasonable having regard to viability and site circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 173) (e.g. JG Global, 957878). Another respondent cites the Viability Study (2013) recommendation of a maximum 15% contribution as evidence for this (Redrow Plc, 956553) • The policy should also provide greater scope for revised contributions based on agreed viability evidence e.g. where infrastructure costs are greatest in order to make it positively prepared (Co-Operative Group, 746045) • Other respondents consider that Parts A and B of Policy LP16 are uncertain and contradictory and render the policy unsound. Part B is said to impose an unnecessary obligation to provide affordable units on-site and therefore the policy should go further to demonstrate that this will be subject to viability and site specific considerations as supported by national guidance when deliverability of a site is questioned (e.g. Claydon Land Development Ltd, 497297)

132

• Conversely, Central Bedfordshire Council consider that accepting commuted sums on sites of 10 or fewer dwellings is not justified, effective, consistent with national policy or positively prepared and will not deliver an equivalent level of provision. The 2013 Viability Study is said to reflect a contribution of 15-20% and that all site sizes can accommodate provision on-site. There is also insufficient clarity of where contributions would be spent (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • Other respondents feel that the 20% level of provision will not be achieved and the Council should support viability in these circumstances in order to make the policy effective (Sundon Parish Council, 933122) • Other respondents highlight that the policy excludes reference to starter homes which now form a part of emerging government policy therefore this is not consistent with national policy. The responses highlight this is recognised at Paragraph 6.11 of supporting text but not reflected in the policy requirements (e.g. North Luton Consortium, 956709) • A number of respondents highlight that the policy is unsound and will not be effective as it fails to fully consider how the full affordable housing need of the HMA will be met. It is stated that to provide 20% contributions within Luton from 6,700 dwellings, against an overall requirement of 40.5% from a total of 17,800 dwellings (7,200 units) the shortfall of 5,860 affordable dwellings would need to be delivered at 53% of the remaining need to be met outside Luton, which cannot viably be achieved and will overburden sites. Paragraph 6.17 causes concern over the likelihood of this outcome arising (North Luton Consortium, 956709), (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222). • One respondent indicates that the policy is not positively prepared as it falls short of meeting full affordable housing need. It is stated that further evidence and support for self-build opportunities is needed in-line with national policy objectives, and that this will help housing affordability and could be sought as an affordable self-build tenure in Policy LP16 (National Custom and Self-Build Association, 956595) • The key point on legal compliance relates to the view that the Luton Local Plan seeks to deliver unbalanced growth (and excesses of jobs compared to housing capacity) and has not considered all reasonable alternatives or accurately reflected the significant effects arising from this strategy through SA/SEA. These points indirectly relate to the approach through this policy itself (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representations (e.g. JG Global, Redrow Plc and Sundon Parish Council) that refer to the affordable housing policy requirement of 20% being beyond the maximum considered in the viability study do not take account of the viability evidence prepared in 2015, which concludes that 20% is achievable with the exception of high rise flatted development in the first five years of the plan. The study recommends that the Council may need to reduce affordable housing for these types of development in the short term (five years) to ensure viability and where supported by evidence provided by the applicant.

133

• The Co-Operative Group’s representation regarding the need for the policy to provide greater scope for revised contributions based on agreed viability evidence where infrastructure costs are greatest, is already covered by section C of the policy which states that if the level of affordable housing set out in the policy would render the proposal economically unviable developers will be expected to produce a financial assessment that clearly demonstrates the maximum number of affordable dwellings that can be achieved, on-site, off-site or as a commuted sum. • Representations (e.g. Claydon Land Development Ltd, 497297) which considered that Parts A and B of Policy LP16 are uncertain and contradictory and render the policy unsound overlook, however, that Part C of the policy does contain a viability provision whereby the developer will be expected to produce a financial assessment demonstrating the maximum number of affordable dwellings on-site, off-site or as a commuted sum. • Representations from Central Bedfordshire Council that state that the acceptance of commuted sums on sites of 10 or fewer dwellings is not justified, effective, consistent with national policy or positively prepared and will not deliver an equivalent level of provision fail to acknowledge that the delivery of affordable housing in Luton has in the past been a considerable challenge. The Local Plan approach is positively prepared to secure affordable housing from all schemes that result of at least one unit unless it is demonstrably financially unviable to make such provision. In terms of the representation on supposed insufficient clarity on where contributions will be spent, Luton Borough Council is updating its Housing Strategy and is establishing a Housing Market Partnership (HMP) which will include representation from registered providers – these processes will provide greater clarity as to how the contributions will be spent. • The North Luton Consortium’s representation which makes the point that the policy excludes reference to starter homes fails to recognise that the provision for starter homes is made in Policy LP15 of the plan. • Representations (from the North Luton Consortium and Central Bedfordshire Council) consider the policy to be unsound as they consider it fails to fully consider how the full affordable housing need of the HMA will be met. As these organisations will be aware, the full affordable housing need for Luton cannot be viably achieved within Luton Borough. Luton is working with its neighbouring authorities on options for meeting the full needs of the Housing Market Area and Luton’s unmet housing needs including affordable housing). The provision of housing development outside of Luton Borough will ultimately need to be determined through the Local Plans of neighbouring authorities. • The National Custom and Self-Build Association’s representation which indicates that the policy is not positively prepared as it falls short of meeting full affordable housing need and that the plan should include further evidence and support for self-build opportunities fails to acknowledge the reference to custom build housing in LP15 and the evidence demonstrating negligible locally identified need for custom build housing in the SHMA. • Central Bedfordshire Council’s representation regarding supposed lack of viability testing across the wider FEMA / HMA and the burden this may place on neighbouring authorities to provide greater levels of affordable housing fails to recognise that the requirement of 20% affordable housing in Luton would represent a very considerable increase in the delivery of affordable housing in the Borough, beyond those levels it has been able to secure consistently in the past.

134

• The key point on legal compliance relates to the view that the Luton Local Plan seeks to deliver unbalanced growth (and excesses of jobs compared to housing capacity) and has not considered all reasonable alternatives or accurately reflected the significant effects arising from this strategy through SA/SEA. These points only indirectly relate to the approach through this policy itself (and not specifically to how affordable housing contributions should be secured on individual schemes) and are covered in detail elsewhere.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Para 6.12 Redrow Plc Further justification of the policy is N/A – No specific change proposed N/A – No specific change proposed No – The key viability PS354 required to qualify Para 6.12 of the evidence is considered to Pre-Submission Luton Local Plan support the policies of the which sets out the challenging Plan as a whole. The economic conditions for the viability respondent is referred to of affordable housing and the fact document DEL003a in the that adoption of a 20% target evidence base, providing represents a departure from the the Updated “Local Plan recommendations of a target of up to Viability Assessment” 15% from the Luton AH Viability (October 2015) Study (2013).

LP16 – Affordable J2 Global The respondent claims that the Policy LP16A (first sentence): No specific text changes suggested but No – The key viability Housing PS252 requirement for 20% is not supported interpreted below: evidence informing the and by robust evidence. It is considered A. The Council will require the provision of plan suggests that the level Augur Group necessary to change the policy to 20% affordable housing units OR the Policy LP16A (first sentence): of housing contributions PS360 reflect that these contributions may equivalent financial contribution towards can be achieved. not be achievable in all cases and off-site provision on all schemes that deliver A. The Council will require seek the should be sensitive to site a net gain of at least 1 dwelling. provision of 20% affordable housing units Recognition of site viability circumstances. OR the equivalent financial contribution is considered important in towards off-site provision on all schemes the context of individual that deliver a net gain of at least 1 schemes, but this is more dwelling subject to consideration of appropriately referred to of scheme viability. Part C of the Policy.

135

LP16 – Affordable The Co-Operative Group The reason for the change is broadly (see above) No specific text changes suggested but No – See Reasons above Housing PS13 similar to that set above. A reduction interpreted below: in contributions sought down to 15% in-line with the conclusions of the Policy LP16A (first sentence): viability evidence. A. The Council will require seek the provision of 20 15% affordable housing units OR the equivalent financial contribution towards off-site provision on all schemes that deliver a net gain of at least 1 dwelling subject to consideration of scheme viability.

LP16 – Affordable North Luton Consortium Additional provisions are required in N/A [No detailed wording suggested] No – LP15 includes Housing PS287 the policy in anticipation of the provision for Starter introduction of starter homes as an Homes. affordable housing tenure and to ensure these are considered as part of the scheme mix. This would be a new “Part E” to the Policy.

LP16 – Affordable North Luton Consortium The respondent considers that as LP16 (final Paragraph) LP16 (final Paragraph) No – A viability clause is Housing drafted the level of unmet affordable already included in the PS278 housing need could be used to Under the Duty to Cooperate the Council Under the Duty to Cooperate the Council policy so does not need to impede the delivery of other strategic will seek to ensure that appropriate housing will seek to ensure that appropriate be repeated. sites outside the administrative area. provision to meet affordable housing needs housing provision to meet affordable The scope that full needs may not be can be provided across administrative housing needs can be provided across Paragraph 6.13 already met should be acknowledged. boundaries. administrative boundaries., taking into refers to development account the viability of such provision proposals needing to be and the need to create balanced accompanied by a communities sustainable letting scheme to support the use of [consequential amendments would be affordable rent homes and required to supporting text Para 6.17] develop and maintain balanced communities.

136

LP16 – Affordable National Custom and Self- The definition of affordable housing N/A – No specific wording proposed N/A – No specific wording proposed No – LP15 includes Housing Build Association should be widened to include provision for Starter PS326 ‘affordable self-build’. Self-build Homes as well as support homes proposed on such sites could for self-build properties. be permitted with conditions capping The Council considers that the resale value and limiting sale to the framework of housing those with local connections in order policies taken as a whole to increase the supply of affordable are appropriate to provide housing for local people whilst still the mix and type of providing self-build opportunities. housing recommended by the SHMA.

137

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP17 – HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP17 – Houses in Multiple 1 1 1 0 1 0 - - - - Occupation

Summary of issues raised by Representors

There are no representations raising matters of concern with Policy LP17, as drafted.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The response to consultation indicates no outstanding issues with the Policy. The support of Historic England due to the policy consideration of effects within the character of Conservation Areas is welcomed (Historic England, 169722).

Specific Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Modifications Response id iState reason proposed by (as appropriate) Representors Paragraph or Policy reference N/A

138

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP17A – STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP17A – Student ------Accommodation

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• There were no representations submitted directly referencing this policy. Luton Borough Council response to Representations

N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

139

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP18 – OLDER PEOPLE’S HOUSING

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP18 – Older People’s 1 1 - - 1 1 Housing

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The respondent to this policy highlights that it does not specifically identify the provision of ‘Care Home’ and ‘Assisted Living’ facilities as those which will be supported. The policy is considered unsound and not consistent with national policy (Fenton Property Management, 955816). • The respondent considers that the sustainability factors listed under Criteria Aii of Policy LP18 are relevant for the location of such facilities in town centre locations. The respondent considers that this should be expressed and the relevant criteria also cross-referenced to town centre policies (Fenton Property Management, 955816).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representations received are limited and are not considered to materially affect the policy, whose overall criteria are supported. Respondents’ comments regarding town centre locations are not considered in-line with the definition of Town Centre uses in national policy, although the policy nevertheless allows for each site to be considered on its merits. Similarly, the evidence base and national guidance allows the policy to be applied to proposals for a variety of accommodation types.

140

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP18 - Older Fenton Property The respondent seeks to introduce Policy LP18: No specific wording changes suggested No – The change is not People’s Housing Management specific reference to care home and considered necessary as PS173 assisted living facilities within the A. The development of new accommodation varying forms of Policy. designed specifically for older people should development can be meet all of the following criteria: achieved in the context of The respondent also seeks to express the Policy, National that town centre locations would be I: Contribute to the housing needs identified Guidance and evidence considered appropriate for the in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment within the SHMA. purposes of criteria Aii as part of the (SHMA); spirit of mixed-use development. It is not considered ii. offer easy access to community facilities, necessary to reference services and frequent public transport; or, town centres as a where a site is not within easy access to potentially suitable community facilities, services and frequent location as each site will be public transport, services should be considered on its merits. provided on-site;

141

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP19 – EXTENSIONS TO DWELLINGS AND ANNEXES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP19 – Extensions to ------Dwellings and Annexes

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• No representations submitted directly referencing this policy. Luton Borough Council response to Representations

N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

142

CHAPTER 6 – HOUSING

POLICY LP20 – GYPSIES, TRAVELLERS AND TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP20- Gypsies, Travellers and 17 15 1 10 17 12 11 8 10 Travelling Showpeople

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Central Bedfordshire Council support the inclusion of Policy LP20 within the Local Plan, which safeguards existing sites and provides detailed criteria against which any planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites will be considered. CBC accept that a change in government policy regarding the definition of travellers’ needs is likely to impact upon the pitch requirement identified in the current Local Plan but wish to highlight the potential risk of preparing a standalone Gypsy and Traveller plan, in light of recent Inspectors’ decisions, such as Maldon District Council and NPPF Para 153 seeking the preparation of a single Local Plan. LBC could review the GTAA and consider identifying allocations for Gypsy and Traveller sites to meet any unmet need whilst the Growth Options Study is completed (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• One respondent comments that given the existing anti-social behaviour associated with the capacity and number of pitches on the existing site at Stopsley, an increase would not appear to be a good idea with negative effects on matters such as pedestrian safety. The respondent sees this as not consistent with national policy, which states that a maximum of around 15 pitches is conducive to a comfortable environment and easier to manage (Greenhouse Mentoring , 949314).

• Dacorum Borough Council (662461) does not consider that the strategy with regards provision for Gypsy and Traveller Sites (Policy LP20) can be considered positively prepared or effective as the identification of additional capacity has now been deferred to a Part 2 Local Plan, along with removing any reference to the overall target to be met. As a minimum, a reference to any relevant study (even if subject to an update) should be provided to aid future monitoring (Dacorum Borough Council, 662461).

143

• Mr Rob Davies refers to the Duty to Co-operate by commenting that Luton has a 'duty to cooperate' with Central Beds to find suitable sites for Gypsies and Travellers, not just to decide on one on its own. This policy is not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy (Mr. Rob Davies, 951094).

• Another respondent argues that consultants developing the Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment did not carry out meaningful engagement with both settled and travelling communities. It would be a matter of due diligence on their behalf to have contacted the local settled and traveller residents for their objective opinions. LP20 is therefore not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy (Mr. Duncan Lusted, 954474).

• Aylesbury Vale District Council has commented that the plan should make provision for meeting all types of housing need including Gypsies and Travellers. Paragraph 6.34 does not accord with the approach adopted elsewhere by the Council and supported by national policy. The issue of unmet housing need is a matter where the intention set out in paragraph 6.10 is to continue work with other councils involving the preparation of a Growth Study. This contrasts with the position in relation to traveller needs where the approach is to postpone work to a later date. Progress on the plan should be halted to allow further work in relation to meeting unmet housing need and the needs of travellers (Aylesbury Vale District Council, 954792).

• The representors concur that Government guidance for maximum of 15 pitches and the site at St Thomas’ Road already has 20. New proposal will make the site 49 pitches in size making it a large proposal for Green Belt land and will take up the Tennis Courts. LP20 is therefore not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy (Mr George Holding, 957108),(Mr. Rob Davies, 951094).

• For some respondents, traffic is seen as a large potential problem that could be exacerbated in the area as a result of this policy (Wendy Bigmore, 955151). Confirmed by a further comment that the recommended size of site at St Thomas' Road is already exceeded. Travellers from the existing site are opposed to the expansion, saying it will cause “huge problems” and possible violence. Existing congestion in the village, only one road in and out of the site and other traffic generators such as Stopsley School, houses and football venue is a concern. The area is part of a Green Belt due to a land swap for the Inspire Centre. There are alternatives in other parts of Luton. Stopsley does not require a larger site due to need (Mr. Russell Green, 50581). The fear generated by the overcrowding and suspected violence has also caused a certain amount of anxiety for residents (Karen Early, 955482),(Miss Kelly Smith, 951095),(Mrs. Heather Muldoon, 952215),(Kris Calver, 956910),(Mr Connor McGrath, 957083),(Miss Julie Tindale, 954025). There must be other locations within the borough that would be more viable (Mrs Joyce Gantley, 957123). LP20 is therefore not considered positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

144

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representation from Central Bedfordshire Council accepts that a change in government policy regarding the definition of travellers’ needs is likely to impact upon the pitch requirement identified in the current Local Plan but highlight risks of preparing a standalone Gypsy and Traveller Plan and suggest that Luton identify allocations for Gypsy and Traveller sites whilst the Growth Options Study is completed. However, this suggestion appears to simply be an attempt to delay the progress of the Luton Local Plan. Luton BC is updating its evidence to take account of the Government change of definition of Gypsies and Travellers and will prepare the Part 2 local plan to cover this matter.

• The supporting text at Paragraphs 6.34 – 6.35 outlines the assessment work to date and potential significance of changes to the definition of traveller groups as applied by Central Government. In response to the representation from Dacorum Borough Council, a clear programme to prepare a Part 2 Local Plan addressing accommodation needs for the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population is considered more robust and better able to take account of changes in national policy on this matter. Policy LP20 as drafted has appropriate regard to Gypsies and Travellers Accommodation Assessments to be prepared as part of the evidence-base for the policy topic and provides the necessary response of supporting the delivery of appropriate sites for any need that may be identified.

• Mr Duncan Lusted’s representation states that consultants developing the Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment did not carry out meaningful engagement with both settled and travelling communities is not agreed. This representation fails to recognise that the GTAA surveys consisted of a combination of desk-based research, stakeholder interviews and engagement with members of the travelling community. A total of 18 interviews were completed with Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople living on sites and yards. Through efforts to identify households living in bricks and mortar 2 contacts were interviewed who were able to provide details about their households and 4 other relatives who are also currently living in bricks and mortar. A total of 12 telephone interviews were also completed with Officers from Luton Borough Council and Officers from neighbouring local authorities.

• The representations from Aylesbury Vale District Council states that the issue of unmet housing need is a matter where the intention to continue work with other councils involving the preparation of a Growth Study contrasts with the position in relation to traveller needs where the approach is to postpone work to a later date. Progress on the plan should be halted to allow further work in relation to meeting unmet housing need and the needs of travellers. It appears that the representation is simply seeking to slow down progress of the plan and Luton BC does not recognise the parallel the representor is attempting to make here.

• Representations from Mr George Holding, Mr Rob Davies and Greenhouse Mentoring consider that any new proposals at Stopsley would make the site 49 pitches in size making it a large proposal for Green Belt land. However, the plan only safeguards the existing Gypsy and Traveller sites and does not propose additional allocations. Paragraph 6.34 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan identifies that further site assessment work may

145

consequentially follow revised evidence of the needs for accommodation for Gyspies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in-line with the latest government definition for these groups. This will look to ensure that the most appropriate locations to meet this need are selected.

• For some respondents, (see for example Wendy Bigmore, Mr Russell Green, Karen Early, Miss Kelly Smith, Mrs Heather Muldoon, Kris Calver, Mr. Connor McGrath, Miss Julie Tindale and Mrs. Joyce Gantley) there are a number of issues identified regarding the Stopsley area as a potential location for additional Gypsy and Traveller provision. These include, traffic and congestion, potential for tension with travellers from the existing site, Green Belt. These representations urge for additional gypsy and traveller provision to be located elsewhere in the Borough. These representations fail to recognise that the plan does not propose additional provision for Gypsies and Travellers in this location.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Policy LP20 Dacorum Borough Council The policy should include reference N/A – insert new text at start of Policy Insert new text at start of Policy LP20: No – The supporting text PS168 to the source of a target for Gypsies LP20 at Paragraphs 6.34 – 6.35 and Travellers, even if the target “The target for new pitches will be set outlines the assessment itself is excluded. The respondent according to the most recent Gypsy and work to date and potential has suggested wording from its own Traveller Needs Assessment agreed by significance of changes to policy. the Council. The target will be the definition of traveller progressively met through the provision groups as applied by and management of new sites.” Central Government. This issue will therefore be addressed if appropriate following Submission of the Local Plan and any updates of the Part 2 Local Plan.

146

CHAPTER 7 – LUTON’S TOWN CENTRE, DISTRICT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 7 – Luton’s Town 2 1 3 1 2 1 Centre, District and Neighbourhood Centres

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum understands that policies regarding retail facilities in neighbourhood/District Centres are provided separately in this section while other community facilities are addressed in other chapters of the plan. Despite advocating the incorporation of a more holistic approach to these services through a separate chapter that combines part of Chapter 7 with Chapters 8 and 9, the respondent considers the chapter to be sound (The Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 857043).

• Mr David Logan believes that LBC ignores the fact that the predominant factor underpinning the success of any centre is the free flow of car and lorry traffic. The respondent feels the plan overlooks the fact that alternative modes to car travel also depend upon the free flow of traffic. It is claimed that an excess of new housing is proposed in locations (including those outside the Borough boundary) that will not encourage public transport, walking and cycling, increasing congestion on main routes and undermining effective policies for the Town Centre (Mr David Logan 879188).

• One respondent considers that this section needs to consider the town centre from an economic, social, cultural and built environment perspective. The future of town centres should not be retail dependent/ orientated and constant reference to Power Court highlights that the plans for the town centre are limited. It is considered that the strategy for the town centre lacks vision or aspiration and does not propose specific solutions for areas of poor environment or specific areas where the offer for leisure and cultural services should be improved (Project Management Company Luton, 855840)

147

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Respondents have identified that this section of the plan has a more explicit focus on planning for future retail floorspace needs and ensuring that these are provided for in the most appropriate locations rather than looking holistically at town and district centre environments. The Council notes these comments, but considers that the approach in this specific section of the plan is necessary and justified to provide clear policy guidance based on the latest evidence provided by the Luton Retail Study Refresh – Update (2015). This takes into account important considerations such as the projected growth in population, change in spending patterns and location of other new developments which may affect retail premises in Luton and reinforces the need for a clear strategy. The hierarchy defined within this policy is also of critical importance for the application of national guidance and policy and the application of relevant sequential tests and impact assessments.

• Where respondents question the sustainability of the retail hierarchy, the Council is confident that the locations identified, and the level of development being planned for, are consistent with the evidence base and offer the best prospects for the use of non-car transport modes and to promote sustainable development. The policy therefore provides appropriate guidance for considering any proposals contrary to the hierarchy, such as out-of-centre retail development.

• The Council accepts that further guidance on the overall strategy for the town centre is provided outside of this policy. This is considered appropriate, and reflects the fact that the Plan must be read as a whole. For example, important strategic allocations also located within the town centre, such as the Creative Quarter (LP11), seek to provide a broad range of non-retail development for leisure, cultural and recreational uses and will further help to shape the Town Centre Vision. Policy LP25 provides more general guidance on design, and may also be supported by subsequent SPDs. The Council recognises the key and ongoing role for other stakeholders in fully delivering and implementing the policies in the Local Plan and considers that work to this effect is already underway with examples such as the High Town Masterplan (see Policy LP10).

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

148

CHAPTER 7 – LUTON’S TOWN CENTRE, DISTRICT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

POLICY LP21 – CENTRE HIERARCHY

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP21 – Centre Hierarchy 4 1 5 2 1 1 4 3 4 2 4

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Augur Group comments that Napier Park has planning permission for a mix of uses, including housing, office and retail. The grant of planning envisages the creation of a new “neighbourhood centre” – see draft policy LP8 and paragraph 4.70. The drafting of policy LP21 fails to refer to Napier Park as a neighbourhood centre. This is supported by J2 Global who comment that the future creation of a new “neighbourhood centre” is not referred to. LP21 should therefore not be considered positively prepared, justified, effective, or consistent with national policy (Augur Group, 956519),(J2 Global, 957878).

• Mr. Barry Pilskin believes that Peel Place should be included within the Town Centre Policy Area. This private service road functions as part of the town centre, servicing town centre sites and uses. As a result of this they believe LP21 not to be positively prepared, justified, effective, or consistent with national policy (Mr. Barry Pilskin, 956742).

• Central Bedfordshire Council does not consider that the Experian figures for population growth given at Table 2.1 of the WYG Retail Study Refresh (2015) are consistent with those from the 2015 SHMA. This is based on the population of Zones 1A, 1B and 1C. This conflict goes to the heart of the strategy. Any discrepancy from the OAN questions the validity of the future floorspace requirements, notwithstanding the fact that demand also takes into account expenditure growth. The % increase for convenience is only quoted as 0.6% and 3.3% (mode) for comparison. The respondent welcomes the identification of Power Court and the Northern Gateway as the primary locations for retail. However, up to 1788sqm of comparison and 1428sqm of convenience are shown as commitments at Napier Park. This location is considered more attractive due to airport links and a mixed-use offer. This will negatively impact on the delivery of sequentially preferable sites and renders planned provision based on increased

149

market share too high. LP21 is said to be not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy as a result (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Fenton Property Management Ltd support Strategic Objectives 4, 6 and 8 and endorse the policy requirement set out in Policy LP 21 in terms of the town centre hierarchy for retail purposes. LP21 is considered sound (Fenton Property Management Ltd, 955816).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The Council is fully content that the Luton Retail Study Refresh – Update (2015) provides robust and up-to-date evidence on the demand for additional floorspace and fully takes into account existing commitments including the impact on expenditure from other consented developments outside the administrative area (in-particular at Houghton Regis North).

• In relation to a respondent’s detailed submissions in relation to the map for the town centre area, the area at Peel Place identified by the respondent is located within the Town Centre Inset Area, but it not identified as part of the Town Centre Shopping Area. This is consistent with its location set behind main retail premises and frontages and away from major pedestrian footfall and its existing use providing commercial office floorspace. The location will, however, remain covered by the main policies applicable in the town centre.

• The Augur Group and J2 Global have identified that support in principle is established within Policy LP8 (Napier Park) for the creation of a new neighbourhood centre at this location consistent with the intention to deliver a strategic mixed-use development. It is highlighted that Policy LP8 is not drafted in a prescriptive manner to directly reflect any existing consent for the land and that as a result there is some flexibility and uncertainty in the nature of any retail and associated development that may come forward within a final scheme and it is further not possible to spatially define

150

the final extent of the area itself. However, it is accepted that it would be appropriate for Policy LP21 to reflect that the benefits of a neighbourhood centre at Napier Park are acknowledged and would be considered to support delivery of this mixed-use area in the future.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

LP21 Augur Group Add Napier Park to the list of LP21 A (Bullets): LP21 A (Bullets): Yes – PS361 neighbourhood centres at Policy • Town Centre: Luton Town • Town Centre: Luton Town and LP21 Centre; Centre; Minor modification to J2 Global • District Centres: Bury Park; • District Centres: Bury Park; reflect the intentions of PS254 Marsh Road; Marsh Farm; Marsh Road; Marsh Farm; Policy LP8. Wigmore; Stopsley; Sundon Wigmore; Stopsley; Sundon Park; Park; • Neighbourhood Centres: Farley; • Neighbourhood Centres: High Town; Round Green; Farley; High Town; Round Lewsey; Bushmead; Green; Lewsey; Bushmead; Bramingham; Hockwell Ring; Bramingham; Hockwell Ring; Biscot Road; Calverton Road; Biscot Road; Calverton Road; Birdsfoot Lane South; Birdsfoot Lane South; • Potential for new • Potential for new Neighbourhood Centre at Chaul Neighbourhood Centre at End Lane or Dallow Road. Chaul End Lane or Dallow Road. • Creation of a new Neighbourhood Centre at Napier Park

LP21 Mr. Barry Pilskin The Town Centre inset Map should N/A N/A No, not accepted, the PS273 be amended to incorporate Peel building forms part of the Place within the Town Centre Area town’s commercial office floorspace and is not considered to form part of the retail core. .

151

CHAPTER 7 – LUTON’S TOWN CENTRE, DISTRICT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

POLICY LP22 – PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SHOPPING AREAS AND FRONTAGES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP22- Primary and Secondary 2 2 1 1 1 1 Shopping Areas and Frontages

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Fenton Property Management believe that the restrictions imposed on non-retail uses at ground floor level are not justified nor in accordance with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 23. Annex 2 of the NPPF states that Primary Frontages may include food and drink uses. They go on to argue that the percentage rule for non-A1 uses is arbitrary and unjustified and the Council should provide a robust evidence base and justification for this restriction. Policy LP22 is not considered justified as a result (Fenton Property Management, 955816).

• Capital and Regional PLC contend that Policy LP22 should be augmented to better reflect the changing nature of the retail and leisure economy, and that this particularly affects The Mall and the need to respond to consumer and operator preferences over time. Policy LP22, as drafted, would introduce a presumption against the acceptability of establishing such specialist leisure zones. Retention of control over co-location to protect the primary / premier shopping frontages is understood but warrants an exception in the context of The Mall itself. Policy LP22 is not considered effective or consistent with national policy as a result (Capital and Regional PLC, 956604).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• In response to Fenton Property Management, Policy LP22 is drafted in respect of all town centre uses supporting in principle a mix of town centre uses (see LP22 Aiii), subject to satisfying the relevant criteria set out in the policy. The criteria are considered to be valid within the wider context of the NPPF and supported by the evidence of the Luton Retail Study Refresh 2012 – Update 2015. In-particular, the criteria are necessary to ensure that primary and secondary frontages as a whole continue to remain active and bring people together (NPPF Paragraph 69) hence the need to ensure that further non-A1 uses are mainly permitted where existing non-A1 premises are vacant. The policy as a whole is considered to support

152

meeting the needs of the town – including for retail floorspace – in the most sustainable locations. Matters such as retail vacancy and the proportion of non-A1 uses will be subject to regular monitoring as part of the AMR to ensure that the effect of this policy is as intended.

• Respondents on behalf of The Mall are considered to raise relevant considerations regarding the future of the town centre economy and the need to promote flexible use of land in appropriate circumstances. The Council would highlight that the existing policy framework (as well as the continued intention under the policy as drafted) supports a controlled proportion of non-A1 uses introduced within The Mall, consistent with their integration within the overall frontage - such as at ‘The Diner’. Recent government changes to PD rights would also introduce more flexibility. The Mall, as highlighted by the respondent, is of critical importance to the retail offer of the Town Centre, and therefore any further provision to support ‘food court’ functions (e.g. through creative juxtaposition of food outlets within the overall percentage restriction) will need to be considered on their merits and ensure non-A1 uses do not dominate. Additional flexibility may arise in the application of the policy to the Mall particularly where proposals are progressed to extend the Mall.

• In summary, the Council would support continued engagement with the providers of The Mall to ensure that their interests can be protected alongside the retail offer at The Mall. It is considered that this may require a more detailed reconfiguration and Master planning of uses in The Mall than captured by the broad intentions of Policy LP22 and could best be addressed in a future review of the Plan or Supplementary Planning Document.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP22 Capital and Regional PLC Within the context of the Mall, the N/A – New “Part C” proposed. Draft Policy LP22 be added to as follows: No – See detailed PS292 respondent sees benefit in allowing response above. The the co-location of activities/uses C. Notwithstanding “B” above, within proposed change is including the potential creation of a the Mall a specific collection of up to 8 considered unnecessary or food court similar to other centres. restaurants/food outlets will be may reduce the permitted to be co-located next to each effectiveness of the policy and/or opposite each other in order to as a whole and can best be create a food-zone. Outside of this food dealt with through the zone “B” above will apply. development management process

153

CHAPTER 7 – LUTON’S TOWN CENTRE, DISTRICT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

POLICY LP23 – DISTRICT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD AREAS AND SHOPPING PARADES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP23- District and ------Neighbourhood Areas and Shopping Parades

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• No representations have been received in respect of this policy.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

154

CHAPTER 8 AND POLICY LP24 - EDUCATION AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 8 - Education and Other 3 3 3 2 Community Facilities

Policy LP24 – Education and 4 2 6 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 Other Community Facilities

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The actions within the Plan disregard the aim of retaining green spaces (paragraph 8.11). There is no sign that LBC has an effective plan of action to stop the Barnfield College playing fields from being built upon (David Logan, 879188).

• The need to reduce the need to travel (para 8.13) and aim of strengthening Luton Town Centre is undermined by the developments proposed by LBC, NHDC and CBC. There is nothing sustainable (para 8.16) in accommodating inward migrations given that Luton is already overcrowded, having reached a population density 11.6 times the average for England and 18 times the average for the UK (David Logan, 879188).

• A suitable definition for community facilities has been provided in the glossary. This reflects advice in the NPPF to plan positively for cultural facilities. (The Theatres Trust, 143529)

• There is concern in relation to a lack of inclusion of Library provision to meet the growing population. It is recommended that this is included. Also there is no reference to developing the town’s museum and archive infrastructure. With various references to public art, cultural and leisure uses, it is unclear what the town’s overall strategy is for such provision (Luton Culture, 855411).

• Policy LP24 is responsive to the Council's evidence base on playing pitches and sports facilities and broadly accords with the NPPF. Amendments made in response to comments on the draft plan (2014) are positive (Sport England, 660493).

155

• Concern is raised about the allocation of the former GM Vauxhall cricket ground for a new secondary school without reference to playing field mitigation. The Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) 2014 identified a significant shortage of cricket grounds (which it is unable to address) and does not say that this site is surplus to needs. Without mitigation this allocation does not meet the justified test and is inconsistent with paragraph 74 of the NPPF. (Sport England, 660493).

• LP24 should not be applied to private member clubs that do not operate as community facilities, such as at Stockingstone Road which have the same commercial issues of any business. Should a club no longer be viable, LP24 should not sterilise land by restricting alternative uses and/or requiring alternative provision off site (The Co-operative Group, 746045).

• The development of two schools at the Brache needs to include a commitment to extend routes that follow the river Lea through this area of the town up to Manor Park (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Access Forum, 857043).

• The additional capacity needed for school places is significant. Evidence of how a balance of land uses will be achieved (in the context of constraints on housing delivery) is not clear. Further consultation and co-operation will be required on how educational infrastructure would be achieved, particularly where unmet housing is included within Aylesbury Vale (Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The playing fields at Barnfield College and the former GM Vauxhall cricket ground are covered by the plan’s definition of community facilities and LP24 (among other policies). Potential redevelopment would therefore need to prove there is no need for those facilities or they would need to be retained as part of the development or re-provided in a suitable alternative location.

• There is no known evidence on the need for libraries, archives and museums. Nor is there any known strategy for delivering against any requirements. Relevant needs will be included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (as and when they are identified, for example by Luton Culture through a cultural strategy) so that they can be considered for funding through planning obligations.

• To be consistent with national policy (and therefore sound), the plan seeks to meet as many known needs as far as possible within the borough, balancing different land uses, social, economic and environmental concerns. It is generally accepted that development comes at an environmental cost and the plan attempts to minimise such impacts. Not all needs can be sustainably accommodated (e.g. housing) and the council is working with neighbouring authorities (including Aylesbury Vale District Council) to identify how these can best be addressed. Background papers will be produced that will help to explain the balance of development being planned for.

156

• All forms of community facility (whether provided privately, publicly, charitably or otherwise) are required to support sustainable communities and therefore require protection through policy. All have requirements to operate within budgets. Community facilities address concerns around self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity, which are core values of the Co-operative Group.

• The suggestion to extended travel (non-vehicle type) routes along the river from Manor Park to the south of the town is supported. Such a commitment complements Policy LP36’s requirements for a buffer strip to facilitate maintenance and could be applied along the full route of the Lea and its tributaries.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP24 Sport England Instead of requiring the proposed Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested No – LP24 already covers PS32 (school) allocation to be removed, we the Representor by the Representor this concern. would be satisfied if policy LP24 was amended to refer to the need for a secondary school allocation to be subject to playing field mitigation. At this stage it would not be appropriate to be prescriptive about what mitigation measures would be acceptable.

LP24 The Co-operative Group LP24 should be amended to make Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested No – All forms of PS14 clear that it will not apply to private the Representor by the Representor community facility support sports clubs that are not public sustainable communities facilities. and require protection through policy.

Luton Culture It is recommended that policies are Detailed wording change not suggested by Detailed wording change not suggested No – There is no known PS207 included to guide the needs and the Representor by the Representor. evidence to support the aspirations for cultural provision; (1) need for such specific Libraries and Archives Policy; (2) Arts, policies. Relevant Public Art, Museums & Galleries provision is supported by Policy policies LP3, LP11, LP21, LP24 and LP39.

LP31 Central Bedfordshire and The development of two school sites Detailed wording change not suggested by The Lea and its Tributaries No, the requirement for

157

Luton Joint Access Forum at the Brache needs to include a the Representor G. Development on or adjacent to the such improvements is PS66 commitment to extend routes that river and its tributaries will provide a already reflected in Policy follow the river Lea through this area publicly accessible route for walking and LP3 clause ix. and the of the town up to Manor Park. cycling alongside the watercourse. This Green Infrastructure Plan route should also facilitate maintenance for Luton. of the watercourse as required in LP36.

158

CHAPTER 9 – HIGH QUALITY DESIGN

POLICY LP25 – HIGH QUALITY DESIGN

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP25 – High Quality 9 2 11 4 1 2 9 4 4 6 6 Design

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• One respondent welcomes the policy and outlines particular support for LP25 criteria ix in relation to the promotion of sport and physical activity and the footnote having regard to relevant guidance provided by Sport England (Sport England, 660493). • The Chilterns Conservation Board welcome the overall recognition of the Chilterns AONB designation in the plan but highlight an issue with paragraph 9.10 of the supporting text which should be corrected to ensure the design of proposals that may affect the setting of the AONB is fully considered. The respondent also sets out that it may be useful to provide an additional reference to the Chilterns Conservation Board’s Position Statement on Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB for these issues (Chilterns Conservation Board, 956824). • Historic England highlight support for overall emphasis of the policy but highlights that in order to be consistent with national policy and effective more explicit reference to the historic environment and heritage assets are required as design considerations. In essence, the respondent highlights that whilst Policy LP25 criteria (i) refers to distinctiveness and ‘natural features’ this effectively duplicates provisions also set out in LP25 (vi) but omits reference to heritage issues and is contrary to NPPF Paras 126, 156 and 157 (Historic England, 169722). • Mr David Logan considers that LP25 is laudable in principle but will not be effective in terms of its provisions to reduce carbon emissions, protect natural assets and improve connectivity and accessibility due to its relationship with the scale and location of developments being proposed, including those in the adjacent districts of Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire (Mr David Logan, 879188). • The majority of respondents focus on the overall thrust of Policy LP25 (with some reference to individual criteria) in terms of their relationship with Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the NPPF in terms of providing comprehensive guidance whilst avoiding unnecessary prescription or detail. 159

• Redrow PLC considers that the policy is sound and achieves the objectives of good design whilst allowing development to be guided by individual circumstances in respect of land at Napier Park (Redrow PLC, 956553) • A number of respondents consider that the criteria set out in Policy LP25 are too broad-ranging and raise questions about how the policy might be applied. Matters such as minimising noise, overlooking and overshadowing, and ensuring access to storage and privacy, may be considered overly prescriptive. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires consideration in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally (JG Global, 957878 and Augur Group, 956519). One respondent considers that the criteria should consider viability and site constraints such as height, scale and massing, especially in town centre locations (Fenton Property Management, 955816). As a result the policy is not considered justified, effective, consistent with national policy or positively prepared. • The Home Builders Federation considers that Criteria (viii) of LP25 in terms of water efficiency standards (along with criteria (K) of policy LP1 indicating achievement of ‘water neutrality’) does not reflect national policy and the optional technical standard of 110 litres per day. This is not considered justified, effective, positively prepared or consistent with national policy based upon the evidence base available (Home Builders Federation, 792154). • The Home Builders Federation also considers that the final paragraph of Policy LP25 is not justified or consistent with national policy as NPPF Paragraph 153 sets out the SPDs should not be used to introduce new policy or add development costs and that this may delay the delivery of housing (Home Builders Federation, 792154). • Criteria (xi) of Policy LP25 looking to deliver the Nationally Described Space Standards is identified as a specific issue by a number of respondents (Mr Barry Pilskin, 956742),(Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222) ,(Home Builders Federation, 792154). The inclusion of the Standards is not considered justified, effective, consistent with national policy or positively prepared. Key criticisms claim that the viability implications of applying the standards have not been fully tested or considered in the SHLAA, and that Appendix 6 of the Local Plan does not include integral parts of the standards including floor areas and room widths which cannot be removed. Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF are referenced including the cumulative impact of development costs. Respondents also consider that the justification for the policy has not fully considered local demand and local circumstances, recent patterns of delivery and the need for a sufficient mix of housing types and sizes under NPPF Paragraph 50. External amenity space standards are also not covered by the NPPG but their inclusion in Appendix 6 is not considered justified.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

In relation to the application of national space standards the Council considers them to be important in helping raise the overall quality of the town’s housing stock. The Viability Appraisal suggests that most typical schemes should be deliverable but in the event that there are viability concerns on a specific proposal then it is open to the developer to have these concerns addressed through the Development Management process. 160

The policy is based on sound evidence in accordance with the advice in the NPPF “Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.” (NPPF para 158). The Water cycle study 2015 alludes to Luton’s particular circumstances being within “an area of serious water stress” and the need “…to move towards a more ‘water neutral position” and to enhance sustainability of development coming forward… The Water Cycle Study 2015 recommends that a policy should be developed that ensures all housing is as water efficient as possible, and that new housing development should go beyond Building Regulations and as a minimum, reach Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3/4. Non-domestic building should as a minimum reach ‘Good’ BREEAM status’. It goes on to say that the limited availability of new resources locally means over the longer term beyond the next 25 years, it is likely that new resources would need to be transferred into the area to support the increased population and resulting water demand. This provides a very strong argument for new homes provided in the next 25 years to be made as efficient and as economic as possible in order to safeguard future resources.

The representors have highlighted relevant considerations that they feel are covered by this policy but could be presented more clearly. In-part, respondents are reminded to read that the plan needs to be read as a whole where other policies provide further guidance on aspects such as heritage (LP30) and landscape (LP29). However, the Council recognises the importance of Policy LP25 in providing site-specific guidance on these matters and will therefore consider the modifications suggested where they may assist the operation of the policy e.g. with reference to design guidance for development affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB.

The policy as a whole is not considered overly prescriptive and several respondents offer support for the overall approach. It is considered that the provisions can be applied appropriately in response to local circumstances. The Council is already pursuing measures to improve the clarity of guidance and support the delivery of development in specific areas such as the Masterplan for the High Town area. However, as some representors have highlighted SPDs need not be prepared in all circumstances or may not be used to introduce new policy and there may be scope to clarify this within the plan.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id iState reason (as appropriate) Policy LP25 Historic England To provide reference to heritage LP25 i - Enhance the distinctiveness and LP25 i - Enhance the distinctiveness and No, not considered to be PS81 issues within the criteria offered by character of the area by responding character of the area by responding necessary because LP25 (i) the policy. positively to the townscape, street scene, positively to the townscape, street scene, already refers to site and building context, form, scale, site and building context, form, scale, townscape which embraces height, pattern and materials, height, pattern and materials, the heritage aspects of the distinctiveness, and natural features distinctiveness, and natural features built environment and the plan when read as a whole 161

including biodiversity including biodiversity heritage assets contains specific provisions for designated and non- designated heritage assets at LP30.

Paragraph 9.10 Chilterns Conservation The change is proposed to correct a 9.10 Development potentially affecting 9.10 Development potentially affecting Agree Board typo. the Chilterns AONB its setting should refer the Chilterns AONB or its setting should PS263 to the Chilterns Building Design Guidance to refer to the Chilterns Building Design The change is necessary to There is also a suggestion to include ensure consistency of design and materials Guidance to ensure consistency of design correct a typo. an additional reference to the across the Chilterns. and materials across the Chilterns and the Chilterns Conservation Board’s Chilterns Conservation Board’s Position Reference to the Setting Position Statement on Development Statement on Development Affecting the Position Statement would Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns Setting of the Chilterns AONB where also strengthen the policy AONB ensure that development and appropriate. in relevant applicable land management proposals outside circumstances but affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB are fully taken into account.

Policy LP25 Fenton Property Text should be added to consider N/A – No specific wording proposed N/A No, the Council considers Management viability and site constraints in terms that viability concerns can PS176 of height, scale and massing, be addressed through the especially in town centre locations. Development Management process.

Policy LP25 JG Global To provide greater flexibility in-line In particular, where the following design In particular, scheme proposals should No - The existing wording PS258 with NPPF Paragraph 59 criteria are material to an application have regard to where the following refers to site context and and site, its context and development design criteria are material to an the nature of development Augur Group proposals, provision should be made to: application site, its context and proposals and will allow PS362 development proposals, provision should NPPF Paragraphs 58 and 59 be made to: in-particular to be applied appropriately.

Policy LP25 Home Builders Federation To provide consistency with NPPF Policy LP25 No specific changes to wording proposed. Yes – minor modification to PS350 Paragraph 153 and confirm that SPDs Supplementary guidance through SPDs Respondents comments may be included ensure consistency with will not be used to introduce new and Development Briefs on high quality as follows: NPPF Paragraph 153. policy or increase the cost of design will be produced to expand and development and should only be complement the principles established in Policy LP25 used to provide clear guidance to this Plan. Supplementary guidance through SPDs applicants. and Development Briefs on high quality design will may be produced to expand and complement the principles established in this Plan and to provide clear guidance to applicants. 162

Policy LP25 Mr Barry Pilskin If the LPA wish to enforce a National xi. Deliver new housing in accordance No specific changes to wording proposed. No, the Council considers PS268 Space Standard it should provide a with National space standards set Respondents comments may be included that the application of detailed justification for its out in appendix 6, minimise noise, as follows: national space standards is application to the LP area set and overlooking and important in helping raise have regard to NPPF and PPG. That overshadowing/loss of light, xi. Deliver new housing in accordance the overall quality of the justification is not detailed at present. address tall buildings and the with National space standards set town’s housing stock. The If the Policy is aspirational only that protection of important views and out in appendix 6 where appropriate, Viability Appraisal suggests should be made clear in the policy by ensure access to storage and minimise noise, overlooking and that most typical schemes adding words such as “where privacy; and overshadowing/loss of light, should be deliverable but appropriate”. The LPA should also address tall buildings and the in the event that viability clarify whether the policy applies to protection of important views and concerns exist for a specific residential conversions. ensure access to storage and proposal then it is open to privacy; and the developer to have these concerns addressed through the Development Management process.

163

CHAPTER 9 – HIGH QUALITY DESIGN

POLICY LP26 – ADVERTISEMENTS AND SIGNAGE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP26 – Advertisements 1 1 1 and Signage

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• No respondents indicate any soundness concerns in respect of this policy. One respondent identifies that the reference to the historic environment within the policy will assist in conserving heritage assets as part of considering applications for advertisements and signage and that the policy is therefore sound (Historic England, 169722).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representation in support of the policy is acknowledged.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

164

CHAPTER 10 – NATURAL & HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Chapter 10 - General 12 5 17 1 5 12 1 2 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• A number of representations have been received generally in support of protecting open spaces, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, ponds, trees, landscape and heritage assets. Strong support for paragraph 10.5 was expressed. Some respondents refer to links with wider Chilterns, the AONB, SSSIs outside the Borough and general access to the surrounding countryside. There is some concern regarding issues of implementation.

• There is concern expressed about previous losses, including past demolitions of historic buildings, and a desire for preservation of those that remain, rather than being allowed to decay. The overall approach is not legally compliant and unsound with reference to recent outcomes and harm to heritage assets across the town (Friends of the Earth, 54044),(Miss Helena Cotter, 663183).

• The Environment Agency welcomed the incorporation of the River Lea into strategic objective 10 (Environment Agency, 312797).

• Two representors refer to the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership and welcome collaboration with this body. The group should be correctly referred to as the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416),(Environment Agency 312797).

• One representor wished to see steps to reduce loss of front gardens (Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• One representor wished to see creation of small water bodies (Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• One representor welcomed section 10.9 and its commitment to the value of trees, but would wish to see a tree strategy for the Borough to address issues regarding tree preservation and planting for the plan to be regarded as sound (Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

165

• The Bedfordshire Local Partnership wished to see greater emphasis on ecosystem services and consider the plan is not positively prepared as a consequence of this (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• The Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership wished to see greater prominence given to Green Infrastructure Plans and without this regard the plan as unsound (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership welcomes local landscape designations (AGLV and ALLV) as recognising the important contribution locally valued landscapes make to the town, its sense of place and people’s quality of life (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, wishes reference to be made to SSSIs beyond Borough boundary and setting out their importance to Luton and without such reference regards the plan as unsound (ineffective) (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Mr David Logan is concerned about developments north of Luton and impacts of these and considers the plan is unsound (David Logan, 879188).

• Legal & General Investment Management object to the inclusion of areas south of the airport, where the continued local landscape designations suggest the prevention of consideration of otherwise sustainable development on the edge of Luton. The designation said to be unjustified and not sound (Legal & General Investment Management, 956824).

• The Chilterns Conservation Board responded as they would like the plan to add reference to Chilterns Conservation Board’s Position Statement on Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB, 2011. Without this they consider the plan is unjustified (Chilterns Conservation Board, 956824).

• Against the supporting text and overall approach regarding the historic environment, some representors highlight the previous loss and neglect of heritage assets in the town and the need to embrace opportunities for conservation through the new policy (e.g. Friends of the Earth Luton, 54044). • Representations indicate the need to engage additional stakeholders to provide evidence on the historic and natural environment (Friends of Luton Parks and Green Spaces, 665733) • One representor feels that the approach to the historic environment as a whole (including historic landscapes north of Luton) is jeopardised by the scale of growth and proposals in adjoining authorities (Mr David Logan, 879188).

• One respondent considers that reference to non-registered historic parks and gardens should also be provided at Paragraph 10.15 of the supporting text as well as a reference to historic designed landscapes as part of the evidence base at Paragraph 10.38. These heritage assets are considered of

166

great significance for the local community as well as being of historic interest, reflect Luton’s tightly constrained boundaries and are directly related to the high quality places sought by Strategic Objective 5 (Bedfordshire Gardens Trust, 955754).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Although one respondent claimed a lack of legal compliance related to demolition of historic buildings, it is not clear why the respondent believes this renders the plan uncompliant.

• There seems to be widespread support for this policy area, and although several comments related to specific operational elements are coupled with a view that the plan is unsound, it is often unclear in several cases on what grounds this view is arrived at.

• The Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership has made comments relating to the recent Green Infrastructure Plans and the value of Ecosystem services and feels these could be given more prominence. However the Green Infrastructure Plan is referenced under paragraph 10.30 and the map provided as Appendix 13, which also addresses links to the GI assets beyond the Borough Boundary, which would include SSSIs. Ecosystem services references are found in Strategic Objective 10 and in paragraph 10.20, related directly to NPPF para 109, and in 10.9, where the ecosystem services provided by trees are referenced. In our view these issues are addressed and the plan is sound in that regard.

• With regard to landscape designations south of the airport, a robust report (ENV005 and ENV005a Landscape Character Assessments - Greensand Trust), has confirmed their value, with a stronger evidence base than that underpinning their identification in earlier plans.

• The Council considers that the approach in the chapter as a whole is supported by an extensive evidence base and engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, with broad opportunities for subsequent monitoring and review of designations. It is considered that the plan read as a whole provides protection for the broad links between the built and natural environment, such as taking into account historic landscape features where these are recognised in the evidence base

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy organisation strikethrough Yes/ No reference suggesting the State reason change Response id (as appropriate) Paragraph Luton Friends of Include Luton Friends of Parks and Paragraph 10.2 … … local expertise Paragraph 10.2 … … local expertise Yes – minor clarification 10.2 Parks and Green Green Spaces as a relevant including with; Bedfordshire & Luton including with; Bedfordshire & Luton Spaces stakeholder in the policy approach Wildlife Working Group (and its Wildlife Working Group (and its various

167

PS321 various sub-groups); the Local Nature sub-groups); the Local Nature Partnership; Upper River Lea Partnership; Upper River Lea Catchment Catchment Partnership; Greensand Partnership; Greensand Trust, Luton Trust and BRMC. Friends of Parks and Green Spaces and BRMC.

Paragraph Bedfordshire Correction of Name Paragraph 10.2 … … local expertise Paragraph 10.2 … … local expertise Yes, minor clarification 10.2 Local Nature including with; Bedfordshire & Luton including with; Bedfordshire & Luton Partnership Wildlife Working Group (and its Wildlife Working Group (and its various PS209 various sub-groups); the Local Nature sub-groups); the Bedfordshire Local Partnership; Upper River Lea Nature Partnership; Upper River Lea Catchment Partnership; Greensand Catchment Partnership; Greensand Trust and BRMC. Trust and BRMC.

Paragraph Bedfordshire The respondent seeks to add ‘non- Paragraph 10.15: Paragraph 10.15: No – The change is not considered 10.15 Gardens Trust designated parks and gardens’ to the necessary or justified in the context of the PS87 relevant supporting text (see To maintain and review Luton’s Local To maintain and review Luton’s Local plan read as a whole and national policy. proposed change to LP30) List of Heritage Assets to ensure List of Heritage Assets to ensure important designated heritage assets important designated heritage assets Policy LP29 provides wide-ranging landscape (which include listed buildings, (which include listed buildings, protections whilst the setting of individual conservation areas and scheduled conservation areas and scheduled heritage assets will be taken into account in monuments) and non-designated monuments) and non-designated judging any proposals, in accordance with heritage assets (which include locally heritage assets (which include locally national policy. No evidence is presented for listed buildings and archaeology) are listed buildings and archaeology and non-designated historic landscapes not valued, conserved and given policy non-registered historic parks and otherwise addressed by the above. protection. Non-designated heritage gardens) are valued, conserved and assets are those elements of the given policy protection. Non-designated historic environment that contribute heritage assets are those elements of to the unique character and identity the historic environment that of the town. contribute to the unique character and identity of the town.

Paragraph Historic England Factual correction to reflect change in Paragraph 10.17 To ensure that those Paragraph 10.17 To ensure that those Yes – Factual Correction 10.17 PS83 organisation name heritage heritage assets currently considered to be at assets currently considered to be at risk risk of neglect or decay and included on the of neglect or decay and included on English Heritage Historic England at the Risk Register, are effectively managed English Heritage at Risk Register, are and protected. effectively managed and protected. These currently include: These currently include : • Plaiters Lea Conservation • Plaiters Lea Conservation Area Area • Drays Ditches Scheduled • Drays Ditches Scheduled Monument

168

Monument • Putteridge Bury Registered • Putteridge Bury Registered Park Park

Paragraph Chilterns Strengthening of Evidence base. Paragraph 10.37 The following are Pargraph 10.37 The following are Yes.- this document is of significant value in 10.37 Conservation evidence studies relating to evidence studies relating to landscape: relation to the AONB Board landscape: PS264 • Chilterns AONB Management Plan • Chilterns AONB Management (2014 - 2019). Plan (2014 - 2019). … … • Chilterns Conservation Board’s Position Statement on Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB, 2011. … …

Paragraph Bedfordshire The respondent seeks to include No specific document, evidence or No specific document, evidence or No – The change is not considered 10.38 Gardens Trust evidence relating to ‘historic designed wording provided wording provided necessary or justified in the context of the PS87 landscapes’ added to the list of plan read as a whole and national policy. bullets. Policy LP29 provides wide-ranging landscape protections whilst the setting of individual heritage assets will be taken into account in judging any proposals, in accordance with national policy. No evidence is presented for non-designated historic landscapes not otherwise addressed by the above or to set out how those would be reflected on the proposals map.

169

CHAPTER 10 – NATURAL & HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

POLICY LP27 – OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL GREENSPACE.

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP27 5 1 6 1 1 5 1 2 3 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• One representor is supportive of the flexibility of the policy approach (Templeview Developments Ltd, 662818).

• One representor is unclear as to status of land at Lynwood Avenue as “other important green space”, and suggests it may not be such and considers the plan is unsound as a consequence (unjustified) (Claydon Land Developments Ltd, 4972297).

• Sport England identifies confusion between policies LP24 and LP27 as they both affect sports provision. It regards para LP27C as redundant, as is covered by LP27B and considers the plan unsound in this respect (Sport England, 660493).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces considers the plan unsound and objects to policy LP27B, suggests loss of green space unacceptable in any circumstance (Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 665733).

• One respondent feels policyLP27A i-iii should be specified as sequential steps in process and suggests the plan is unsound (ineffective as a result (Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• Central Bedfordshire Council believes that the River Lea is insufficiently emphasised and as such is a failure of DtC and unsound in terms of being consistent with national policy in the NPPF (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

170

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The land in question at Lynwood Avenue is covered by both biodiversity (County Wildlife Site) and Landscape (AGLV) designations, both of which are clear 97from the policies map, and as such the land is clearly identified as an important area of semi-natural greenspace.

• LP27 will apply to sport facilities (as well as LP24) where the function of the open space or natural green space meets the definition of community facilities as presented in the glossary and supports sports.

• LP27C clearly sets out the criteria under which development proposals on, but not involving the loss of open space should be considered, for example the construction of changing rooms.

• Agree that wording should make sequential nature of LP27A clearer.

• In relation to the issues raised by Central Bedfordshire Council, LBC supports the River Lea Catchment Partnership , and restoration and de- culverting are covered in section 4.86, Policy LP3A xi and in paragraphs 11.34 and 11.36.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or Reason for the Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and strikethrough Is Modification agreed? Policy organisation change Yes/ No reference suggesting the iState reason change Response id (as appropriate) LP27A Bedfordshire Clarification of Policy 27A. Development proposals which Policy 27A. Development proposals which Yes. It has to be clear that the options are Local Nature process. generate demand for new or enhanced open generate demand for new or enhanced open in a decreasing order of desirability. Partnership space and Green Infrastructure will be supported space and Green Infrastructure will be PS224 where: supported where:in accordance with the following sequence:

LP27 Mr Roy Warren, 27C appears to repeat Policy 27C. Development will only be permitted Policy 27C. Development will only be permitted No, 27 B applies to the loss of open space Planning Manager much of the the on parks, playing fields and other outdoor sports on parks, playing fields and other outdoor whereas 27C covers development on Sport England policy in 27B facilities, allotments or other important green sports facilities, allotments or other important open space. PS34 spaces shown on the Policies Map, where green spaces shown on the Policies Map, where development is ancillary, complementary and development is ancillary, complementary and limited in scale securing the efficient and limited in scale securing the efficient and effective use of the existing green space.] effective use of the existing green space

171

CHAPTER 10 – NATURAL & HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

POLICY LP28 – BIODIVERSITY & NATURE CONSERVATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP28 5 5 2 3

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Environment Agency would like more specific commitment to river restoration and de-culverting in riverside developments and without this considers the plan unsound (ineffective) (Environment Agency, 312797).

• One respondent objects to the CWS & DWS sites, such as land at Lynwood Avenue, being protected from potential development, and questions their relation to other planning issues. The plan is considered unsound (unjustified) (Claydon Land Developments Ltd, 497297).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces regards the approach as unsound since protection of designated sites is inadequate where LP28A undermines LP28B, and where compensatory provision is unlikely (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 54044).

• The Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership points out that Policy LP 28 (B) should include SSSIs within Tier 1 and the policy is therefore unsound (ineffective)(Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• The Bedfordshire Climate Change Forum praise Policies LP28 and 29, and welcomes the possibility of SSSIs in Luton but has concerns about soundness (ineffective and unjustified) in relation the overall open space deficit, especially allotments, and possible loss of open space to development as per LP27A. (Bedfordshire Climate Change Forum, 955995).

172

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The comments relating to the River Lea are welcome and restoration and de-culverting are covered in section 4.86, Policy LP3A xi and in in paragraphs 11.34 and 11.36.

• All County Wildlife Sites and District Wildlife Sites are selected solely on the basis of their respective biodiversity value, irrespective of any other planning consideration, past or present. There are published protocols for the selection process which conform to National Local Sites guidelines. LP28b gives robust protection to all such sites but ultimately site specific solutions lie within development control.

• The evidence base for all County Wildlife Sites and District Wildlife Sites designations is held centrally at the Biological Records & Monitoring Centre, Bedford.

• To be consistent with the NPPF, LP28B lists all the hierarchy of biodiversity assets but omits SSSIs in error, which should be added, perhaps to include candidate SSSIs in advance of designation? LP28A makes provision for the enhancement of designated sites without necessarily causing harm to existing habitats, and if the sequence of options is correctly followed, the two policies are not necessarily incompatible. It is recognised that compensatory land is seldom likely to be available within the Borough.

• The Council recognises the deficit of and development pressures on open spaces within the Borough, but is confident that the current plan addresses this issue and will enable the right balance to be struck.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy organisation strikethrough Yes/ No reference suggesting the change iState reason Response id (as appropriate) LP28B Bedfordshire Local SSSIs appear to have been omitted. Policy 28B, first bullet Policy 28B, first bullet Yes, minor clarification. Nature Partnership PS225 • Tier 1 National Nature Reserves or • Tier 1 National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest or

173

CHAPTER 10 – NATURAL & HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

POLICY LP29 –LANDSCAPE & GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP29 – Landscape and 5 1 5 2 1 Geological Conservation

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Home Builders Federation expressed doubt over weight given to local landscape designations and consider the approach is unsound (unjustified)(Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• One representor objects to the inclusion of land adjoining Lynwood Avenue, where the validity of AGLV is questioned. Designation said to be unjustified and not sound and the impartiality of the evidence base questioned (Claydon Land Developments Ltd, 497297).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces doubts whether any development would benefit the Chilterns AONB or its setting and considers the policy is unsound (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 54044).

• Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces doubts validity of offsetting with regard to open spaces. They suggest building on any open space is undesirable even if compensatory land can be found. They welcome LP29B in support of the Rights of Way Network (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces, 54044).

• The Bedfordshire Gardens Trust suggests plan not consistent with NPPF Paragraph 157 with respect to strategy for (especially) non-statutory historic parks and gardens. If the approach is to be sound (consistency with national policy) a case is made for specific mention of these, and cites examples such as People’s Park and Stockwood Park (Bedfordshire Gardens Trust, 955754).

174

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The Borough Council welcomes support of its programme of Local Landscape Designations, which is backed by a recent, robust and independent review by a competent and respected local organisation (the Greensand Trust) operating outside its core area and therefore under no pressure to show any kind of bias. The Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and Areas of Local Landscape Value (ALLV) complement the AONB that extends into the town with similar features (downland, woodland and parkland) that are of considerable local significance.

• LBC support the weight given to these designations, many of which adjoin and complement the existing statutory AONB designation that does so much to enhance the town’s Chiltern setting and heritage.

• Land at Lynwood Avenue is protected through AGLV as an important wooded feature linked to several other landscape and habitat features as part of a significant natural corridor and is highly visible from the A505 major trunk road Areas of land south of the airport were designated under the previous Local Plan, but are now supported by the new evidence base.

• LBC believe that should the Chiltern Conservation Board Management Plan and Building design guide be followed, there might be developments that might reinforce the town’s Chiltern setting through appropriate design, layout and use of materials.

• LBC consider that while certain habitats, natural landscape features and historic open spaces are literally irreplaceable, other lower grade land used for recreation could be developed if alternative local provision might be made. It is recognised that the built-up nature of the Borough will in practice exclude this possibility in most circumstances.

• The point raised in relation to Historic Parks and Gardens also relates specifically to Policy LP30 and is covered in the section relating to that policy. Peoples Park is currently being considered by Historic England for formal designation, but currently, although it has no recognition of its historic value, it is covered by designations for biodiversity, common land and landscape value. Memorial Park, also of historic value has none of these things, although it does lie within a Conservation Area.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

175

CHAPTER 10 – NATURAL & HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Policy LP30 – HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP30 – Historic 4 4 2 4 3 Environment

Summary of issues raised by Representors (may also cross-refer to supporting text as indicated)

• Historic England (169722) welcomes the overall approach in the policy. This includes references to the relevant supporting text which set out relevant documents in the evidence base (Paragraph 10.38) and the key heritage issues within the town which it seeks to address referred to at paragraphs 10.13 – 10.17 and Part A of the Policy. Parts B, D and E of the Policy are welcomed in addition to the final three bullets, which assist with the recording and monitoring of information. • Part C of Policy LP30 is considered unsound and not consistent with national policy by Historic England. The respondent identifies previous representations to the Plan (in 2014) regarding the consideration of demolition issues affecting heritage assets and does not feel that these are reflected accurately other than partially in Paragraph 10.24. Part C of the policy equates harms and losses, which are identified as separate concepts in Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF. The NPPG (ID: 18a-017-20140306) extends this point by setting out examples of where alterations (or ‘partial loss’) can have positive outcomes for the significance of heritage assets, such as removing later additions (Historic England, 169722). • The ‘wholly exceptional’ circumstances referred to in Part C (i) of Policy LP30 are not consistent with national policy as it equates ‘demolition or partial demolition’ with substantial harm, which may not be the case in instances of minor alterations. In any event, the ‘wholly exceptional’ test for substantial harm should only be applied to Grade I and II* Listing; the relevant test for Grade II designations is ‘exceptional’ (Historic England, 169722).

176

• Parts F of Policy LP30 is considered unsound and not consistent with national Policy by Historic England. As drafted, this requires the appropriate recording of an asset’s significance in all circumstances. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF sets out that recording should only be required when an asset is to be lost. In addition, the ability to record evidence should not be a factor in deciding whether loss should be permitted (Historic England, 169722). • Registered Parks and Gardens should be included in the list of Designated Heritage Assets (Historic England, 169722). • The Bedfordshire Gardens Trust considers that in order to be consistent with national policy and provide a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, historic and built environment (NPPF Paragraph 157) the strategy in relation to historic designed landscapes should be clearer. It is recommended that “historic designed landscapes of local significance” should be added to the list of non-designated assets set out at Part A of Policy LP30. Reference to non-registered historic parks and gardens should also be provided at Paragraph 10.15 of the supporting text as well as a reference to historic designed landscapes as part of the evidence base at Paragraph 10.38. These heritage assets are considered of great significance for the local community as well as being of historic interest, reflect Luton’s tightly constrained boundaries and are directly related to the high quality places sought by Strategic Objective 5 (Bedfordshire Gardens Trust, 955754). • One respondent identifies that Part C of Policy LP30 is unsound in envisaging circumstances where net benefits may arise from substantial harm being caused to heritage assets which may be used to support development (Luton Friends of Parks and Green Spaces ID: 665733) • One respondent considers that the policy should make reference to public benefits as set out in paragraph 133 of the NPPF, when considering development proposals that are considered to impact on heritage assets, in order to be consistent with national policy (Fenton Property Management Ltd, 955816) Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The policy approach as a whole has received general support which is welcomed. The proposed policy offers an opportunity to work with the widest possible range of stakeholders to better understand, conserve and enhance the historic environment.

• It is acknowledged that the comments of Historic England (amongst others) raise valid points on the consistency with national policy in the approach as drafted and modifications will be proposed on this basis to secure the policy operates as intended and provides the greatest weight.

• The Council considers that the policy as drafted takes account of the range of circumstances that will need to be taken into account in considering any proposal on its merits and against the criteria in national guidance. For example, public benefits from regeneration and bringing assets back into use will be considered in a manner consistent with the significance of any heritage asset that may be affected and appropriate reference is already considered to exist within the existing drafting and as part of other modifications proposed to the Plan.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed?

177

Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id iState reason (as appropriate) Policy LP30 Historic England The addition is necessary to reflect all Policy LP30 A: Policy LP30 A: Yes – Agree to addition to Part A PS83 relevant categories of designated reflect statutory heritage assets. Designated heritage assets: Designated heritage assets: designation and protections • Listed Buildings • Listed Buildings • Conservation Areas • Conservation Areas • Scheduled Monuments • Scheduled Monuments • Registered Parks and Gardens

Policy LP30 Bedfordshire Gardens The respondent considers “historic Policy LP30A: Policy LP30A: No – The change is not Part A Trust designed landscapes of local considered necessary or PS87 significance” to be locally important Non-designated heritage assets:- Non-designated heritage assets:- justified in the context of non-designated heritage assets to be • Locally listed buildings • Locally listed buildings the plan read as a whole taken into account. • Archaeology • Archaeology and national policy. • Non-Registered Locally Listed Parks and Gardens Policy LP29 provides wide- ranging landscape protections whilst the setting of individual heritage assets will be taken into account in judging any proposals, in accordance with national policy.

Policy LP30 Historic England The provisions of the policy as drafted Policy LP30 C: Complete or partial loss Policy LP30 C: Complete or partial loss Yes - Part C PS83 are inconsistent with regards through demolition will amount to through demolition will amount to consideration of ‘loss’ and ‘harm’ as substantial harm to a designated heritage substantial harm to a designated The Council accepts that separate aspects as required by NPPF asset and may amount to substantial harm heritage asset and may amount to the stakeholder has Paragraphs 132 and 133. to a non-designated heritage asset, substantial harm to a non-designated provided a proposed depending on the significance of the heritage asset, depending on the modification to the policy heritage asset including its positive significance of the heritage asset which addresses potential contribution within a Conservation Area, including its positive contribution within inconsistencies with and will only be permitted where it can be a Conservation Area, and will only be national policy and which is justified that there is a net public benefit. permitted where it can be justified that more accurately reflected Proposals must also accord with the there is a net public benefit. Proposals in the proposed change following criteria: must also accord with the following without materially criteria: affecting the strategy as a i. wholly exceptional circumstances for whole. demolition or part demolition must be i. wholly exceptional circumstances for justified in the case of listed buildings and demolition or part demolition must be

178

designated heritage assets of the highest justified in the case of listed buildings significance; and designated heritage assets of the ii. the nature of the heritage asset is such highest that no reasonable alternative use including significance; conversion can be found, and that ii. the nature of the heritage asset is such appropriate marketing or options for that no reasonable alternative use grant-funding or charitable/public including conversion can be found, and ownership have been exhausted; that appropriate marketing or options iii. within a conservation area any complete for or part demolition of a building whether grant-funding or charitable/public designated or not, must protect and ownership have been exhausted; conserve the setting and character of the iii. within a conservation area any conservation area. complete or part demolition of a building whether designated or not, must protect and conserve the setting and character of the conservation area.

Any harm or loss to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a designated heritage asset should be exceptional or wholly exceptional depending on the significance of the affected heritage assets. It will only be permitted where it can be justified that there is a net public benefit, or the nature of the heritage asset is such that no reasonable alternative use including conversion can be found, and that appropriate marketing or options for grant-funding or charitable/public ownership have been exhausted. Less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The loss of a building or other element which makes a positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area should be avoided and treated as substantial harm or less than substantial harm depending on the circumstances.

Policy LP30 Part C Luton Friends of Parks and The respondent wishes to amend Policy LP30 C: Policy LP30 C: No – The policy must be Green Spaces Criteria ii of Part C to provide a time prepared and applied in

179

PS332 period within which alternative uses ii. the nature of the heritage asset is such [no specific wording proposed – Officer the context of national should be sought prior to allowing that no reasonable alternative use including interpretation below] policy, which includes no proposals that may comprise loss or conversion can be found, and that provision for time periods. harm to a heritage asset. appropriate marketing or options for grant- ii. the nature of the heritage asset is such Consideration of funding or charitable/public ownership have that no reasonable alternative use alternatives will depend on The suggestion is for a period of one been exhausted; including conversion can be found, and the circumstances of year. that appropriate marketing or options for individual cases. grant-funding or charitable/public ownership have been exhausted. Applicants must demonstrate that alternative solutions have been explored for a period of at least one year;

Policy LP30 Historic England The change is required to reflect that Policy LP30 F: Policy LP30 F: Yes - The policy should be Part F PS83 appropriate recording of a heritage updated to reflect that this asset is only necessitated when Proposals will be subject to appropriate Proposals will be subject to appropriate provision relates only to proposals involve any loss of a recording of the significance of the building recording of the significance of the any loss of a heritage asset. heritage asset (in accordance with or asset and regulated by legal agreements building or asset and regulated by legal NPPF Paragraph 141) and that this is on the phasing of demolition and agreements on the phasing of demolition not directly a factor in deciding development with planning permission and and development with planning whether a loss should be permitted. a contract for redevelopment. permission and a contract for redevelopment.

Proposals involving the loss of a heritage asset should be required to appropriately record the significance of the asset. The ability to record is not a factor in deciding whether to permit such loss.

Policy LP30 Part F Luton Friends of Parks and An addition is requested prior to the Policy LP30 – Following Part F prior to final Policy LP30 – Following Part F prior to No – The policy is drafted Green Spaces final three bullet points to reflect the three bullets: final three bullets: in the context of the wide importance of working with the range of stakeholders and public and key stakeholders to The Council will seek to:- The Council will seek to work with the members of the public maintain records of heritage assets. public to:- already engaged by these [bullets unchanged] activities. The respondent regrets that the [bullets unchanged] Luton Heritage Forum has ended.

180

CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Chapter 11: Transport, 9 2 11 2 1 11 2 4 9 2 Communications and Climate Change

Summary of issues raised by Representors – Comments against supporting text only

• Friends of the Earth argue that Luton BC has been promoting the intentions of the chapter for many years but its policies have done nothing to prevent, but rather have exacerbated continued car use, congestion, and pollution with its effects on health, biodiversity and climate change. LP37 and LP38 are inadequate and show that LBC does not understand the scale of the problems it is it causing, or the means to tackle and reduce its impacts. Stop using the word ‘sustainability’ when it means the opposite. Its correct use refers to a sustainable and healthy society, economy, natural and built environment. Chapter 11 is not considered effective (Friends of the Earth, 54055).

• Highways England acknowledge Luton’s need for growth and the spatial development strategy but consider the approach in Chapter 11 is unsound (effective). There is a need, to ensure the sustainable transport options within Luton also serve developments outside of the urban centre to mitigate/reduce network impacts; key proposed redevelopment/employment allocations are close to, and may impact on, junctions on the Strategic Route Network (SRN) e.g. M1 J10 and J10a (Land South of Stockwood Park) and J11 (Marsh Farm). When other developments are included there is potential for dispersal of trips and less significant impact on the SRN; sustainable transport provision should link all key developments and transport hubs to ease traffic; and master planning key developments will assist (Highways England, 304012).

• Another respondent considers that there is a lack of specific or credible action to address climate change and environmental degradation. Terminology is misused e.g. “sustainable” or weak e.g. "consider" Park & Ride schemes (paragraph 11.11). Community energy schemes and municipalisation of clean, socially fair energy production need to be seriously considered. Increase the “urban forest” as a 10% tree

181

cover can reduce extreme summer heat. Food issues are not considered. Chapter 11 is therefore not considered justified or effective. (Bedfordshire Climate Change Forum, 955995).

• Climate change should not be restricted to a ‘share’ of a chapter, it should be a cross-cutting issue reflected in policy throughout the Local Plan. The policy is therefore not considered effective (Bedford Local Nature Partnership, 855416).

• The Plan fails to acknowledge that increased car ownership will result increase congestion, threatening viability for all uses. References to improvements to public transport, walking and cycling are worthwhile but only in the context of maintaining freely flowing traffic, particularly car- related. Sustainability, reduction in carbon dioxide etc. are laudable but not matched by LBC’s pursuit of car-hungry growth. Chapter 11 is not considered effective (David Logan, 879188).

• The Environment Agency welcome that in relation to the River Lea that this section now references seeking opportunities to de-culvert and naturalise, and the recognition that the existing culvert is in need of repair. They believe that the Chapter Policy is sound (Environment Agency, 312797).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• It is considered that any substantive points raised are also identified against specific policies and therefore a more specific response is provided in subsequent policy summaries.

• The Council considers that the nature of many of the more general responses to this section highlight that it is on critical importance for the authority to put in place a comprehensive and up-to-date development plan as soon as possible. Concerns expressed by Highways England in particular would be addressed because the plan is based on transport modelling which supports delivering the spatial development strategy for the town based on a network of centres and key linkages (including the guided busway) and Strategic Allocations with supporting policy measures to secure necessary infrastructure which address local and cross boundary impacts including for the Strategic Route Network. It is considered that this will be of significant benefit in guiding future decisions and securing the most appropriate outcomes for the town in the interest of all three domains of sustainable development.

• Where some respondents do not consider that individual sections or policies within this chapter are given enough emphasis, the Council would stress the need to read the plan as a whole and note that the Strategic Objectives of the plan as a whole are delivered across the full suite of policies and specific strategic development sites. For example, it is considered that greater support for town centre regeneration and supporting 182

new significant mixed-use developments will be of great benefit in reducing car use and promoting sustainable transport. The Council also highlights the Sustainability Appraisal which supports the plan as identifying that the individual policies and strategy as a whole is appropriate when compared against other reasonable alternatives considered.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

N/A

183

CHAPTER 11 TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS & CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY LP31 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT STRATEGY & POLICY LP32 PARKING

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy

Policy LP31 Sustainable 10 3 13 1 1 3 10 1 3 6 2 Transport Strategy & Policy LP32 Parking

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• In relation to Policy LP31 Historic England consider that the continued safeguarding of the East Luton Circular Road North (including the Weybourne Link) is not justified and should be deleted from both the policy and the Policies Map. It is undeliverable with the impact on designated and scheduled environmental and heritage assets and landscapes (Chilterns AONB), contrary to the NPPF. Its removal would not prejudice A6-A505 options; concerns raised previously on the adopted local plan and withdrawn joint Core Strategy. The policy is unsound (not positively prepared, justified or consistent with national policy (Historic England, 169722).

• Highways England support the sustainable travel requirements of Policy LP31 but wish to see within the evidence base which indicates how this will be achieved for each development site. Without this they consider the approach is unsound (Highways England, 304012).

• Highways England support the requirement for a Transport Assessment and / or Travel Plans as set out in Policy LP31 which should be subject to ‘an appropriate level of assessment ‘to be included in the Transport Assessment. Highways England anticipate agreeing the scope of work required in pre-application discussions with developers. (Highways England, 304012).

184

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd consider that Policy LP31 is unsound – the draft policy is based on the vision for the Local Transport Plan 2011- 2026 which does not cover the airport. Due to the significance of the airport, a specific objective should be included. LLAOL fully supports the inclusion of the Luton Airport Parkway Railway Station North Entrance in section E of LP31 (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Claydon Land Development Ltd consider that Policy LP31 section E is unsound since the safeguarded corridor has not been delivered or supported by an LTP programme and is not justified (it is just rolled forward) and conflicts with Bradgers Hill landscape designation. In the face of acute housing need, the East Luton Circular Road scheme should be deleted from Policy LP31 (Claydon Land Development Ltd, 497297).

• Natural England have responded to Policy LP31 section E to indicate it would have major adverse effects on sites of high importance at Galley and Warden Hills SSSI and the AONB, Bradgers Hill and Stopsley Common. The potential impact on the SSSI and AONB is inconsistent with the NPPF – by failing to adequately assess the harm to the SSSI or AONB or that this might be outweighed by compensatory habitat creation. The route would not be effective as there is no mechanism to deliver the road outside of Luton’s boundary and there is a need to establish whether there are less harmful alternatives. If it is deemed that the scheme should still be included, the plan should outline the approach to mitigation and compensation for the features affected (Natural England, 664726).

• Abbey Land Developments ltd consider that Policy LP31 is sound and confirms partnership working referring to the Luton-Dunstable Busway and the opportunities that this presents for integrated transport connecting up the west of the town (to serve future development) and to Luton town centre and the airport (Director Abbey Land Developments Ltd, 856534).

• Hertfordshire County Council considers that Policy LP31 is unsound and not legally compliant and fails the Duty to Co-operate. There is a lack of technical evidence covering wide impacts on Hertfordshire and HMA road network, unresolved unmet housing needs with neighbouring authorities including infrastructure requirements and cross boundary priorities (paragraph 4.9). Despite repeated calls for evidence and meetings (letters dated 3rd August 2012 and 21st August 2014) with Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council. A meeting held on 3rd December 2015 did not fully address the County Council’s concerns. The County Council requests Luton BC’s consultants to provide plots from the existing model showing any impacts upon Hertfordshire. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) accompanying the Plan does not identify and assess reasonable alternatives (Hertfordshire County Council).

• Buckinghamshire County Council’s response suggests there is a requirement for joint planning policies, infrastructure plans on cross-boundary growth matters including strategic infrastructure including the A5-M1 link road and projects in Buckinghamshire such as the A418 Aylesbury to North of Wing. Luton should aim to improve local road improvements to address cross boundary growth while promoting sustainable modes of transport. Accordingly, Policy LP31 is unsound (not justified or effective) and failed the Duty to Co-operate (Director Growth and Strategy

185

Buckinghamshire County Council, 932834).

• The Trustees of the Warden Hill Estate wish to see the reference to the Weybourne Link deleted from the Policy which they consider is unsound (not justified or effective). There is no evidence to justify the need for it to serve the circular road. It has effectively sterilised land within the Borough which could be used for residential development to meet the local housing needs. (The Trustees of the Warden Hill Estate, 954537).

• Central Bedfordshire Council consider that paragraphs 11.11 and 11.13 are unsound (not positively prepared, justified or effective) and are not legally compliant and fail the Duty to Co-operate - see comments under section 4 and LP13. The strategy delivers unbalanced economic growth at the expense of social needs, mainly under delivery of housing (and particularly affordable housing) which consequently must be picked up by neighbouring authorities; the Sustainability Appraisal and SEA do not consider all reasonable alternative/options (e.g. balancing housing and employment growth) or reflect adverse effects and necessary mitigation and incorrectly displays positive outcomes (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Also in relation to paragraphs 11.11 and 11.13, Central Bedfordshire Council consider that Luton’s Park & Ride aspiration is questionable at Butterfield and Junction 10a. Central Bedfordshire Council not planning park and ride sites with proposed large scale developments in proximity to Luton. Park & Ride requires a conurbation-wide approach supported by appropriate infrastructure and viability. Central Bedfordshire Council welcome the support for rail freight proposals, with particular reference to Sundon RFI (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd fully support Policy LP32 with respect to parking at the airport. The policy remains vitally important to the airport operations going forward over the plan period, and ensuring the Surface Access Strategy is not undermined. This policy could be further strengthened through supporting the development of onsite car parking and on this basis it is considered unsound (not effective) (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Mrs Brenda Fenton supports the sustainable transport strategy although considers the policy should allow flexibility for on-site parking provision where this is provided in safe and secure parking areas within development sites. On this basis the current policy is not sound (effective) (Mrs Brenda Fenton, 955816).

• Redrow Plc support the requirement for reduced parking in areas of high public transport accessibility; the use of maximum standards have not changed from existing and are appropriate. They support the minimum cycle parking standards for residential development which will only relate to flats and in particular support Section B iii, ‘cycle storage of an appropriate standard’ for residential development which allows for an appropriate level of flexibility. (Redrow Plc, 956553)

186

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

There is some specific support for polices LP31 and LP32 from developers and qualified support for some provisions of these polices by the agencies pending resolving particular objections. Taking these issues into account the Council considers that there are no major modifications to make and that some of the matters can be addressed through minor modifications:-

The proposed level and distribution of growth in relation to housing and jobs balance, car ownership and congestion, green measures and integration of chapter 11 with the plan’s approach to sustainable development and climate change:

• The Council must prepare evidence on future growth and plan to meet objectively assessed need under national policy - where it is sustainable to do so and in accordance with the NPPF.

• The local plan has assessed both the need for and capacity for development within the town e.g. the SHMA and SHLAA and Employment Land Studies together with transport modelling, water cycle, habitat, landscape and green infrastructure studies and via a process of Sustainability Appraisal which addresses cross cutting issues. This process and evidence has demonstrated that Luton cannot meet all of its objectively assessed need within its boundary (a position that many of the adjacent local authorities readily accept – only questioning the matter of degree of unmet need that must be accommodated outside Luton) and thereby the need to address unmet needs though the duty to cooperate with its neighbours.

• Transport modelling using the joint Luton and Central Bedfordshire SATURN model for the conurbation and the hinterland including the peripheral Strategic Route Network and planned improvements (M1, J10, J10a grade separation, A5- M1 link and J11a). The model includes assumptions about travel behaviour and car ownership and proposed levels and distribution of growth (e.g. housing and employment allocations) and this has identified local transport measures to manage travel demand and improve capacity at identified junctions and routes which are already reflected in policy LP31 (and will be addressed by developer contributions, revisions to the LTP and the IDP).

• The local plan also includes policies to encourage sustainable energy and use of resources – Chapter 10 clarifies the multi-functional role of Luton’s green space and the glossary definition refers to opportunities for local food production).

187

• The plan must be read as a whole and has an overarching vision and strategic objectives that are cross referred to within each policy area including two key overarching polices LP1 and LP2 to address cross cutting matters.

The approach to cross boundary planning and failure to comply with the ‘duty to cooperate’ with respect to delivering sustainable transport measures, developer contributions, on-site parking including at the airport, park and ride viability and the wider HMA transport and other impacts within neighbouring local authorities:

• The joint Luton and Central Bedfordshire SATURN model for the conurbation is a shared model between Luton and Central Bedfordshire, it has also been shared with north Hertfordshire District Council which is proposing an urban extension to the east of Luton and developing the model for more detail in this area.

• The joint model already includes junctions/roads on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in the wider Luton Dunstable area e.g. M1x 4 lane, A5-M1 link including J11a. The model output scenarios provide a reasonable picture of predicted impacts on the local network and for the purposes of the local plan, assessing the cumulative impact of proposals on the edge of Luton under the ‘duty to cooperate’.

• As a result of the uncertainties of the plan making process in Central Bedfordshire (Development Strategy withdrawn in November 2015) and the modest scale of development proposed within North Hertfordshire - the model scenarios can be regarded as a ‘maximum case’ in so far as the scale of development assumed is at levels last proposed under the withdrawn Development strategy (which Central Bedfordshire are using for development management purposes) and to the north of Luton under the Joint Core Strategy (also withdrawn).

• Luton is maximising the role of the Luton Dunstable busway as a key transport corridor linking town centres in the conurbation and potentially urban extensions (e.g. representations made to Central Bedfordshire on North of Luton Development Framework proposals).

• Park & Ride provision is made within Luton’s local plan strategic allocations at Butterfield and at J10a Stockwood Park (these provisions were also featured in the withdrawn joint Core strategy with Central Bedfordshire) to ensure that more sustainable transport choices can be made in connectivity with these sites and commuters coming into the town. To clarify, the Luton Local Plan is not requiring further Park and Ride provision in neighbouring local developments although such provision could be the subject of ongoing discussion as part of cross boundary liaison. These strategic allocations have also been subject to viability assessment.

• Policy LP31 already requires controlled onsite parking provision within the airport estate. There is no need or suggestion on how policy LP32 could be strengthened further. Policy LP32 necessarily provides a range of considerations allied to the parking standards in Appendix 2 Parking and Cycling Standards which provides a sufficient framework to ensure that parking is addressed according to circumstances e.g. on street or car free 188

parking within the town centre and parking to serve particular land uses within developments.

• The ‘Duty to Co-operate’ is a two-way process and authorities within the HMA have a responsibility to liaise with their respective Highway Authority on any proposals they make to meet their own housing needs arising within the HMA including any unmet needs arising from Luton. Luton has had numerous Duty to Co-operate meetings with Aylesbury Vale and North Hertfordshire on cross boundary planning implications arising from Luton’s local plan and unmet housing need. Luton has also met with the respective Highways Authorities to further address cross boundary matters, transport modelling and Luton’s plan - and also to clarify that Luton is pursuing a Joint Growth Options Study with Central Bedfordshire and authorities within the HMA.

The Luton East Circular Northern Bypass safeguarding route (and Weybourne Drive link) and failure to justify its retention against the significant harm to acknowledged environmental asset and heritage designations, any benefits which outweigh the harm and necessary mitigation under current national policy (NPPF):

• This route is currently safeguarded within the adopted Luton Local Plan 2006.

• Over the time of the safeguarding, the site has naturalised, evidenced by increasing levels of designation which have populated it’s route arising from the Council commissioning evidence studies, reviewing its areas of landscape and natural habitat as well as evidence progressed by other agencies (e.g. Historic England and Natural England) reviewing heritage and bio-diversity.

• The Sustainability Appraisal only assesses the policy LP31 at a high level against the sustainability objectives. Nevertheless, the Council acknowledges the potential harm and did consider whether the scheme should be retained. The Council’s preferred option is for an outer bypass connecting the A6 to the A505. However, removal of the safeguarded corridor (including Weybourne Drive link) must be weighed up with the risks to the town’s environment, sub regional economy and public well-being, arising from pollution, noise and congestion that would arise along the A6 and Stockingstone Road and Vauxhall Way should development proceed to the north of Luton without an acceptable alternative A6-A505 link.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id iState reason (as appropriate) Chapter 11 Highways England Support the sustainable travel Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Partly accepted – minor Transport PS238 requirements of Policy LP31 but wish Government policy requires significant Government policy requires significant modification to clarification 189

Communications to see within the evidence base how traffic generating uses to be supported by a traffic generating uses to be supported by in text to explain standard & Climate Change this will be achieved for each Transport Statement or Transport a Transport Statement or Transport of travel assessment will be development site. Assessment (NPPF paragraph 32). Assessment (NPPF paragraph 32). agreed with HE at Development plans should promote... Developers and applicants will need to development application agree in advance with the Highways stage. England, the scope, content and standard of any Transport Statement or Transport Assessment which is to be submitted in support of any planning application. Development plans should promote...

Chapter 11 London Luton Airport Because of the airports significance it Not accepted the airport is Transport Operations Ltd should have its own strategic already included within Communications PS257 objective Objective 1. & Climate Change

Policy LP31 Buckinghamshire County The new Local Plan needs to No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in Not accepted. The policy Council strengthen its position on identifying representation. the representation. LP31 A i) and ii) makes PS378 strategic infrastructure requirements provision for strategic which cross administrative infrastructure to serve the boundaries into Buckinghamshire. town’s development and potential extensions via the Luton busway to town centres across the conurbation including any potential connectivity to developments on the edge of Luton. More specific proposals which relate to Buckinghamshire separated from Luton by Central Bedfordshire ,will need to be outputs which emerge from completion of the Growth Options Study.

Policy LP31 Historic England Remove the safeguarded route from No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in Not accepted. The PS88 policy LP31 representation. the representation. safeguarded route, while & not the Council’s preferred Claydon Land option it is of critical Development Ltd importance to the future of PS289 the town should growth be & accommodated to the The Trustees of the north of Luton in the 190

Warden Hill Estate absence of an A6-A505 PS41 bypass.

Paragraph 11.2 Natural England Clarify the status of the East Luton Add new paragraph after 11.2 Yes – This provides clarity PS89 Circular Road and ensure full of status and potential consideration of environmental 11.2A The East Luton Circular Road environmental impacts of concerns relating to this scheme. (north) route is safeguarded as a long the scheme. term option that might be required to support future development. Running between Stopsley and the A6, including a link to Barton Road along the line of Weybourne Drive, it would allow the introduction of traffic calming measures to certain routes. Some traffic would be diverted away from the town centre while access to the airport and key employment areas to the east of the town would be improved. The road would affect nationally important landscape and biodiversity designations and its development would be subject to the criteria set out in LP 28 and 29.

Policy LP31 Natural England Clarify the status of the East Luton Add an asterisk to the bullet point under Yes – This provides clarity PS89 Circular Road and ensure full LP31E and place the following text as a of status and direction to consideration of environmental footnote: consider environmental concerns relating to this scheme. impacts. “The East Luton Circular Road is not currently a formal transport allocation. It will only be taken forward following robust impact assessment that can demonstrate that its benefits outweigh its negative impacts, with full consideration of nationally protected sites and/or landscapes.”

Policy LP31 Central Bedfordshire and The development of two school sites N/A Policy LP31 new clause G to be added:- No – the local plan polices Original made Luton Joint Local Access at the Brache needs to include a need to be read and under LP24 Forum commitment to extend routes that The Lea and its Tributaries applied as a whole. There is PS66 follow the river Lea through this area G. Development on or adjacent to the sufficient policy guidance of the town up to Manor Park. river and its tributaries will provide a on the appropriate publicly accessible route for walking and treatment of the River Lea 191

cycling alongside the watercourse. This in relation to development route should also facilitate maintenance proposals and for of the watercourse as required in LP36. promoting accessible strategic Green Infrastructure across the town (e.g. policy LP1 and LP3 xi) and LP25 iv) and vi)) Policy LP32 Central Bedfordshire Remove Park and Ride from strategic No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in Not accepted – the local Council allocations – not viable representation. the representation. plan development strategy PS452 have been viability and transport assessed (including cumulative impact arising from planned and potential urban extensions) and such facilities will be critical to sustainable travel and traffic mitigation.

Policy LP32 London Luton Airport This policy could be further No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in Not accepted policy LP32 Operations Ltd strengthened through supporting the representation. the representation. already prioritises on-site PS259 development of onsite car parking. parking provision at the airport.

Policy LP32 Fenton Property LP 32 should allow flexibility for on- No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in Not accepted policy Management Ltd site parking provision where this is representation. the representation. provides a sufficiently clear PS178 provided in safe and secure parking and flexible approach to areas within development sites. parking provision according to location, accessibility and circumstances.

192

CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY LP33 – FREIGHT & POLICY LP34 – PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Policy LP33 – Freight & Policy ------LP34 – Public Safety Zones

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• No representations submitted directly referencing this policy.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

193

CHAPTER 11 - TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

LP35- COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP 35 – Communications 0 1 1 1 1 Infrastructure

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Historic England welcomes the reference to Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and other heritage assets in this policy and as a result considers it sound (Historic England, 169722).

• There are no other representations in respect of soundness, legal compliance or the Duty to Cooperate.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

The comments are welcomed and noted.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

N/A

194

CHAPTER 11 – TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY LP36 - FLOOD RISK

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP36 – Flood Risk 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Environment Agency is pleased to see the policy now mentions the removal of culverts and barriers to flow. This is considered to have a positive relationship with the aims of the Water Framework Directive and objectives of the Thames Basin River Management Plan (RBMP). However, the respondent feels that the RBMP should also be listed in the evidence base. LP36 is considered sound on these grounds (Environment Agency, 312797).

• Anglian Water Services Ltd refer to Part D of LP36 arguing that it does not specifically refer to the foul sewerage network. They feel that that the Water Cycle Strategy update identified the need for further work to be undertaken to identify the need for improvements within the foul sewerage network located within Anglian Water’s area. Further evidence should be provided to assess that there is capacity within the foul sewerage network or that capacity can be made available to enable development to come forward. LP36 is not seen as justified as a result of this (Anglian Water Services, 507162). • Thames Water Utility Ltd comments that the policy requires development over 100 dwellings to provide a site specific Water Cycle Strategy. It is recommended these are referred to as Integrated Water Management Strategies (IWMS) as Water Cycle Strategies are more strategic in nature as opposed to site specific details. The policy is regarded as sound despite this (Thames Water Utility Ltd, 903957).

• There are no comments in respect of Legal Compliance or the Duty to Co-operate for this policy.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

195

• The Council welcomes the responses that have been made and agrees it would be appropriate to provide additional references to documents which further clarify the objectives of the policy (Environment Agency, 312797).

• It is considered that read as a whole, the intentions of Part D to Policy LP36 clearly set out the purpose of additional supporting information on individual proposals to ensure acceptable outcomes from individual sites. The Council notes representations expressing concern at the level of existing foul sewerage capacity and that there may be a need to identify further improvements. The Council is confident that this matter does not present a fundamental constraint to delivery of the level of development or any individual strategic sites contained within the Plan and that there will continue to be statutory consultation with relevant providers as part of any planning application processes. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan provides the latest position of future infrastructure requirements and funding sources and will be regularly reviewed and monitored going forward.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

After Paragraph Environment Agency The Thames River Basin N/A – New Paragraph suggested New Paragraph 11.46 (no detailed Yes – minor clarification. 11.45 PS156 Management Plan (RBMP) should be wording suggested by respondent but listed in the evidence base to interpreted below) capture the objectives of de- culverting and the Water Framework 11.46 – The Thames River Basin Directive. Management Plan provides additional detail on objectives for the River Lea and its catchment, including the aims of the Water Framework Directive and the approach to de-culverting the river1.

Policy LP36 (Part Anglian Water Services Ltd It is considered that a change is D. All new development shall be required D. All new development shall be required No – Both foul and surface D first sentence) PS162 required to Part D of Policy LP36 to to provide a drainage strategy and those to provide a foul and surface water water are by definition reflect the findings of the Water over 100 dwellings must also provide a site drainage strategy and those over 100 comprised within the Cycle Strategy and the need to specific WCS… dwellings must also provide a site specific broad consideration of potentially identify improvements WCS… drainage in planning within the foul sewage network and terms. The policy as to ensure that capacity is available drafted is capable of being

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plan-update 196

for all new proposals. applied as necessary depending on the specific circumstances and considerations for individual sites, without being unduly onerous.

It is intended that any further work required to assess capacity will be undertaken as part of reviewing and updating the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and that any site specific issues will be identified through consultation with development management.

Policy LP36 (Part Thames Water Utilities Ltd Change the name of Water Cycle D. All new development shall be required D. All new development shall be required No – The change is D first sentence) PS49 Strategy in Part D of the policy to to provide a drainage strategy and those to provide a drainage strategy and those considered largely Integrated Water Management over 100 dwellings must also provide a site over 100 dwellings must also provide a semantic and adds Strategies to give greater clarity on specific WCS… site specific WCS Integrated Water unnecessary complexity as site specific requirements. Management Strategy… the intention of site specific requirements are captured in the remainder of the policy

197

CHAPTER 11 – TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY LP37 CLIMATE CHANGE, CARBON AND WASTE REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP37 Climate change, carbon 6 1 7 0 1 1 6 3 4 3 4 and waste reduction and sustainable energy

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Environment Agency supports in principle the commitment to ensure that all new development meets the optional technical standards for water to limit use to 105 litres per person per day (in-line with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive), (The Environment Agency, 312797).

• Two representors respondent indicates that the BREEAM ‘Good’ standard sought through the policy is less than the ‘Excellent’ standard recommended for non-residential development in the evidence base. The policy is not considered justified as a result (Central Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership, 855416),(Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• Various respondents highlight that the Code for Sustainable Homes is defunct (e.g. Home Builders Federation, 792154). Applicants are only required to meet Part L 2013 of the Building Regulations. The requirement of 105 litres of water per person per day needs to be justified and assessed for viability impact, and the respondent considers this is not indicated by the Viability Assessment (2013) suggesting 20% contributions towards affordable housing may be difficult to achieve. This is not considered consistent with national policy.

• Central Bedfordshire Council further highlight that the 105 litre standard referred to in Part A of Policy LP37 is from the obsolete Code for Sustainable Homes – this is replaced by 110 litres in the more recent optional technical standards for housing. The respondent also considers that this is not appropriately justified through evidence and not positively prepared or consistent with national policy or effective as a result. The respondent also considers that any energy standards sought in-line with Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 are highly likely to be obsolete before the Local Plan is adopted (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

198

• The Home Builders Federation consider the ‘key issues’ section on pages 100-101 introduces policy that is additional to LP 37. The appropriate place for this is in the policy itself. For example, at Paragraph 11.52 the Council needs to establish whether it is feasible and viable for applicants to provide for decentralised energy supply before it specifies this as a policy. If it is not feasible then the policy requirement is unjustified (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• The Council should not require builders to go further than Part L 2013. The applicant may decide that these options provide the most cost-effective way of meeting Part L but they should not be compelled to adopt a particular method. The Council should not require applicants to demonstrate how they achieve Part L. That should be matter for the applicant to determine his/herself (Home Builders Federation, 792154).

• Other respondents express similar concerns and state that the policy should be significantly simplified with the removal of Criteria C to guidance and supporting text and acknowledging that criteria D and E would better serve as validation requirements. The policy as prepared is not considered consistent with national policy or justified. Only Parts A and B should be treated as policy as they set standards. Part C of the Policy is poorly worded and considered to be more appropriate as supporting text. Neither Part A or Part B of the Policy recognise that it is not always feasible or viable for development to achieve the specified standards. Para 96 of the NPPF is clear that having regard to the type of development there may not be an appropriate solution. Reports or Statements to be submitted should be set out in the Validation Checklist. The energy hierarchy (Part C) itself is a concern because at part (d) it suggests consideration of off-site solutions for all schemes, when these can often be provided on-site. This is inconsistent with Para 8.3.23 of the SA which only considers equivalent off-site savings when these cannot be provided within development, as is often the case. The approach suggested by the Sustainability Appraisal is more reasonable. There is a lack of detail on monitoring and implementation of off-site solutions (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 955602).

• Respondents also indicate that any requirements should consider viability considerations to provide an element of reasonable flexibility where constraints can be demonstrated in order for the policy to be effective (Fenton Property Management, 955816). Another respondent claims that the policy is not justified, effective, positively prepared or consistent with national policy in only indicating the need for viability assessment to show that Code Level 4 cannot be exceeded; in reality this standard is already revoked at the national level (Mr Barry Pilskin, 956742).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The issues with Legal Compliance and Duty to Co-operate raised in representations to Policy LP25 are not considered directly relevant to this section and relate more specifically to high level concerns at the outset of preparation of the plan and the overall spatial strategy.

199

• The Council acknowledges the large number of representations to this policy which reflect the range of recent government announcements and amendments to national policy and standards on the issue.

• However, the policy is based on sound evidence in accordance with the advice in the NPPF “Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.” (NPPF para 158). The Water cycle study 2015 alludes to Luton’s particular circumstances being within “an area of serious water stress” and the need “…to move towards a more ‘water neutral position” and to enhance sustainability of development coming forward… The Water Cycle Study 2015 recommends that a policy should be developed that ensures all housing is as water efficient as possible, and that new housing development should go beyond Building Regulations and as a minimum, reach Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3/4. Non- domestic building should as a minimum reach ‘Good’ BREEAM status’. It goes on to say that the limited availability of new resources locally means over the longer term beyond the next 25 years, it is likely that new resources would need to be transferred into the area to support the increased population and resulting water demand. This provides a very strong argument for new homes provided in the next 25 years to be made as efficient and as economic as possible in order to safeguard future resources.

• The government has signalled that energy standards are a matter for review. However, to meet Luton’s statutory obligations to promote sustainable development and to address climate change, the Council considers that it remains relevant to maintain the approach adopted towards energy standards since this remains important to ensure that the towns stock of homes is improved but the council recognises that it may be necessary to further amend or review the policy following Submission and in the course of the Examination in response to further government announcements such as on Zero Carbon Homes and off-site solutions.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP37 Home Builders Federation In order to make the plan sound, A. New residential development will meet A. New residential development will No - this is not supported PS352 Part B (iv) should be reworded to the standards on carbon and energy meet the standards on carbon and by local evidence in the reflect the wording of the third performance equivalent to energy performance equivalent to code Water cycle study 2015. bullet in Paragraph 90 of the NPPF. code level 4 of the abolished Code for level 4 of the abolished Code for As the Written Ministerial Statement Sustainable Homes and standards arising Sustainable Homes and standards arising "In order to move makes clear, no other standards are from updates to Part L of the Building from updates to Part L of the Building towards a more ‘water allowed. Regulations and a potable water Regulations and a potable water neutral position’ and to consumption standard of 105 litres per consumption standard of 105 litres per enhance sustainability of

200

All references to the Code for person per day. Developments will be person per day a water consumption development coming Sustainable Homes should be encouraged to exceed this standard where standard that is the Building Regulations forward, the Water Cycle removed from the Policy. viable and feasible. optional requirement of 110 litres per Study 2015 recommends person per day. Developments will be that a policy should be encouraged to exceed this standard developed that ensures where viable and feasible. all housing is as water efficient as possible, and that new housing development should go beyond Building Regulations and as a minimum reach Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3/4. Non-domestic building should as a minimum reach ‘Good’ BREEAM status."

Further:-

"Luton Borough lies within an area of serious water stress. Any growth and increase in population will further exacerbate this issue. In order to ensure surplus raw water supply for growth in and around the Borough, Affinity Water's preferred Plan over the next 25 years is reliant on more efficient use of existing resources and demand reduction from customers. The proposals and opportunities for new resources within the area are limited, in the main due to the limitation on available new resources locally, which means that looking beyond the next 25 years, further new resources would likely need to be transferred into

201

the area to cater for further increases in population and hence water demand. This creates a very strong driver for new homes in the next 25 years to be made as efficient as economically possible in order to safeguard future resources.

No - The Council also rejects the remaining elements of the modification seeking removal of the provisions to deliver energy performance equivalent to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. Until such time as the government makes further announcements on energy, these standards remain applicable and appropriate to improve the quality of housing stock within the town and the Council is confident that these can be achieved by the majority of development proposals.

In the event that there are viability concerns on a specific proposal then it is open to the developer to have these concerns addressed through the Development Management process.

202

Policy LP37 Mr Barry Pilskin LP37 should be amended either to N/A – Not detailed wording proposed N/A – No detailed wording proposed. No – See above (PS352) PS269 delete reference to Code 4, or to make this part (A) of the Policy clearly an aspiration subject to viability and feasibility.

Policy LP37 Chamberlain Holdings Ltd. Respondent proposed revisions to The Council will support development The Council will support development No – Please see also PS303 Part A and Part B of Policy LP37; proposals which contribute towards proposals which contribute towards response to proposed moving LP37 C to supporting text; mitigation, and adaptation to climate mitigation, and adaptation to climate modification under PS352 and removing Part D and Part E to change through energy use reduction and change through energy use reduction above Validation Checklist efficiency and renewable and decentralised and efficiency and renewable and energy. decentralised energy. The respondent A. New residential development will meet A. Except where it can be demonstrated acknowledges that the the standards on carbon and energy by the applicant that this is not feasible standards for carbon and performance equivalent to code level 4 of or viable, New residential development energy performance the abolished Code for Sustainable Homes will meet the standards on carbon and should in principle remain and standards arising from updates to Part energy performance equivalent to code as drafted. The Viability L of the Building Regulations and a potable level 4 of the abolished Code for Appraisal suggests that water consumption standard of 105 litres Sustainable Homes and standards arising most typical schemes per person per day. Developments will be from updates to Part L of the Building should be deliverable and encouraged to exceed this standard where Regulations and a potable water in the event that there are viable and feasible. consumption standard of 105 litres per viability concerns on a person per day. Developments will be specific proposal then it is B. All new non-residential developments encouraged to exceed this standard open to the developer to over 1,000 square metres will be required where viable and feasible. have these concerns to achieve the 2013 Building Research addressed through the Establishment Environmental Assessment B. Except where it can be demonstrated Development Method (BREEAM) 'Good' status". by the applicant that this is not feasible Management process. or viable, All new non-residential C. Planning applications for all residential developments over 1,000 square metres The Council rejects the schemes exceeding 10 dwellings and non will be required to achieve the 2013 proposed deletion of Parts residential schemes exceeding 1,000 Building Research Establishment C, D and E of the policy. square metres will need sufficient Environmental Assessment Method The response supporting information in order for the (BREEAM) 'Good' status". acknowledges that these local planning authority to assess how elements remain relevant proposals meet the following C. Planning applications for all to operating the policy in requirements: residential schemes exceeding 10 practice, albeit provided dwellings and non residential schemes separately in supporting i. Energy Hierarchy exceeding 1,000 square metres will need text or as part of validation a. reduce energy demand through passive sufficient supporting information in requirement. The Council design, insulation, and efficiency measures order for the local planning authority to feels greater clarity is including water saving devices; assess how proposals meet the provided through the b. scope to generate energy from low and following requirements: policy as drafted, which zeros carbon sources on site; enables its separate c. scope for decentralised energy networks i. Energy Hierarchy components to be set out

203

and generation; and a. reduce energy demand through comprehensively. d. scope for provision of off-site solutions passive design, insulation, and efficiency for decentralised, low and zero carbon measures including water saving energy generation and securing investment devices; for retro fitting of buildings via local carbon b. scope to generate energy from low reduction schemes including for energy and zeros carbon sources on site; and water resource efficiency. c. scope for decentralised energy networks and generation; and D. Major Developments of 10 or more net d. scope for provision of off-site residential units and / or non-residential solutions for decentralised, low and zero over 1,000 square metres net Gross carbon energy generation and securing Internal Area (GIA) are required to submit investment for retro fitting of buildings an Energy Statement outlining how the via local carbon reduction schemes principles outlined above have been including for energy and water resource integrated into the design of the efficiency. development alongside a planning application. D. Major Developments of10 or more net residential units and / or non- E. Minor non-residential development residential over 1,000 square metres net including conversions, refurbishment and Gross Internal Area (GIA) are required to extensions (under 1,000 square metres net submit an Energy Statement outlining GIA floorspace) are required to submit an how the principles outlined above have Energy Statement or energy information been integrated into the design of the within the Design and Access Statement development alongside a planning alongside a planning application. application.

E. Minor non-residential development including conversions, refurbishment and extensions (under 1,000 square metres net GIA floorspace) are required to submit an Energy Statement or energy information within the Design and Access Statement alongside a planning application.

New Supporting Chamberlain Holdings Ltd. Respondent proposes revised N/A Proposed new paragraph of supporting No – See response to Text PS303 wording to current Part C of policy as text after Para 11.54 proposed modification to currently drafted to supporting text Policy LP37 under PS303 In order to satisfy the requirements of above. The Council Policy LP37, planning applications for all considers that greater major development should demonstrate clarity is achieved by how they have taken account of the incorporating these Energy Hierarchy by: requirements as part of the policy text. a. considering measures to reduce energy demand through passive design,

204

insulation, and efficiency measures including water saving devices; b. considering the scope to generate energy from low and zeros carbon sources on site; c. considering the scope for decentralised energy networks and generation; and where the requirements of Policy LP37 cannot be achieved on-site, d. considering the provision of off-site solutions for decentralised, low and zero carbon energy generation and securing investment for retro fitting of buildings via local carbon reduction schemes including for energy and water resource efficiency.

205

CHAPTER 11 – TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY LP38 – POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATION

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy LP38 – Pollution and 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 Contamination

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The Environment Agency notes that the Water Framework Directive sets out the target of ‘good overall status’ for groundwater bodies by 2027 and believes that Policy LP38 will help to prevent deterioration and aid recovery from the currently ‘poor’ status of the upper Lee Chalk groundwater body. Therefore LP38 is considered sound (Environment Agency, 312797).

• London Luton Airport Operations Ltd is concerned that LP38 has the potential to impact upon the future sustainable growth of the airport. The current wording does not accord with the economic development policies of the NPPF. It is worth stressing that the sustainable growth of the airport would have significantly less environmental impact than the construction of a new airport facility. As a result, LP38 is not considered to be effective or consistent with national policy (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Sundon Parish Council argues that the policy does not stipulate air quality management for known poor air quality areas. The Council’s Annual Public Health Report 2013 – 2014 (page 64) sets out the number of deaths and reduced life expectancy caused by air pollution in Luton. The approaches to Luton Airport are not within an AQMA therefore the impact of increased vehicle movements due to the approved expansion of operations at the airport is not being assessed and reported. The Council’s Air Quality Assessment 2012 says the airport approach has air pollution exceeding the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000. The potential adverse impact of vehicle emissions on air quality caused by new development at Napier Park and Power Court has not been properly considered in the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal. LP38 is not considered positively prepared (Sundon Parish Council, 933122).

206

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The Council highlights that future monitoring and review will be particularly significant in respect of responding to the impacts of climate change and ensuring that the effects of the policy are as intended and it is being implemented in the most appropriate manner.

• The Council confirms that it will be necessary to keep matters such as Air Quality Management Areas under review in partnership with other stakeholders and that monitoring of air quality is an important part of the framework of indicators set out at Appendix 8 of the Pre-Submission Plan. It is noted that Paragraph 11.59 of the plan refers to the existing Air Quality Management Area in close proximity to London Luton Airport and that as set out in the policy, the effect of any existing pollution levels as well as the potential impact of new development will need to be satisfactorily addressed as part of any proposals submitted. Locations within and around the airport have been and remain subject to a comprehensive monitoring regime, which has not previously recommended any further detailed assessment and also assisted with securing satisfactory planning obligations to secure mitigation and enhancements from the possible effects of existing permission for enhancement of the facilities.

• In response to London Luton Airport Operations Ltd the Council confirms its recognition and support for the future success and expansion of the airport as a key economic asset to the town and driver of growth. This is reflected in the Strategic Objectives of the Plan (SO1) and the existing commitment to expansion already taking place. The Council also draws attention to Policy LP6, which provides further detailed guidance for this strategic allocation and the Plan must be read as a whole alongside either Policy LP6 or Policy LP38. The Council is conscious of the competing pressures on sustainable development associated with expansion at the Airport and considers that the criteria in LP6 in particular provide greater detail on how acceptable outcomes can be achieved. These will include the promotion of greater use of non-car modes and the adoption of sustainable technologies which it is considered could overcome the cumulative impacts of any proposals that concern the respondent. It is expected that these steps would need to be detailed in full as part of any planning application (principally as part of any Environmental Statement), however the policy framework within the Local Plan is considered sound and in-line with the Plan’s objectives.

207

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

LP38 Environment Agency It should be recognised that the WFD N/A N/A No – Support for the policy PS158 sets the target of ‘good overall is welcomed. Existing and status’ for groundwater bodies by future status of relevant 2027. The upper Lee Chalk areas will be addressed groundwater body is currently at through monitoring poor status. indicators.

LP38 London Luton Airport The policy has the potential to be N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A – No specific word changing No – The policy is strategic Operations Ltd overly restrictive and needs to be proposed and intentionally broad. In PS260 amended, either in terms of the its current form it is wording of the policy or to provide a considered to best reflect specific policy in relation to the the Plan’s objectives, airport. Such an approach should however the respondent is stress the national economic directed to Policy LP6 significance of the airport that would specifically in relation to need to be balanced against any London Luton Airport. impacts.

208

CHAPTER 12 & POLICY LP39 – INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY AND MONITORING

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Chapter 12 – Infrastructure 4 4 4 1 1 2 Delivery and Monitoring the Local Plan Policy LP39 – Infrastructure and 2 1 3 1 2 2 Developer Contributions

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The evidence base should evaluate the cumulative and individual impacts of proposals on road links and junctions as well as the ability of the existing highway to accommodate forecast traffic in terms of capacity and safety. Through this, a plan for infrastructure provision will be derived together with an indication of funding sources. Funding shortfalls should be identified at an early stage. It is recommended that Highways England is consulted on the contents of any revisions to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which provides limited details on improvements to the SRN. As the modelling evidence has not yet been finalised it is unclear what improvements may be required and how these could be funded (Highways England, 304012).

• If viability does not improve and CIL is not used then a good mechanism will not be available to collect money to pay for the infrastructure needed. Unless improvement schemes to the SRN are already committed it should not be assumed that Highways England will be able to fund any. It is likely that developers will be a major source of funding for the mitigation required. In the event CIL is to be used, it is important that schemes are identified at an early stage such that the level of contributions required is known (Highways England, 304012).

• This section tries to suggest that the unsustainable developments/ lack of action within the plan will result in positive and sustainable outcomes for Luton and its hinterland. The reality is that Luton will become unviable (David Logan, 879188).

• The wastewater network is unlikely to be able to support the demand from development at 69 Felstead Way, Brittania Estate, Caleb Close and Newlands Road. Upgrades are likely to be required. It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver infrastructure. For example, local network upgrades can take around 18 months to 3 years to design and deliver (Thames Water Utilities Ltd, 903957).

209

• The plan needs to confirm that the Council will prepare guidance (e.g. a Planning Obligations SPD) to provide clarity about how the policy will be implemented as there is insufficient detail for development management purposes and the policy would not meet the effective test of soundness. (Sport England, 660493)

• North Hertfordshire District Council ask that future dialogue specifically considers (1) the most appropriate access solutions to future development in and around Luton with regard to the highway network in North Hertfordshire and (2) education provision in any future development east of Luton. (North Hertfordshire District Council, 855900)

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The strategic impacts of the plan on the road network have been identified by the Luton and Central Bedfordshire SATURN model. This has identified local measures to manage travel demand and improve capacity at identified junctions and routes. These are identified in LP31, will be addressed by developer contributions and will be reflected in revisions to the LTP and the IDP. Highways England will be consulted on the next update to the IDP, due to commence in March 2016. The exact detail of mitigation required at specific development locations will be identified by developers as part of their planning applications. Further information on the identification and mitigation of transport impacts is presented in the response summaries for chapter 11.

• The application of CIL in Luton will be reviewed in the light of improved market conditions. The range and scope of existing supplementary planning guidance will be reviewed following adoption of the plan. Regarding planning obligations, this will likely follow-on from the review of implementing CIL. The Planning Obligations SPD (2007) will continue to be applied in the meantime.

• Significant impacts of the plan have been identified through the sustainability appraisal and evidence studies. There is no appraisal or evidence stating that the plan will render development (or life) in Luton unviable.

• Local wastewater network upgrades for specific developments will be addressed through the planning application process. The costs of necessary, local infrastructure upgrades should be factored-in by developers when they negotiate the purchase of land.

• LBC continues to work with North Hertfordshire District Council on matters of highways impact and education provision, through both the duty to cooperate on plan-making matters and in relation to specific development proposals.

210

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) LP39 Thames Water Utilities Ltd Where there is a capacity constraint No – This requirement is PS50 the LPA should require the developer covered generally by to provide a detailed drainage LP39Ai. Infrastructure strategy informing what providers will be consulted infrastructure is required, where, through the planning when and how it will be delivered. application process and specific concerns can be addressed at that stage.

LP39 Sport England Policy LP39 or its supporting text No – The use of SPDs will PS35 should clarify that the Council will be reviewed following provide guidance (in the form of an adoption of the local plan. SPD?) on how the policy will be It is uncertain what the applied in practice and give a steer to range and scope of future what issues the SPD will cover. SPDs will cover.

211

APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 1 – Glossary 1 1 1 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The entries for Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Common Land are the wrong way around. Furthermore, reference to English Heritage should be replaced with Historic England (Historic England, 169722).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Agree. Recommend that the entries for Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Common Land are corrected (swapped) and that all instances of ‘English Heritage’ are corrected to ‘Historic England’.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Appendix 1 Historic England Factual correction; incorrect Three areas of Registered Common Land Three areas of Registered Common Land Yes - the explanation Registered Parks PS85 explanation given. exist within the Borough of Luton. These are exist within the Borough of Luton. These currently covers Registered and Gardens The Moor, which is a relic of the ancient are The Moor, which is a relic of the Common Land and Access Great Moor, which served as the sole ancient Great Moor, which served as the Land. Also, reference to recreational space for Lutonians until the sole recreational space for Lutonians Historic England updated. 1860s, and Bell's Close and Pope's Meadow, until the 1860s, and Bell's Close and which were granted to the town as Pope's Meadow, which were granted to compensation for the loss of part of the the town as compensation for the loss of Great Moor following construction of the part of the Great Moor following Midland Railway. These became part of construction of the Midland Railway.

212

People's Park, which was the first public These became part of People's Park, park to be created in Luton. Each of these which was the first public park to be sites has historic heritage, landscape and created in Luton. Each of these sites has biodiversity value, and are registered as historic heritage, landscape and Commons under the Commons Act (1965) biodiversity value, and are registered as and as Access Land under the CROW Act Commons under the Commons Act (2000). (1965) and as Access Land under the CROW Act (2000).

Luton contains two parks that English Heritage has included on its ‘Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England’. They are Wardown Park to the north of the central area, and Putteridge Bury on the north east edge of the town, which lies mostly within Hertfordshire. Such parks are considered by Historic England to make a significant contribution to the richness of the local scene in terms of green space and nature conservation. Inclusion on the list requires Local Authorities to make provision for the protection of the historic environment in their policies and their allocation of resources.

Appendix 1 Historic England Factual correction; incorrect Luton contains two parks that English Luton contains two parks that English Yes - the explanation Registered PS85 explanation given. Heritage has included on its ‘Register of Heritage has included on its ‘Register of currently covers Registered Common Land Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Parks and Gardens and Access Land Interest in England’. They are Wardown Park Interest in England’. They are Wardown to the north of the central area, and Park to the north of the central area, and Putteridge Bury on the north east edge of Putteridge Bury on the north east edge the town, which lies mostly within of the town, which lies mostly within Hertfordshire. Such parks are considered by Hertfordshire. Such parks are considered English Heritage to make a significant by English Heritage to make a significant contribution to the richness of the local contribution to the richness of the local scene in terms of green space and nature scene in terms of green space and nature conservation. Inclusion on the list requires conservation. Inclusion on the list Local Authorities to make provision for the requires Local Authorities to make protection of the historic environment in provision for the protection of the their policies and their allocation of historic environment in their policies and resources. their allocation of resources.

Three areas of Registered Common Land exist within the Borough of Luton. These are The Moor, which is a relic of the

213

ancient Great Moor, which served as the sole recreational space for Lutonians until the 1860s, and Bell's Close and Pope's Meadow, which were granted to the town as compensation for the loss of part of the Great Moor following construction of the Midland Railway. These became part of People's Park, which was the first public park to be created in Luton. Each of these sites has historic heritage, landscape and biodiversity value, and are registered as Commons under the Commons Act (1965) and as Access Land under the CROW Act (2000).

4.107 Historic England Factual correction, English Heritage 4.107 …The Council will work with 4.107 …The Council will work with Yes. - factual correction. PS85 have become Historic England English Heritage on how to ensure that the English Heritage Historic England on how heritage of the area is adequately to ensure that the heritage of the area is documented and refreshed in the future. adequately documented and refreshed in the future.

10.17 Historic England Factual correction, English Heritage 10.17 To ensure that those heritage 10.17 To ensure that those heritage Yes. - factual correction. PS85 have become Historic England assets currently considered to be at risk of assets currently considered to be at risk of neglect or decay and included on the neglect or decay and included on English Heritage at Risk Register, are the English Heritage Historic England at effectively managed and protected… Risk Register, are effectively managed and protected…

LP30 Historic England Factual correction, English Heritage Policy LP30 Policy LP30 Yes. - factual correction. PS85 have become Historic England …ensure that heritage assets …ensure that heritage assets considered considered to be at risk of neglect or decay to be at risk of neglect or decay included included on the English Heritage at Risk on the English Heritage Historic England Register, are effectively managed and at Risk Register, are effectively managed protected; and and protected; and

214

APPENDIX 2 – PARKING & CYCLING STANDARDS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 2 – Parking & Cycling 1 1 Standards

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Fenton Property Management Ltd consider viability and market demand considerations should be taken into account and recognition of the ability of some Town Centre schemes to be able to provide on-site car parking provision in accordance with the maximum standards (Fenton Property Management Ltd, 955816).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Policy LP31 and LP32 already regulate parking on strategic allocations and the town centre (e.g. on street parking and car free development) and together with Appendix 2 parking standards guide appropriate provision to serve land uses within developments for differing locations and accessibility and provides a sufficiently clear and flexible approach to parking provision depending on circumstances which will be assed at the pre application and planning application stages.

Specific Modifications Proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Appendix 2 – Fenton Property Viability and market demand No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in No - Policy LP31 and LP32 Parking & Cycling Management Ltd considerations should be taken into representation. the representation. already regulate parking on PS180 account and recognition of the ability strategic allocations and of some Town Centre schemes to be the town centre (e.g. on

215 able to provide on-site car parking street parking and car free provision in accordance with the development) and together maximum standards. with Appendix 2 parking standards guide appropriate provision to serve land uses within developments for differing locations and accessibility.

216

APPENDIX 3 – EMPLOYMENT SITES: CATEGORIES A & B

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 8 – Employment Sites: 0 Categories A & B

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

217

APPENDIX 4: HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 4: Housing Allocations 6 6 6 3 1 3 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• A number of respondents have registered representations against this part of the plan to indicate where additional housing allocations may be identified and included within the overall supply (thereby increasing the total provision made within the Plan). Without the addition of these sites, the respondents variously consider that the Local Plan as drafted would not be effective or positively prepared. Responses at this part of the Plan typically reiterate submissions made elsewhere to justify the inclusion of a site against other policies in the plan or to support an increased estimate of capacity. The individual suggestions are listed separately below (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 956602),(Trustees of Old Bedford Road Estate and Manor Farm Estate, 956512),(The Trustees of the Warden Hill Estate, 954537),(Claydon Land Development Ltd, 497297),(Templeview Developments Ltd, 662818),(The Co-Operative Group, 746045).

• One respondent identifies an additional consistency point across different sections of the Plan, highlighting that the total of 2,420 dwellings calculated at Appendix 4 is referred to separately as a capacity of 2,400 and 2,500 dwellings in Policies LP2 and LP15 respectively. It is also noted that Policies LP2 and LP15 actually total 6,900 and 7,000 dwellings respectively. The respondent identifies that the higher figure of 2,500 should be used, on the basis that their interests at Britannia Estate are likely to generate 56 additional units than currently estimated (Chamberlain Holdings Ltd, 956602).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The representors have helpfully clarified their proposed amendments against the schedule of proposed allocations in Appendix 4 and provided information which may affect the future assessment of various sites. It is noted that not all suggested additional or amended sites are supported by corresponding representations against this part of the Plan. This signifies the importance of the SHLAA as an important aspect of the evidence base for the Plan, which will be comprehensively updated to a base-date of April 2016 as part of supporting the Examination of the Local Plan. The Council believes that this represents the most appropriate means to enable the Public Examination to consider any revision to capacity estimates in

218

detail and giving thorough consideration to all omission sites raised as part of representations.

• Representors are also reminded that the provision for housing set out in the Plan should be treated as a minimum and therefore subject to compliance with the other policies of the development plan and all other material considerations it does not necessarily follow that the capacity indicated in Appendix 4 (typically based on the most recent SHLAA estimate) reflects an upper ceiling to development potential.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Appendix 4 The Trustees of the Appendix 4 should include land at N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A Partial – The potential for Warden Hill Estate PS42 the end of Weybourne Road with a any changes will be housing capacity of 10 units considered as part of an following removal of the proposed update of the SHLAA to a designation of the site as part of the base-date of April 2016 to Weybourne Link under Policy LP31 support Examination of the Plan.

Appendix 4 Trustees of Old Bedford Include the land (or part of it) N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A Partial – The potential for Road Estate And Manor introduced as an omission site as an any changes will be Farm Estate PS365 additional housing allocation under considered as part of an Appendix 4 and is considered to have update of the SHLAA to a limited landscape impacts .Update base-date of April 2016 to Policies LP2 and LP15 accordingly to support Examination of reflect the additional contribution the Plan. towards unmet housing needs through the duty to cooperate. Appendix 4 Claydon Land Include land at Lynwood Avenue as N/A – No specific word change proposed. N/A Partial – The potential for Development Ltd PS280 an omission site. Its identification as any changes will be a County Wildlife Site and Area of considered as part of an Great/Local Landscape Value is update of the SHLAA to a unjustified. base-date of April 2016 to support Examination of the Plan.

Appendix 4 Templeview Introduce as an omission site land at N/A – No specific word changing proposed. N/A Partial - The potential for Developments Ltd PS299 Luton Rugby Club. This will increase any changes will be capacity requiring a change to considered as part of an Appendix 4 and LP15 update of the SHLAA to a

219

base-date of April 2016 to support Examination of the Plan.

Appendix 4 The Co-Operative Group LBC’s assessment of capacity is No specific word change proposed except N/A Partial - The potential for PS12 incorrect. Increase the land for changing the capacity of the sites from any changes will be identified for development at Land 56 to 100 units for Stockingstone Road and considered as part of an at Stockingstone Road SHLAA Ref 94 to 181 at Caleb Close. update of the SHLAA to a 339 to maximise the potential of the base-date of April 2016 to site for housing. support Examination of Increase the number of units the Plan. identified at Caleb Close from 94 to 181.

Appendix 4 Chamberlain Holdings LTD Increase the capacity indicated for N/A – No specific word changing proposed N/A Partial – The potential for PS319 the mixed-use site at Britannia Estate any changes to capacity by 56 additional units to reflect the will be considered as part emerging scheme. Ensure of an update of the SHLAA consistency in referring to the to a base-date of April proposed total of allocations in 2016 to support Policies LP2 and LP15 – a total of Examination of the Plan. 2,500 is recommended based on the The SHLAA will in any above information

Appendix 4 Tejpartap Sahota. The respondent seeks to omit the Detailed wording change not suggested by N/A Not accepted. Key PS261 land identified from the protected the Representor. employment land has been employment areas identified in robustly assessed and is fit Policy LP14 and consequentially for purpose. Policies LP13 promote mixed-use development and LP14 provide the incorporating economic uses such as policy framework for retail, leisure and housing. This considering emergent would entail changes to the housing circumstances over the delivery provided by the Plan and plan period. the list of sites identified in Appendix 4. The potential suitability of identifying any capacity will also be considered as part of an update of the SHLAA to a base-date of April 2016 to support Examination of the Plan.

220

APPENDIX 5 – HOUSING TRAJECTORY

Summary of Representations

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The trajectory for Britannia Estates shows dwellings will come forward between 2024/25 and 2026/27. It is unclear why the Council has taken this approach. Whilst active uses may affect its availability, this would be resolved based on the owner’s desire to redevelop with consideration to the expiry of tenancies. The anticipated completion rates are: 2017/18=50, 2018/19=75, 2019/20=100, 2020/21=75, 2021/22=50. (Chamberlain Holdings, 956602)

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• At the time of assessment, it was considered that it would take some time to manage the existing uses in order to bring forward development. The trajectory will be reviewed in the April 2016 SHLAA. There is no known negative impact from the early delivery of this site, nor is there any need to amend the trajectory. Many sites will come forward sooner or later than expected.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Appendix 5 Chamberlain Holdings The trajectory should be amended N/A N/A No – Early delivery of this PS320 since it does not recognise the early site will not affect the plan. contribution that Britannia Estates The timings in the would make towards meeting Luton’s trajectory will not affect significant level of housing need. the ability of the development to come forward.

221

APPENDIX 6 – SPACE STANDARDS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 6- Space Standards 1 1 1 1

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Fenton Property Management have responded that to indicate that they consider viability and market demand information should form a material consideration on a development by development basis, especially within the town centre. They state that the space standards are too restrictive (Fenton Property Management, 955816).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The Council does not agree with the representor and considers that in instances where viability issues may cause difficulties then the developer can deal with these through the Development Management process.

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change and strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Appendix 6 – Fenton Property It is considered that space No specific changes identified. No specific changes identified. No – if a developer has Space Standards Management standards are too restrictive and concerns on a specific PS181 should take into account site schemes these can be constraints and viability addressed through the considerations. Development Management process.

222

APPENDIX 7 – TRANSPORT ASSESSMENTS AND TRAVEL PLANS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 7 - Transport 0 Assessments and Travel Plans

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

223

APPENDIX 8 – MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 8 – Monitoring 0 Framework

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

224

APPENDIX 9 – REPLACED LOCAL PLAN PLOICIES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 9 – Replaced Local 0 Plan Policies

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

225

APPENDIX 10 – REPLACED MINERALS AND WASTE POLICIES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 10 – Replaced 0 Minerals and Waste Policies

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council Response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

226

APPENDIX 11 – TECHNICAL EVIDENCE STUDIES

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 11 – Technical 0 Evidence Studies

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

227

APPENDIX 12 – GREEN SPACE STANDARDS

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Appendix 12 – Green Space 2 2 2 1 1 1 Standards

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• Not sound (not justified). For consistency with Policy LP27 (Section B) and paragraph 10.35 which confirms that the Council will apply the standards identified in the Playing Pitch Strategy (2014) - in the supplementary 'Developer Contributions' report for outdoor playing space requirements, Appendix 12 should provide guidance on the standards applying to outdoor sport. At present, the appendix excludes these standards and policy LP27 will be unable to apply them. Appendix 12 should be amended to include the content of or make reference to the supplementary 'Developer Contributions' report for outdoor playing space requirements in relation to the standards applying to outdoor sport (Sport England, 660493).

• Not sound (not positively prepared, effective). While the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum welcome the fact that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan is referred to as an evidence base document, we feel it is unfortunate that the table does not recognise that some sites (e.g. QE2 playing fields) have statutory designations. Notwithstanding that we recognise that the Greenspace Strategy Review 2014 has evidenced the local standards proposed irrespective of statutory designation (Central Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Local Access Forum, 660493).

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• The Council accept that a minor amendment to the text to clarify and refer to the supplementary 'Developer Contributions' report in Appendix 12 and also to add a footnote to explain that the green spaces have been assessed regardless of designation but by typology and that polices in the plan regulate the protection of opens paces according to designation and identified deficits.

228

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

Paragraph or Person or organisation Reason for the change Text BEFORE Text AFTER using underlining and Is Modification agreed? Policy reference suggesting the change strikethrough Yes/ No Response id State reason (as appropriate) Appendix 12 – Sport England For consistency with Policy LP27 No specific policy wording is proposed in the Appendix 12 – Green Space Standards Yes – minor clarification. Green Space PS36 (Section B) and paragraph 10.35 representation. footnote:- Standards allied which confirms that the Council will to Policy 27 apply the standards identified in the Appendix 12 – Green Space Standards Where the standards cannot be provided (section B) Playing Pitch Strategy (2014) - in the footnote:- on site an equivalent off site or financial supplementary 'Developer contribution will be sought. The Contributions' report for outdoor Where the standards cannot be provided on supplementary 'Developer Contributions' playing space requirements, site an equivalent off site or financial report for outdoor playing space Appendix 12 should provide guidance contribution will be sought. requirements, should provide guidance on the standards applying to outdoor on the standards applying to outdoor sport. sport.

Appendix 12 – Central Bedfordshire and The table does not recognise that No specific policy wording is proposed in the No specific policy wording is proposed in No – as the representation Green Space Luton Joint Local Access some sites (e.g. QE2 playing fields) representation. the representation. already acknowledges – Standards Forum have statutory designations. the Green space strategy PS68 Review evidences the local standards irrespective of designation. The plan and its policies must be read as a whole ad there is already sufficient protection according to importance of designation.

229

APPENDIX 13 – LUTON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK

Summary of Representations

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• None submitted.

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• N/A

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

230

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Summary of Representations

Section/Policy/Topic Representations Legally Compliant Sound Unsound - Reasons

Object Support Total Yes No Yes No Not Positively Not Justified Not Effective Inconsistent Prepared with National Policy Sustainability Appraisal N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Summary of issues raised by Representors

• The impact of LP31 on SA objective 1 is described as neutral. It is likely that the SA has concentrated on the more strategic elements such as approaches to improving congestion and sustainable transport rather than concluding that the East Luton Circular Road would not have a negative effect on biodiversity and landscape. We recommend the impacts of LP31 be fully assessed including any alternatives to the East Luton Circular Road. The assessment of cumulative impacts should be updated to account for the impacts of LP31 (Natural England, 664726).

• To ensure that the creative quarter business community can create a vibrant destination, greater assurance is sought to support independent and local creative and cultural businesses. The Hat Factory Arts Centre should be included as a key venue in this area. The following policies should be included to guide needs and aspirations for important cultural infrastructure: (1) Libraries and Archives Policy, (2) Arts, Public Art, Museums & Galleries Policy (Luton Culture, 956014).

• The scoring over-states the negative environmental impact of the airport. In terms of SA5, the difference between the baseline emissions compared with development by 2028 is not significant. London Luton Airport Operations Ltd challenges the assumption and evidence that determined the expansion of the airport would lead to a significant increase in carbon emissions. In respect of the airport’s edge-of-centre location, London Luton Airport Operations Ltd questions whether a more appropriate location exists. London Luton Airport Operations Ltd is keen to explore all options to support access via all transport modes as opposed to simply vehicles. It is unsubstantiated to assume that airport growth will lead to significant increases in vehicle traffic and associated emissions. The growth of the airport represents a more environmentally sustainable approach than delivering additional airports, which should be factored into the scoring of SA5. SA12 should have been scored as ‘Neutral’ because the airport’s position is fixed. Due to the nature of activity taking place at the airport, it would not challenge local centres. SA14 should be scored as a Major Positive, reflecting the airport’s ability to promote employment, learning, skills and innovation. It is unclear on what basis any negative impacts have been assessed in SA1 as ‘Major’. In regard to SA2, we do not understand why the score has been downgraded to a moderate mixed impact. London Luton Airport Operations Ltd requests an explanation and review of how these have been scored. London Luton Airport Operations Ltd believes that

231

one of the issues underlying these scores relates to the fact that the airport and Century Park are scored together. Whilst a single allocation in the plan, each site should be scored separately in the SA under LP6 (London Luton Airport Operations Ltd, 335867).

• Land at Luton Rugby Club has not been previously put forward for consideration. We have provided our own assessment against the SEA Objectives as set out in the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal, (Templeview Developments, 662818).

• The plan should ensure that the results of the SA clearly justify its policy choices. It should be clear from the results of the assessment why some policy options have been progressed and others rejected (Gladman Developments, 856720).

• The criteria used to identify preferred sites are highly restrictive: requiring no more than three SA criteria showing poor results; and no strong adverse effect on any of the SA objectives. Many of the strategic allocations would fail these criteria. The assessment did not take into account possible mitigation for negative effects. If this was done it is likely many more sites would have been allocated. The SA states that in some instances a site may have met criteria but not been taken forward as preferred (or vice versa), and the reasons are noted in Appendix H. Appendix H does not states reasons for rejection, even for those sites which met all criteria. The assessment lacks transparency and places doubt on the robustness of the identified allocations and overall housing provision within Luton (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The SA does not include monitoring measures for Objective 8: Reduce poverty and inequality and promote social inclusion, as it concluded that the plan will have positive effects. If the plan under-delivers housing numbers, it is crucial that monitoring measures are included. We suggest number of dwellings and affordable dwellings delivered (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• There is no explanation how the employment floorspace options translate to job numbers. The job numbers should correlate with housing numbers to limit in-commuting. This option has not been considered. Provision of more jobs than houses will result in increased in-commuting and additional strain on Luton’s transport network, congestion, carbon emissions and pollution. These issues were not reflected in the assessment. The SA does not consider all reasonable options or identify the likely negative effects from implementing the plan and therefore does not meet the requirements of the SEA Directive (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

• The plan delivers unbalanced growth: all its economic growth at an expense of its social needs, mainly housing. The option of delivering a balance of growth in jobs and housing has not been assessed. In doing so, the SA does not meet the requirements of the SEA Directive in identifying reasonable alternatives and measures to prevent, reduce or as fully as possible offset significant adverse effects on the environment. An option seeking a higher number of houses against a lower jobs requirement should be assessed. Positive effects are identified against a number of objectives, whilst no negative effects are identified as a result of under-delivering housing and over-delivering jobs. Negative effects should be observed for objectives 3 (air, soil and water), 5 (reduce carbon emissions), 8 (reduce poverty and inequality) and 11 (decent affordable homes). A balanced growth alternative would mitigate negative effects in these domains (Central Bedfordshire Council, 933222).

232

Luton Borough Council response to Representations

• Urban Edge to re-consider the appraisal of LP31 in the light of Natural England’s comments. There are no known alternatives to the East Luton Circular Road. It should be noted that the plan protects all known route options (which will have varying impacts themselves) to allow flexibility of delivery.

• Luton Culture’s response refers to the plan, rather than SA. These points have been addressed elsewhere in the local plan summaries for chapter 4 and policy LP11.

• Urban Edge to re-consider the appraisal of LP6 in the light of London Luton Airport Operations Ltd.’s comments. Specific elements of LP6 (or any other policy) will not be split for separate appraisal: the SA considers the impact of policies as a whole.

• Land at Luton Rugby Club (or any other new sites) will not be considered prior to submission. The site, along with any other proposed sites will be reviewed in the next SHLAA (to an April 2016 base date), which will provide an up-to-date view on the town’s capacity for new homes. Following that the SHLAA will be regularly reviewed to take account of new sites or changed circumstances on existing ones.

• Background reports will be submitted alongside the plan, further explaining why policy options were pursued (or not). These will provide further information and transparency on the allocation of housing sites and the balance of housing vs jobs.

• Urban Edge to re-consider scope of SA monitoring requirements in the light of Central Bedfordshire’s comments. The monitoring of housing completions (including affordable and market tenures) is stated at appendix 8 of the local plan (monitoring framework).

• Urban Edge to re-consider the appraisal of strategic options (section 7) and sustainability objectives (section 8) in the light of Central Bedfordshire’s comments. With respect to the balance of jobs and homes, the SA considers the prioritisation of different land uses and the impact of different levels of housing and employment, the release of employment land for other uses, residential densities and options for different development mixes at strategic allocations.

233

Specific Modifications proposed by Representors

234