Submitted on Behalf Of

Representations to the Pre-submission Draft

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

Regulation 19 Consultation

February 2018

Submitted on behalf of:

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

1. Introduction

1.1 Cerda Planning Limited has been instructed by Catesby Estates Plc in response to the pre-submission draft local plan consultation to promote land to the north of New Walk, Shillington for allocation as a site for housing within the local plan.

1.2 The site is approximately 5.47 hectares in size and is accessed directly off New Walk from Hillfoot Road to the west and High Road to the east.

1.3 The site is under the control of a single landowner and is suitable, available and achievable to be brought forward within a five-year period and as such could make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of the housing targets as set out within the draft plan. It is likely that the site would be to accommodate between 70 and 80 dwellings depending on the detailed housing mix and density of the scheme.

1.4 This document should be read in conjunction with the site location plan, Vision Framework prepared by Catesby Estates Plc and the Review of Housing Need and Land Supply prepared by Lichfield’s.

Page 2

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

2. Growth Strategy and Housing Requirement

2.1 Paragraph 157 of the NPPF sets out that local plans should be positively prepared and meet the objectively assessed needs for the area and accord with the objectives, policies and principles of the Framework.

2.2 The Plan target is to deliver 39,350 homes over the period 2015 - 2035. This figure is comprised of Central Bedfordshire’s objectively assessed housing need over this period (32,000 homes) with the addition of Luton’s residual unmet housing need (7350 homes). This leads to a requirement of 15,405 dwellings to be allocated through the local plan with a reliance on a significant windfall allowance of 2,897 dwellings. The 2017 SHMA for Luton and Central Bedfordshire established that there is an annual need for 1,600 dwellings per annum.

2.3 The Council is required to ensure that the local plan meets the full, objectively assessed need for both market and affordable housing over the plan period in the housing market area. It is likely that the new standardised methodology as set out by the government in the Housing White Paper will be applicable to the calculation of the OAN for Central Bedfordshire. The present indication as set out by the Government is that the need in Central Bedfordshire would be 2,553 dwellings per annum, significantly higher than the position as set out in the SHMA. This indicates that the housing requirement would need to be increased significantly in order to ensure that the OAN is effectively planned to be met and this is likely to result in a degree of flexibility be required through the local plan to accommodate the basis of a higher level of need and to ensure that the council is able to maintain a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.

2.4 As set out in the Review of Housing Need and Land Supply by Lichfield’s the OAN could be 51,000 dwellings over 20 years which excludes the likely unmet need arising from Luton of around 20,000 dwellings. This increased unmet need would likely need to be met in Central Bedfordshire as this forms a close part of Luton’s HMA. Therefore the total requirement for Central Bedfordshire could be a minimum of 70,000 dwellings over 20 years, almost double the target as set out in the plan.

Page 3

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

2.5 Furthermore, as Lichfield’s set out, the target of 39,350 dwellings proposed in the plan is lower than the levels tested at the Regulation 18 stage of 44,505 and 54,354. It is not clear why such a reduction is now proposed at the Regulation 19 stage when it would appear that this level of growth has not been tested robustly through the Sustainability Appraisal process. As such all reasonable alternatives for growth levels which underpins the spatial strategy as set out in Policy SP1 have not been considered in-line with national policy. No justification has therefore been set out to evidence the approach taken towards the lower strategy of growth.

2.6 Whilst the draft local plan recognises that an early review will be required, even as soon as 6 months post adoption, it is clear that further sites are required to be allocated at this stage in order to ensure that the local plan is planned positively and based on adequate, up- to-date and relevant evidence and take into account relevant market and economic signals as per paragraph 158 of the NPPF.

2.7 Paragraph 153 of the NPPF allows for a local plan to be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances. The inevitable increase in the OAN is a known pressure and needs to be planned for now as a result. Planning for this increase at this stage, either through additional allocations or identifying reserve sites will allow for the plan to respond quickly to the changing circumstances, without the need to go through further consultation. This approach would also provide for a more flexible Plan, thus being better able to deal with unforeseen circumstances such as better economic and employment growth or a dip in the housing trajectory.

2.8 It is also considered that the approach taken is not helped by the significant reliance placed on windfall sites coming forward as opposed to proactively planning for and allocating additional housing sites at this stage within the plan process.

2.9 One of the potential major weaknesses with the strategic distribution of growth as set out within the draft local plan is the significant reliance on four major strategic sites for the delivery of the bulk of the housing requirement. Neither of the four sites at North Luton, Marston Vale, East of Arlesey and East of Biggleswade

Page 4

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

are projected to start delivering more than 50 units per annum until 2022/2023. Highly optimistic delivery rates are projected in the region of 150 to 300 units per annum in years 2023/2034 up until the end of the plan period in 2034/2035. In the present state of the housing market, which is not projected to alter in the short to medium term given the state of the wider economy and Brexit uncertainty, it is highly unlikely that any volume house builder would be able to deliver 300 units per annum off one single site whether either alone or with a consortium of others. It is also considered that with 2,600 dwellings projected to be delivered from three of the four strategic allocations post the end of the plan period that further smaller and medium sites need to be brought forward in the short to medium term as part of the plan to ensure that the overall target and requirement can be met as there is a clear risk that further dwellings from the large strategic sites are likely to fall off the back of the plan period.

2.10 This scenario has been faced by other local authorities that have planned heavily on the reliance of large strategic allocations and SUEs for the delivery of the bulk of their housing numbers. Hinckley and Bosworth, Leicestershire planned to deliver two SUEs at the adoption of their plan in 2009 (a total of 3,500 dwellings) and to-date not a single dwelling has been brought forward due to the infrastructure and viability challenges faced. The same scenario occurred more recently in Charnwood, Leicestershire where the authority most recently adopted its local plan in 2015 and is since unable to maintain a five year supply of housing land due to the failure of three strategic SUE’s to deliver the numbers of dwellings originally projected. Whilst these are two specific examples there are significant numbers of other strategic housing allocations across the country that have failed to deliver the numbers of dwellings that were originally envisaged when the plan was prepared due to the challenges around infrastructure, achieving multiple land owner agreement, the state of the housing market and viability.

2.11 The need to address and deliver the backlog in the shortfall of housing supply within the first five years of the plan is positive. However, it is only reasonable to assume that this backlog will actually be delivered if

Page 5

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

further smaller and medium sites are allocated and are readily deliverable within the five year period.

2.12 Otherwise given the dependency on strategic sites over the life of the plan to deliver the significant majority of the housing requirement there is a risk that the backlog would not be cleared within the first five years in accordance with the NPPG.

2.13 A significant contingency should be allowed within the site allocation process to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to ensure that the Council can respond positively to changes within the trajectory when the plan is implemented. Further allocation of smaller and medium sites that are able to deliver units rapidly within the five year period should be considered suitable for allocation in conjunction with the longer term strategic allocations to ensure that a balanced approach is taken towards meeting the overall housing need across Central Bedfordshire.

2.14 The level of housing that can be delivered is likely to be significantly reliant on the amount of small and medium sized sites outside the Greenbelt that are allocated for development as well as the treatment of windfall within the housing land supply. Sites such as land to the north of New Walk, Shillington are therefore critical to the delivery and success of the strategy for growth as set out in the draft plan.

Page 6

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

3. Housing Mix

3.1 The Policy H1 of the local plan does not clearly set out with any clarity the proposed mix that would be sought by the council when planning applications for residential development are considered. The NPPF sets out that policies should be clear and practical to allow decision taking to be carried out with a high degree of predictability and efficiency.

3.2 As a minimum the policy should set out a framework for the mix sought and at what scale of development the mix will be required. Whilst a degree of flexibility is often helpful when determining the final mix to respond to local circumstances, it is not effective for an applicant to have to establish and propose a mix from eight different background evidence base documents that have different objectives and potentially conflicting aims.

3.3 The risk of not having an established mix set out in the policy is that the council will fail to achieve a balanced mix of housing stock that may limit access to housing to certain sections of the population that have a need for a dwelling of a certain size. Given that dwelling sizes are inheritably linked to affordability there is a further risk that the council may prejudice the delivery of its housing requirement by not having a clear and evidenced based housing mix set out in the policy.

Page 7

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

4. Settlement Hierarchy

4.1 Shillington is identified as a Large Village Tier 3 settlement within the proposed settlement hierarchy. The settlement hierarchy helps direct development to the most sustainable locations. It is considered that Shillington is appropriately located within this settlement category; and that as a sustainable settlement, development in this area should be supported. It is considered that the settlement could accommodate further growth and residential development beyond the 42 dwellings proposed to be allocated on land to the south and east of High Road.

4.2 Additional residential development in a sustainable settlement such as Shillington, on land such as that to the north of New Walk, could be accommodated without constraint and would make a meaningful and important contribution to the housing requirement early on within the plan period.

4.3 Policy SP6 ‘Development within Settlement Envelopes’ sets out that if community facilities cannot be accommodated within the settlement envelope then they may be supported on land adjacent. It is considered that the wording of this policy should be considered further to allow the opportunity for alternative uses to be supported including housing in circumstances, for example where an allocated site was not delivering as expected or the larger strategic allocations were not delivering as projected. Policy SP6 should be amended to state that sites adjacent to the development boundary should be considered more favourably if there is an identified need for the development and it is reflective of the distribution of growth as set out in the settlement hierarchy.

Page 8

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

5. Site Assessment

5.1 The Council’s Site Assessment Framework identifies the site under reference ALP275. The stage 2 assessment conclusion is largely positive that the site is suitable for development. Whilst the landscaping officer has raised concerns in respect of the integration of the development with the character of the settlement, officers overall considered that development within the site would not be visually prominent within the landscape or the street scene from either Hillfoot Road or High Road due to mature landscaping which would be sought to be retained and enhanced. The assessment considered that any harm would not be significant and that the development of the site is worthy of further consideration subject to appropriate details and infrastructure capacity and additional technical work in relation to the access to the site.

5.2 Given the positive assessment of the site by the council it is surprising that the site was not proposed as an allocation or considered in further detail as a minimum for a reserve or alternative site should the plan be found to not be delivering the number of dwellings per annum estimated from the larger strategic sites.

5.3 Policy SP5 seeks to prevent coalescence and retain important countryside gaps which contribute to the form and character of the existing settlement. A large area identified as an important countryside gap is proposed to be allocated directly to the north of the site to prevent coalescence between Woodmer End and Shillington (reference CG10). The site would join a small part of the boundary of the area identified as an important countryside gap at the north-east corner, reinforcing the point that the site would be suitably contained within the village envelope and would not pose harm to the wider landscape setting. Thereby the site would accord with Policy SP5 and contribute towards its purpose by avoiding the need for further development in the future that might cause coalescence between these two settlements.

5.4 In 2017 the Council considered and granted planning permission for the development of a new community facility and sports facility on land immediately to the

Page 9

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

north of the site at New Walk. The officers report considered at paragraph 1.1 that the area of the development was within the settlement envelope and for planning purposes did not amount to development in the open countryside and that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the visual quality of the settlement. Whilst the community centre is of a different scale of application to a residential development it is clear that for decision making purposes if the land to the north of the site was unlikely to cause an adverse impact on the village, development on land to the south of the community centre would pose less of an impact.

5.5 It is considered that as the site is sustainably located, accords with the council’s growth strategy, is free of any technical or environmental constraints that would prohibit its suitability for development and readily available and deliverable within the five year period it should be considered a suitable and appropriate residential allocation within the draft local plan.

The Site

5.6 The Site is located between Hillfoot Road and High Road to the north of the historic core of Shillington. The access track known as New Road runs east to west through the lower part of the site. On its southern side are a series of dwellings and allotments, with the northern part of the site formed of arable fields defined by established hedgerows and trees. There is prominent residential development to the east and west of the site and community facility and playing fields to the north. The Site therefore has an enclosed nature and is sustainably located within easy walking distance to Shillington’s school, shops, petrol stations, pubs and other facilities.

The Concept Masterplan

5.7 The Vision Framework enclosed includes a proposed concept masterplan for the site that shows one way in which the site could be delivered. The site is deliverable and achievable for development. This Concept Masterplan shows between 70-80 dwellings could be accommodated on site, including providing much needed affordable homes (30%). There is also capacity to discuss additional public benefits as desired by the local community.

Page 10

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

Deliverability of this site

5.8 With any proposed allocation of land for housing in a local plan, it is important that the council can demonstrate the allocation will be deliverable within the Plan period. National guidance indicates that, to be considered deliverable, sites should meet the following tests:

 Be available;  Be suitable; and,  Be achievable

This site at Shillington meets these tests.

Available

5.9 Catesby Estates Plc has secured legal agreements with the single landowners of the site for the promotion of the site to allow the delivery of residential development.

Suitable

5.10 As per the Vision Framework, the site is patently suitable for residential development because:

 It is a sustainable location in the settlement envelope of Shillington surrounded by existing residential and recreational development and would not undermine the significant gap between Shillington and Woodmer End.  It is available for immediate development and could deliver housing within the first five years of the local plan.  The site has recognisable and defensible boundaries ensuring there is no encroachment into the countryside and therefore would not adversely impact the wider landscape.  The southern portion of the site to the south of the New Walk is within the Conservation Area, this area would remain undeveloped and the site has no identified environmental constraints.  The development will secure significant public benefit including through provision of affordable and market housing.

Achievable

5.11 As shown by the Vision Framework, the site can be easily developed for at least 70 dwellings whilst over-

Page 11

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

providing public open space, retaining the existing public rights of way and ensuring the village ends are maintained and there is no encroachment onto the wider landscape.

Page 12

Marston’s Inns and Taverns Representations to Draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

6. Conclusion

6.1 In light of the above points, it is considered that the land to the north of New Walk, Shillington should be allocated within the plan for residential development as it represents a logical in-fill to the village in a sustainable location that would make a positive and meaningful contribution towards Central Bedfordshire’s housing need which is likely to increase significantly moving forward.

6.2 There are no technical or environmental constraints that would prevent taking place or could not be considered through the development management process and as such overall the site should be considered as suitable for allocation within the local plan.

Page 13

NORTH El Sub Sta

20 6

0m 25m 50m 14

Path (um) 4

CLOSE 2b

Shillington BRYANTS 2a

Lower School 21

39 51 22

Sports Court 2

35 37 33 1

Recreation Ground MARQUIS

32 23 34

39 12 28 14 30 HILL HILLFOOT END

20 19

19a El Sub Sta

25 7

MARQUIS HILL

17 19 15 18 LB

MARSHALLS Pavilion 10 to 16 16 9 1

21 28 Track

20 2 to 8 21 11 GREENFIELDS Path (um) AVENUE

23 Play Area

2 2 WILSON CLOSE 16

40 1

56.0m

The 28 52 Noahs Ark (PH)

52a

Hillside The Gables Pond 18

20 54

81 22

NEW WALK HIGH ROAD

1 Track

13 71

48 9 New Walk 5

LB 3

7 71b HILLFOOT

ROAD 69a

HILLSIDE ROAD 10

60 69 Green End 11 7 25 Farm 16 Garage Tanks

HILLSIDE CLOSE

6 CLOSE PRESLENT

1 1 1 20

63 63

29 Pond 1

13 33

17 War 14 Thomas Meadow Memorial

CHURCH VIEW AVENUE

33a 31

19 17

43 Hall 7 7 Lay-by CLOSE

Windmill 74 Memorial WHEELWRIGHT

7 House B 21/02/18 Red line amended LA GM 4 1 A 07/02/18 Red line amended LA GM 2

LB 37 3 7 1

O:\Current Sites\All Viability Sites Only\Shillington\Drawings\LC_001B - Shillington - Site Location Plan 4 Suffix: Date: Description: Drawn: Checked: 5 Project Name: Drawing Title: 76 Windmill Lodge Revisions: BELLS CLOSE Scale: Media/Orientation: Drawn: Checked: Day/Month/Year:

Project No.: Drawing No.: 2b 6 4a 4 2a 2 HILL

Track MARQUIS HILL MARQUIS LB El Sub Sta February 2018 February

Pond MARQUIS

17 21 20

BRYANTS

16 Track Vision Framework Vision

34 51

24 28

30 28 Ruin Pond 56.0m

20 Tanks 35

37 2 to 8 10 to 16 1

Path (um) Path 39 18 AVENUE

El Sub Sta MARSHALLS 11

25 27 29

50 HIGH ROAD HIGH

33 17

19 WILSON CLOSE 15 52 33a

33 52a

Garage

21 54

1 Memorial 20 Memorial

War

23 2 Hall 1 37

Farm

CLOSE 7 7a

3 14

Green End

Path (um) 66 Pond

74 12

PRESLENT

7 NEW WALK NEW 76 LB

9 CLOSE

WHEELWRIGHT

1 6

7 Land north of New Walk, Shillington Walk, Land north of New

4 EL New Walk New

CLOSE LS Thomas Meadow Sports Court

Shelter

The Gables

Lay-by 3 5 House

Windmill 7

17 19 3

indmill Lodge indmill W 60

Pavilion

1 Recreation Ground 43

40 20

CHURCH VIEW AVENUE VIEW CHURCH ROAD AVENUE VIEW CHURCH

Play Area

39 28

HILLFOOT 7 23 7

21 CLOSE

1 1

14 25

HILLSIDE

34 18

13 13 19 19a

GREENFIELDS

16 10

9 HILLSIDE ROAD Hillside 69

69a

71b 18 (PH)

The 20 71 HILLFOOT END Shillington

Lower School Noahs Ark 2 81

93 91 95

2 97 Path (um) Path Contents

1. Introduction

2. Planning Context

3. Site Context

4. Why this location?

5. Site Considerations 6. The Concept * 7. Summary

8. Who are Urban&Civic

9. Our Approach

View towards the north from New Walk (south west side of site) with playing field flood lighting in the background 3 1. Introduction

This Vision Framework has been prepared to accompany representations to the emerging Central Bedfordshire Council Pre-Submission Local Plan. It presents Catesby Estates vision for a new residential allocation on land north of New Walk, Shillington.

Catesby Estates specialise in the delivery of land through the planning system and boast a signiﬁcant track record of delivering viable planning permissions that are ﬁt for purpose for housebuilders across the country. As promoters of the land north of New Walk, Catesby has the expertise and experience to deliver new residential development within the plan period, helping to meet Central Bedfordshire Council’s strategic housing needs.

Catesby is owned by Urban&Civic - a property development and investment company listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market, with a market capitalisation of over £300 million. Catesby and Urban&Civic’s approach is one of detailed engagement with the local community and stakeholders alike to ensure that development is sustainable and meets community requirements.

This document highlights some of the beneﬁts of developing at Shillington; describes the site and its surroundings and presents the masterplan concept. It should be read in conjunction with supporting landscape, heritage, ecology and transport technical notes which have informed the rationale behind the proposals.

4 5 2. Planning Context

Shillington is located within the administrative boundary of Central It is considered that this site does not contribute to the conservation area Bedfordshire Council. The adopted Development Plan includes of the nor the setting of the listed church. The Site abuts prominent existing Central Bedfordshire North Core Strategy and Development Management residential development to the east and west with recreational facilities Policies DPD adopted in 2009, and the Central Bedfordshire North Site to the north. The site is therefore considered well enclosed within the Allocations DPD adopted in 2011. These documents are to be replaced by settlement and is well related to the village core within walking distance a new Local Plan which will set out planning policies over the period to of the shops and services. The proposals would be in character to the 2035. Once adopted, it will replace the adopted DPDs. immediate area and as such, the development would integrate into the village whilst also ensuring the countryside gap between Shillington and The pre-submission version of the Local Plan is based on the SHMA for Woodmer End is maintained. Luton and Central Bedfordshire (January 2018) which proposes that the number of homes needed is 1,600 dwellings per annum. In parallel to Deliverability this, the Government are seeking to introduce a standardised method of calculating housing need, which could raise this figure to around 2,500 The NPPF and the Government’s growth agenda seek to ensure that dwellings per annum. This would represent a significant step change in sufficient land is available in the most appropriate locations to increase housing delivery in Central Bedfordshire and it is clear that the Council will housing supply, support growth and boost home ownership. Importantly have to plan for a significantly higher housing requirement than previously this land is deliverable, to ensure that Central Bedfordshire Council can envisaged. meet their housing need.

Shillington is a Large Village, a Tier 3 settlement and is considered a To be considered deliverable, sites should meet the following tests: sustainable location to accommodate new housing. As set out in the Shillington Parish Plan, the thriving community of 1,800 people benefits • Be Available from two active churches, a lower school, 3 pubs, two shops (incl post • Be Suitable office), a village hall and permission for a new community facility including • Be Achievable upgraded sports facilities. The site at Shillington satisfies each of the NPPF criteria as follows: The Site has no formal planning designation. Part of the site falls within the Conservation Area but it is intended this part of the site would remain Available public open space with no development unless the local community identify a more beneficial use, such as public car parking, whereby this Catesby Estates has secured legal agreements with the landowners of the could be considered pending heritage advice. site and promotion for residential development. The site is therefore within

6 the control of Catesby Estates, who are committed to the sustainable development and can ensure permission is sought for residential uses to help meet Central Bedfordshire’s housing need. “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for Suitable every plan, and every decision.” (The Framework, Ministerial foreword) The site is suitable for housing development because it:

• Offers a suitable location adjacent to the village core of Shillington and is immediately adjacent to existing development and community uses; • Would not undermine the gap between Shillington and Woodmer End; • The site is bounded on all sides by existing residential development or public open space so has clear defensible boundaries ensuring there is no enroachment on the countryside; • Can be developed immediately; • Has no identified environmental constraints that would prevent it from coming forward for residential development; • Will deliver public benefit in addition to new housing including much needed affordable housing. Fixing our broken • Is highly sustainable and is within walking distance to local services housing market and facilities located in Shillington.

Achievable

The concept masterplan illustrates that the site could deliver a minimum of 72 dwellings which would make a signiﬁcant contribution towards meeting the housing needs of Central Bedfordshire. This Vision Framework and technical assessment identiﬁes that the site has no restricting constraints for development.

7 3. Site Context

The site is situated within Shillington, a village in Bedfordshire containing a number of facilities and services. Regionally, the village is situated approximately 23km south of Bedford, 18km north west of Stevenage, 17km north of Luton, 35km east of Milton Keynes and 70km north of London.

Locally, towns such as Sheﬀord, Letchworth and Hitchin are located within a 15km radius of Shillington. The smaller towns and villages of Meppershall, Upper Gravenshurst, Silsoe, Barton-le-Clay, Pirton, Lower Stondon, Henlow and Arlesey are all captured within this same catchment radius.

Shillington is conveniently located approximately 14km west of the A1/A1(M). The A6 is situated 5.3km west of the village and the M1 motorway is accessed further west, 13km away at Junctions 11A and 12.

The site lies in the centre of the village, just to the north of the historic core. The site comprises a single agricultural field with a degraded hedgerow dividing part of the site in a north-south direction. The site also includes New Walk which connects Hillfoot Road (to the west) with High Road (to the east). The eastern end of New Walk serves as a cul-de-sac to a small number of dwellings situated off High Road. The western end of New Walk (off Hillfoot Road) provides vehicular access to The Gables, an existing property set within the site (and excluded from the site boundary). Additional grassland lies to the south of New Walk. Existing properties off Hillfoot Road border the sites western boundary and new development off Wilson Close features rear gardens backing on to the eastern side. A Recreation Ground with permission for a Community Centre, Games Areas and a Car Park borders the northern boundary. Adjoining countryside and farmland is situated to the north east.

As well as the Recreation Ground, key facilities in the village include a Lower School, Convenience Store and Post Oﬃce, two Filling Stations, two Pubs, two Churches, a Village Hall and Allotments.

In terms of public transport, two bus services operate through the village between Mondays and Saturdays. Two rail stations are within easy reach at Arlesey and Hitchin, 8km and 12km from the site respectively. First Capital Connect services operate directly to London along the Great Northern line with a travel time of approximately 40 minutes. London Luton Airport is located 20km to the south of the village.

Nearby local facilities and public transport connections make Shillington a sustainable location for future development. The site boundary is in red on the Site Location Plan on the opposite page. The gross site area extends to 5.40 hectares (13.34 acres).

8 Upton

Ruin

End Road

17 Pond

El Sub Sta

20 6

Bury Road

Path (um) 4

CLOSE 2b

Shillington BRYANTSBryants Close 2a Lower School 21

39 51 22

Sports Court 2

37 35 33 1

Recreation Ground MARQUIS

32 23 34

39 12 28 14 30 HILL HILLFOOT END

20 19

19a El Sub Sta

25 7

MARQUIS HILL

Marshalls 17 19 15 18 LB

MARSHALLS Pavilion 10 to 16 16 9

1 Ave

21 28 High Road Track 20 2 to 8

21 11 nue Greenfields GREENFIELDS Path (um) AVENUE

23 Play Area

2 2 WILSON CLOSE 16

40 1

56.0m

The 28 52 Noahs Ark (PH)

52a

Hillfoot Road

97 Hillside 91 The Gables Pond 18

20 54

81 22 34

NEW WALK HIGH ROAD

New Walk 1 Track 95 93

13 71

9 48 New Walk 5

LB 3 High Road

Hillfoot Road 7 71b HILLFOOT

ROAD 69a Walk HILLSIDE ROAD 10

60 69 Green End 11 25 New 7 Farm 16 Garage Tanks

HillsideHILLSIDE Close Hillfoot Road CLOSE

6 CLOSE PresPRESLENTlent Close

1 1 1 20

63 63

29 Pond 1

13 33

17 War 14 Thomas Meadow Memorial

CHURCH VIEW AVENUE

Church View Avenue 33a 31

19 17

43 Hall 7 7 Lay-by CLOSE

Windmill 74 Memorial

WHEELWRIGHT 7 House

4 High Road 1 2

LB 37

3 4 7 1 5

76 1

3 ELMHURST GARDENS 37a Windmill Lodge Shelter 6

39 1c

BELLS CLOSE 80 3 8

1b 10 1

1a Hillfoot Road 47 2

Site Location Plan Path Street Church 9 Allotment Gardens 4. Why this location?

Local Facilities and Services

A number of facilities and services are available in Shillington as shown on the opposite plan. Aside from All Saints Parish Church, all local amenities are located within 400m of the site - which is equivalent to a 5 minute walk or a 3 minute cycle.

Local educational facilities include Shillington Lower School, just a 250m walk from the centre of the site via the public footpaths which cross through the Recreation Ground to the north. The Robert Bloomfield Academy (middle school) and Samuel Whitbread Academy (upper school) are situated in Shefford, 7km and 8km away from the site respectively. In terms of healthcare facilities the nearest Doctors Surgery is Lower Stondon Surgery, 4km from the site. The Shefford Health Centre and Pharmacy is based 6.4km from the site which includes a Dental Practice.

Accessible Location

Hillfoot Road is to the west of the site and links Church Street to the south with Bury Road to the north. Hillfoot Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit and becomes Bury Road at the Hanscombe End Road junction, approximately 300m north west of the site entrance. New Walk runs along the southern portion of the site. The eastern end serves as a cul-de-sac to a small number of dwellings situated oﬀ High Road. The western end of New Walk (oﬀ Hillfoot Road) provides vehicular access to The Gables, an existing property set within the site. The central part of New Walk serves as a designated public footpath.

The Facilities Plan shows local bus routes. The nearest bus stop to the site is located on Hillfoot Road (350m from the centre of the site), adjacent to Bells Close which is served by the 79 and 89 bus. The 79 bus runs four times a day during weekdays and three times a day on Saturdays to Sheﬀord, Barton and Luton. The 89 bus also runs four times a day during weekdays and three times a day on Saturdays to Hitchin, Meppershall and Henlow Camp.

Arlesey Railway Station is the closest Railway Station to the site (8km away), operating a northbound service to Peterborough and a southbound service to London Kings Cross (half hourly services between mondays and saturdays; hourly on Sundays). The average journey time to London Kings Cross and Peterborough is 44 minutes and 42 minutes respectively. Hitchin Railway Station (12km away from the site) is an alternative option which operates two trains per hour to Peterborough and Cambridge (a 37 minute journey) and four trains per hour to London Kings Cross. One train per hour runs to Moorgate during weekdays whereas on Sundays there are three trains per hour to London, two per hour to Cambridge and an hourly service to Peterborough.

A network of Public Footpaths link the site to local amenities and beyond. The public footpath along New Walk provides a shortened route for pedestrians walking to High Road from Hillfoot Road. Another two public footpaths on site link New Walk to the northern site boundary where a number of footpaths travel north towards Bury Road (via the Recreation Ground and Lower School) and east towards Upton End / Upton End Road via the countryside.

10 800m

KEY:-

THE SITE ISOCHRONES SHOWN AT 400m and 800m SPACINGS PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY PERMITTED COMMUNITY CENTRE, GAMES AREAS AND CAR PARK

TRANSPORT LINKS 79 bus route - Grant Palmer Shefford - Shillington - Barton - Luton Monday to Friday - 4 buses per day 400m Saturday - 3 buses per day 89 bus route - Centrebus Hitchin - Shillington - Meppershall - Henlow Camp Monday to Friday - 4 buses per day Saturday - 3 buses per day Nearest bus stops to site

EDUCATION 1 Shillington Lower School

RECREATION AND LEISURE 2 Recreation Ground 1 RETAIL 2 3 Ansell Village Stores and Post Office 4 Filling Stations

COMMUNITY 5 Shillington Congregational Church 6 All Saints Parish Church (Grade I Listed) 7 Noahs Ark P.H 7 8 The Crown P.H 4 9 Shillington Village Hall 10 Allotments

10 3 5 4

8 6

Local Facilities Plan 11 5. Site Considerations

This section provides an overview of the site’s characteristics and all environmental and technical matters. It conﬁrms there are no signiﬁcant physical, environmental or technical constraints to developing the site for residential use. The plan at the end of this section shows the site’s physical, technical and environmental constraints and opportunities.

Landscape Heritage

The site has well-established urbanising influences in close proximity A very small part of the site to the south of New Walk is located within the to it, and is well contained by existing built form to the east and west. Shillington Conservation Area. Based on an initial assessment, and through Any potential landscape and visual effects resulting from proposed considerate design and sensitive masterplanning, external heritage advise development within the site would be limited to users of the public rights has been obtained which confirms that the conservation area status does of way and those properties in close proximity to the site boundary. not prejudice the development of the site.

The development of the site provides an opportunity to enhance and Moreover, the design response on the site could positively contribute to the augment the remaining landscape features across the site and along ongoing evolution and the character and appearance of the Conservation its boundaries. In addition, the locations of the public right of way that Areas. cross the site are such that the site could be developed while retaining these routes within green corridors. Furthermore, a sensitively designed With regards to listed buildings, the site does not contain any listed landscape scheme would be able to provide new public open space and buildings. There is no inter-visibility between the site and the majority of areas for biodiversity enhancements over and above the current ecology the listed buildings in Shillington. All Saints Church is Grade 1 Listed and value of the farmed fields. occupies an elevated position above the settlement and as such, is visible in varying degrees across the whole village. The inter-visibility between the The proposals would seek to respond positively to the character and site and the church is limited and the site would be seen within the wider situation adjacent to Shillington village core. The proposals would seek a context of the village. External advice from heritage experts has confirmed low density scheme which reflects the character of adjacent development that through a careful masterplanning process, the deliverability and to the east of the site, incorporating structural tree planting to ensure capacity of the site for development will not be constrained. the site integrates and does not harm neighbouring amenity whilst also providing new public benefits.

12 Arboriculture

The site is defined by hedgerow, trees and scrub bordering the northern, southern and western site perimeters. Mature trees surround the existing property within the site (The Gables) creating a visual buffer to proposed development. The significance of all vegetation on site will be determined through further detailed investigation.

Tree and hedge clearance is likely to be needed in order to facilitate vehicular access along New Walk however every eﬀort will be made to preserve all other signiﬁcant trees and hedgerows within the proposal.

New tree planting will be proposed throughout the site in order to soften development. A planted buﬀer will also be proposed along the sites eastern boundary, acting as a visual screen to existing properties backing on. View west along New Walk (oﬀ High Road)

Ecology

Habitats of elevated value within the site, including hedgerows and semi- mature trees will be retained unless they are required to be removed in order to facilitate access.

Overall, the site is considered to provide only minor opportunities for protected species however ecological surveys would be undertaken to conﬁrm this. In any event, it is anticipated that any species will be safeguarded and enhanced under a sensitively designed masterplan.

Signiﬁcant opportunities for biodiversity enhancement exist following the removal of land from agricultural use. In addition, the reinforcement of green infrastructure and the use of a surface water attenuation pond will give rise to signiﬁcant potential gains. View towards the north west from the south east of site

13 Ground Conditions

It is understood that the site does not have any signiﬁcant geotechnical constraints in relation to strata or contamination given its greenﬁeld nature.

BGS mapping identiﬁes the bedrock geology across the site as the Gault Formation (Mudstone) with no deposits recorded.

Historically the site has been ﬁelds since at least 1882. Given the current and former uses, the risk of signiﬁcant contamination being present is considered low; however prior to development, a ground investigation will be required.

Flood Risk and Drainage View towards the south from the northern boundary The whole of the site falls within Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Seas), Flood Zone 1 ‘low probability’.

Development surface water will be restricted to the equivalent greenfield run off rate, before outfalling into the existing surface water drainage network to the south of the site. On site surface water storage will be provided within an attenuation basin, that will also provide water quality and biodiversity benefits.

Development sewerage will outfall via gravity into the existing foul drainage network in New Walk. Enquiries will be undertaken with the water authority to ensure that suﬃcient capacity is available. No major reinforcement works are anticipated.

Surface Water Flood Mapping

14 Utilities

Mains gas, water, electricity and BT (ﬁbre) will all need to be installed to serve the site. Conﬁrmation will be sought from each network operator to determine whether reinforcement to existing infrastructure will be required to serve the development proposals.

Noise and Vibration

A baseline noise level survey and an assessment of the site to examine the extent of the current noise environment and determine the suitability of the site for residential development, will be carried out based on the guidance contained within British Standard (BS) 8233:2014 “Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings”. Ordnance Survey Mapping The results of the assessment will include any requirements for mitigation measures to ensure that internal and external noise levels are within guideline values.

View towards the south west of site from the north Proposed site access at New Walk, situated oﬀ Hillfoot Road

15 Highways and Access

The site is accessed via New Walk. The eastern end serves as a cul-de-sac to a small number of dwellings situated oﬀ High Road. The western end of New Walk (oﬀ Hillfoot Road) provides vehicular access to The Gables.

The central part of New Walk serves as a designated public footpath. A number of public footpaths cross the site and connect pedestrians to the site from the north and north east.

Primary vehicular access into the site is proposed off Hillfoot Road by widening a short section of New Walk. The eastern side of New Walk, off High Road will be used as a pedestrian access and for emergency vehicles. Proposed Vehicular Access off Hillfoot Road Internal access around the site will be along shared surface streets. Parking will be provided in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance however, additional visitor parking will also be sought given the concerns locally about parking constraints.

Pedestrian access to the site will be provided by a 2m wide footway adjacent to the principle access into the site. New pedestrian routes will link to existing public footpaths and facilities to the north, retaining and strengthening the permeability of the site. The public footpath along New Walk will also be enhanced and upgraded, creating an improved pedestrian experience between Hillfoot Road and High Road.

Further surveys, assessments and consultation with the Local Highway Authority will be undertaken to ensure that any impact from the development on the local highway network is sufficiently mitigated. Proposed Pedestrian/Emergency access off New Walk (off High Road)

16 Constraints and Opportunities

17 6. The Concept

When considering the design context for any development, it is important to draw inspiration from the character of the local area to ensure the development integrates well into its surroundings.

Our study of Shillington concluded that it has a varied character, which helps to create a comprehensive pattern book to work with when selecting the right block structure, scale and architectural styles for a design strategy.

New development on the site should have smaller houses (1, 2 and 3 bedroom) ranging to medium or medium-large houses (4 and 5 bedroom). Such a mix of property sizes will ensure that the land is used eﬃciently.

Development should be up to 2.5 storey, with generously pitched roofs and gables.

Block structure should vary to help people navigate the site and create streets and spaces with character.

At the core of the site, block structure could be more continual with building facades close to the street. At the site’s fringes, block structure can be less continual and more relaxed with blocks in varied conﬁgurations, set at diﬀering angles to avoid uniformity along the street.

This relaxed conﬁguration can help to soften the transition between the newly built-form and retained open space across the site. Landscape will be prioritised over structure, with the existing green infrastructure and Fundamentally, “good design” other green enhancement able to contain development. should be the backbone of the proposed development which Variation in the massing of detached blocks set back from the green edge at various depths will ensure that will create a strong “sense of the development edge avoids repetition and allows the landscape to organically contain development. place”, one where people will want to live. Development should address both key spaces and open green spaces to help give the right level of natural surveillance and spaces that are functional, safe and social.

18 Illustrative Masterplan

Kilby Road

19 7. Summary

Land north of New Walk has been robustly assessed in terms of its planning, environmental and physical context. It has been shown that the site is suitable to accommodate future housing development to meet Central Bedfordshire’s identiﬁed needs.

The analysis of the site and the illustrative proposal presented within this document demonstrates how a well-designed, high-quality development containing a minimum of 72 homes can be achieved to respond to the context of the site.

This Vision Framework positively conﬁrms that the site is sustainably located, available and capable of delivering a residential development scheme. It is considered that this site should continue to be included within the Council’s Local Plan as an allocated site for a residential led development.

20 Land north of New Walk, Shillington represents an opportunity to deliver a well designed scheme,

View from the north west of the site towards the east responding to the local context. 21 8. Who are Urban&Civic

Urban&Civic is a property development and investment company listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market (UANC), with a market capitalisation over £300 million.

Catesby forms part of the Urban&Civic Group - a market leader in the Over the last 12 months U&C has contracted or is in the process of delivery of strategic sites. The proposals forthe site will be delivered utilising contracting with housebuilders to release consented land for over 1,500 the combined experience and knowledge of Catesby and Urban&Civic homes via a number of different contractual mechanisms. (U&C). U&C work closely with local and national government to raise the profile U&C currently owns or directs four major strategic projects that are expected of its strategic sites. As a result of this relationship, the Homes and to deliver over 22,000 residential homes, 6 million sq.ft. of associated Communities Agency (HCA) has already provided circa £45m of loan commercial accommodation, 626 ha of open space, 11 primary schools finance to accelerate infrastructure delivery at Newark and Rugby and and 3 secondary schools. As a Group subsidiary Catesby is promoting or U&C is in advance discussions for a further £45m at Alconbury. The quality developing a further 5,000 homes and specialises in the delivery of land and consistency of delivery has established U&C as a trusted Government through the planning system. Catesby boast a significant track record partner. U&C were therefore delighted to host the HCA’s Garden Village of delivering viable planning permissions that are fit for purpose for event at Alconbury in October 2016 and to have welcomed all the local housebuilders across the country. authorities promoting Garden Villages as well as the Housing & Planning Minister to the site. U&C is also taking forward a number of commercial development and investment assets predominantly in mixed use schemes in cities and towns The U&C business is defined by the quality of its projects. It carefully often in key growth locations. These include residential development in selects the projects it wants to pursue and maintains that quality by strong Bristol, £350 million of high density mixed use developments in Manchester senior management focus and involvement. The combined Group has an city centre and a hotel directly connected to Stansted airport. enviable collective record of obtaining planning consents and its approach is one of detailed engagement with the local community and stakeholders As market leaders in strategic development successfully integrating sites alike to ensure that any development is sustainable and meets community into the fabric of existing communities, U&C has been involved in every requirements. aspect of delivery. U&C experience means it can confidently steward a first class design team, structure complex development financing, work with Further information on U&C and its approach is set out at www. local people, attract major employers, overcome infrastructure challenges urbanandcivic. com. and market the resultant plots, homes and investments.

22 First Phase of Alconbury Weald 23 9. Our Approach

Establishing GOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES is fundamental to the U&C Equally in relation to Enterprise Zone designation, U&C committed to build approach. a speculative incubator building on site if Alconbury Weald was selected. Following selection, they immediately instructed the award winning For each of its strategic developments U&C seek to articulate a series of Allford Hall Monahan Morris to design a statement building and delivered key design principles following early discussions with local people and it with local contractors. The Incubator is now an award winning building key stakeholders. A dialogue around principles which can be tested and in its own right and forms part of the new boulevard entrance into the refined, ahead of more detailed designs, is an essential first step in building site. In parallel U&C also created a new HGV entrance into the site away trust and establishing a vision. This combination of clear principles and from the boulevard entrance which allowed them to route construction regular dialogue drives the vision and masterplanning process, wins traffic away from the local villages. This early investment totalled £7m and support for innovative approaches and is essential in the ultimate creation was committed ahead of the grant of outline planning permission, but of a destination. materially changed perceptions of what the site could deliver and won support from local people. U&C also believe EARLY INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE is essential not only to build the vision but also to build belief in the delivery of the vision. Examples of key U&C projects are provided on the following pages This can take the form of early land purchases, investment in employment demonstrating their track record in delivering strategic development. activities or putting in place key infrastructure when the opportunity arises. Whilst there is a balance to be struck in terms of overall viability, having the capability and the vision to make key early investments has been one of the U&C hallmarks.

For example at Alconbury Weald, U&C pledged to plant half a million trees on site across the 20 year delivery and worked with local parish Councils to plant 2,500 trees along the boundary of the site to screen the military barbed wire fence and establish a strong and mature green boundary to the site ﬁve years ahead of any housing delivery. U&C also engaged with the local parish council to deliver and dedicate new public allotments at the edge of the existing neighbouring village well in advance of the grant of outline planning consent. These early investments were entirely in accordance with the sustainable approach for the wider site and established signiﬁcant trust with local people.

24 CGI Aerial View of Waterbeach 25 Waterbeach

Description

c.700 acres (Cambridge)

South Cambridgeshire District Council / Cambridge County Council

Delivery partner of Defense Infrastructure Organisation - appointed 2014

Emerging Local Plan

6,500 homes on DIO land as part of wider development of 9,000 homes

Outline application in preparation

Active reuse of MOD buildings for community uses

Delivery expected from 2018

26 Alconbury Weald

Description

c.1,400 acres (Cambridgeshire)

Huntingdonshire District Council / Cambridge County Council

U&C acquired the site in 2009 - Owned freehold

Enterprise Zone designation - 2012

Outline Consent granted for 5,000 homes and 3m sqft of employment - 2014

Key Phase 1 under construction (1000 homes and 1m sq ft of employment)

£45m HCA infrastructure loan under negotiation

Three housebuilders contracted to deliver 500 homes - Hopkins actively selling

First primary school opened in September 2016

27 Rugby Radio Station

Description

c.1,100 acres (Warwickshire)

Rugby Borough Council / Warwickshire County Council

50 / 50 partnership with Aviva Investors - 2014

Outline Consent granted - 2014

6,200 homes and 1m sqft of employment

Key Phase 1 under construction

£35.5m HCA infrastructure loan

Three housebuilders contracted to deliver 600 homes - Davidsons on site

First primary school open in 2017

28 Newark

Description

c.800 acres (East Midlands)

Newark and Sherwood District Council / Nottinghamshire County Council

80% owned with the Church Commissioners for England, Southall and Nottingham Diocese and British Gypsum - Catesby 2001 / Urban&Civic 2015

Outline Consent granted by Catesby Property Group - 2011

3,150 homes and 2m sqft of employment

Key Phase 1 and Link Road Infrastructure under construction

£20m HCA / District Council / LEP funding

First Housebuilders to be contracted shortly

Version Date: February 2018 Status: Final

This Housing Delivery Document has been prepared by:

Dawn Adams - Planning Manager Laura Aldridge - Design Manager

Catesby Estates Limited Catesby House 5b Tournament Court Edgehill Drive Warwick CV34 6LG

Telephone: +44(0)1926 836910 Web: www.catesbyestates.co.uk Email: [email protected] [email protected] Registered No.: 03535469

Central Bedfordshire Pre- Submission Local Plan Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Report on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd, Richborough Estates, Catesby Estates, and Rainier Developments Ltd.

21 February 2018

© 2018 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd, trading as Lichfields. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England, no. 2778116. 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL Formatted for double sided printing. Plans based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A 16230/MS/MSm 15506444v1

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan 1 Report Structure 1

2.0 Housing Need 3 Policy and Guidance 3 Context 6 Review of Luton & Central Bedfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017) 8 Housing Market Area and Duty to Co-operate 23 Standardised Methodology 24 Summary and Conclusions 25

3.0 Housing Delivery 26 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan Housing Trajectory 26 Lead-in times and Build-out rates 28 Review of Housing Trajectory 32 Review of 5 Year Housing Land Supply 41 Summary and Conclusions 44

4.0 Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives 45 Policy and Guidance 45 Central Bedfordshire Growth Strategy 45 Appraisal of Growth Strategy 46 Summary and Conclusions 50

5.0 Conclusions 51 Housing Need 51 Housing Delivery 52 Spatial Strategy 52

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Figures

Figure 2.1 Margins of error around the 2001 and 2011 Censuses (95% level) 9 Figure 2.2 Historic and forecast change in Lower-quartile affordability ratio 17

Tables

Table 2.1 Growth rate and equivalent dwellings per annum 15 Table 2.2 Adopted Housing Targets in post-NPPF Plans 16 Table 2.3 Impact of scales of housing growth on affordability 18 Table 2.4 Outcomes for Central Bedfordshire - Apportionment of National Needs 19 Table 3.1 Existing and Proposed Housing Land Supply 27 Table 3.2 Central Bedfordshire 5YHLS 28 Table 3.3 Average annual delivery rates on sites in Central Bedfordshire over the past 3 years 29 Table 3.4 Past Lead-in Times for Strategic Developments in Central Bedfordshire 31 Table 3.5 Past Delivery Rates/Lead-in Times of Strategic Scale Developments – Bedford Borough Council 32 Table 3.6 Windfall Allowance Calculations 38 Table 3.7 CBC Housing Trajectory Breakdown by Type 40 Table 3.8 CBC 5YHLS (as at 1st April 2018) 43 Table 4.1 Central Bedfordshire Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Growth Scenarios 46 Table 4.2 Actual Levels of Growth Tested 47

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Appendices

Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report has been prepared by Lichfields on behalf of Abbey Land Developments, Richborough Estates, Catesby Estates and Rainier Developments, to support their individual representations in response to the Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan 2015 – 2035 (January 2018) (“the Local Plan” “the Plan”).

1.2 This report provides:

• a review of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s (“the Council” “CBC”) existing evidence on housing needs and establishes the scale of need and demand for housing in the District;

• an appraisal of the housing trajectory and five year land supply position which underpins CBCs Plan; and

• Consideration of whether the Council suitably tested reasonable alternatives in establishing its preferred approach. Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan

1.3 The Local Plan sets out at Policy SP1: Growth Strategy that 39,350 homes will be delivered in Central Bedfordshire over the period 2015 to 2035. This includes the 32,000 of objectively assessed housing needs (“OAHN”) for Central Bedfordshire, and a commitment to facilitate 7,350 of Luton’s unmet need – subject to ongoing duty to co-operate discussions and formal Local Plan Examination. The Plan makes provision for the delivery of a total of 41,830 homes over the plan period, of which c.23,000 are existing commitments, and c.18,000 are a combination of strategic (c.9,900) and small – medium scale (5,505) allocations throughout Central Bedfordshire.

1.4 Our review highlights that on the basis of the flawed approach taken to reaching the 32,000 housing requirement identified within the Central Bedfordshire & Luton Strategic Housing Market Assessment (December 2017) (“the 2017 SHMA”), and prior iterations of that study, that this housing requirement fails to meet the full OAHN for housing, which is significantly higher than the Council has estimated.

1.5 Furthermore, we consider that the Plan would fail to make appropriate provision for sufficient housing to sustainably deliver, in a timely manner, housing in line with the District’s full OAHN, with further site allocations required within this plan in order to ensure an overall strategy that is deliverable and sufficiently flexible to respond to change.

1.6 Finally, the evidence underpinning the Plan’s spatial strategy is flawed, insofar as it has not meaningfully considered all reasonable alternatives, or sufficiently evidenced why the preferred approach has been taken forward, when scenarios with higher levels of growth (including that advocated in the previous Draft of the Plan) appear broadly sustainable. Report Structure

1.7 This report is structured into the following sections:

• Section 2.0 –reviews the robustness of the Council’s evidence on housing need within the District and the wider housing market area, and whether the Council is seeking to meet its objectively assessed housing need;

• Section 3.0 –reviews the Council’s housing trajectory and five year land supply position which underpin the Plan, in respect of realistic and reasonable lead-in times and build-out rates, including presenting a revised trajectory;

Pg 1 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

• Section 4.0 –reviews the Council’s evidence on the testing of reasonable alternatives and the selection of appropriate growth levels; and

• Section 5.0 –provides a summary and overall conclusion on the whether the evidence underpinning the Plan is sound, in respect of housing need, housing trajectory and that a range of reasonable alternatives have been tested.

Pg 2 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

2.0 Housing Need Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) outlines that local planning authorities ("LPAs") should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area (paragraph 14). It adds that, in order to “boost significantly” the supply of housing, they should “use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the framework…” (paragraph 47)

2.2 The NPPF (paragraph 159) specifies the evidence required to objectively define housing needs within an area, setting out that LPAs should:

"Prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs… identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which;

• Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

• Addresses the needs for all types of housing, including affordable housing… ; and

• Caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand."

Planning Practice Guidance

2.3 The Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) contains a section providing guidance on housing and economic development needs assessments. It identifies that whilst there is no one methodological approach, an OAHN should fulfil the following criteria:

• be proportionate and not consider purely hypothetical future scenarios, only future scenarios that could be reasonably expected to occur (ID: 2a-003);

• be based on facts and unbiased evidence. Constraints should not be applied to the overall assessment of need (ID: 2a-004);

• utilise household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government as the starting point estimate of overall housing need (ID: 2a-015);

• consider sensitivity testing, specific to local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates (ID: 2a-017); and

• take account of employment trends (ID: 2a-018), appropriate market signals including market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings (ID: 2a- 019) and affordable housing needs (ID: 2a-029).

Relevant Caselaw

2.4 There have been several key legal judgments which provide clarity on interpreting the NPPF and PPG in terms of how to address the issue of affordable housing need in the context of arriving at a concluded figure for OAHN:

Pg 3 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

1 ‘Satnam Millennium Limited and Warrington Borough Council [2015] EWHC 370’ referred to as “Satnam”; 2 ‘Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2464’ referred to as “Kings Lynn”; 3 ‘Barker Mill Estates Trustees v Test Valley BC& Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 3028 (Admin)’ referred to as “Barker Mill”; and 4 ‘Jelson Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 24’ referred to as “Hinckley and Bosworth”.

Satnam

2.5 Satnam highlights the importance of considering affordable housing needs as part of – and not separate to – concluding on OAHN. The decision found that the adopted OAHN figure within the Warrington Local Plan was not in compliance with policy in respect of affordable housing because (as set out in paragraph 43) the assessed need for affordable housing was never expressed or included as part of OAHN. The judgment found that the “proper exercise” had not been undertaken, namely:

“(a) having identified the OAHN for affordable housing, that should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market/affordable housing development; an increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes;

(b) the Local Plan should then meet the OAHN for affordable housing, subject only to the constraints referred to in NPPF, paragraphs 14 and 47.”

2.6 In summary, this judgment establishes that OAHN has to include an assessment of full affordable housing needs, and is not a ‘policy-on’ judgement in determining the housing requirement.

Kings Lynn

2.7 Kings Lynn helps establish how full affordable housing needs should be addressed as part of an OAHN calculation. The judgment identifies that it is the function of a SHMA to address the needs for all types of housing including affordable, but not specifically to meet all these needs in full. The relevant passage on this is to be found in paragraphs 35 to 36 of the judgment:

“At the second stage described by the second sub-bullet point in paragraph 159, the needs for types and tenures of housing should be addressed. That includes the assessment of the need for affordable housing as well as different forms of housing required to meet the needs of all parts of the community. Again, the PPG provides guidance as to how this stage of the assessment should be conducted, including in some detail how the gross unmet need for affordable housing should be calculated. The Framework makes clear these needs should be addressed in determining the FOAHN, but neither the Framework nor the PPG suggest that they have to be met in full when determining that FOAHN. This is no doubt because in practice very often the calculation of unmet affordable housing need will produce a figure which the planning authority has little or no prospect of delivering in practice. That is because the vast majority of delivery will occur as a proportion of open-market schemes and is therefore dependent for its delivery upon market housing being developed. It is no doubt for this reason that the PPG observes at paragraph ID 2a-208-20140306 as follows:

Pg 4 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

‘The total affordable housing need should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. An increase in total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.’

This consideration of an increase to help deliver the required number of affordable homes, rather than an instruction that the requirement be met in total, is consistent with the policy in paragraph 159 of the Framework requiring that the SHMA "addresses" these needs in determining the FOAHN. They should have an important influence increasing the derived FOAHN since they are significant factors in providing for housing needs within an area.” (Lichfields emphasis)

2.8 The judgment is clear that the correct method for considering the amount of housing required to meet full affordable housing needs is to consider the quantum of market housing needed to deliver full affordable housing needs (at a given percentage). However, as the judgment sets out, this can lead to an OAHN figure which is so large that a LPA would have “little or no prospect of delivering [it] in practice”. Therefore, it is clear from Kings Lynn that although it may not be reasonable and therefore should not be expected that the OAHN will include affordable housing needs in full, an uplift or similar consideration of how affordable needs can be ‘addressed’ is necessary as part of the OAHN calculation. This reflects paragraph 159 of the NPPF.

Barker Mill

2.9 The Barker Mill High Court judgment considered uplifts to OAHN to address affordable housing need in the context of a challenge to a Local Plan. The judgment, in the context of a Local Plan process, placed consideration of an uplift for affordable housing into the second of a two stage process, the first being calculation of OAHN and the second being a ‘policy-on’ adjustment (i.e. one that is made through the Local Plan process and thus not part of the OAHN). There is a tension between the findings in this judgment and Kings Lynn.

Hinckley and Bosworth

2.10 This judgment is relevant in the context of the findings of the above Barker Mill judgment. In short, in considering the refusal of planning permission for housing, the Inspector in this case, as a matter of planning judgment, accepted the need for affordable housing to make up a necessary component of OAHN for housing in the council's area, or in the context of the Barker Mill judgment, as part of the first stage calculation of OAHN.

Pg 5 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

“This case is not analogous to Hunston Properties Ltd. and Gallagher Estates Ltd., where the decision-maker had adopted a level of housing need constrained by policy considerations – so called "policy-on" factors, as they were referred to in Gallagher Estates Ltd.. As Mr Phillpot and Ms Osmund-Smith submitted, the figure of 450 dwellings per annum identified by the inspector as the upper end of her range was not, in fact, a "constrained" figure. In her view, as a matter of planning judgment, it sufficiently embraced the need for affordable housing as a necessary component of the "full, objectively assessed needs" for housing in the council's area. It was the result not of a policy-driven subtraction from the figure of 375 dwellings per annum at the lower end of her range – the figure based on "demographic-led household projections" – but of an appropriate addition to that figure to ensure that the need for affordable housing was not omitted or understated. As the inspector clearly appreciated, a simple addition of the figures of 375 dwellings per annum in the column headed "Demographic-Led Household Projections to 2031" in Table 84 of the SHMA and 248 dwellings per annum in the column headed "Affordable Housing Need per Annum" would have been inappropriate. That would have been, to some degree, double-counting. Planning judgment was required in gauging a suitable uplift to take account of the need for affordable housing, without either understating or overstating that need. The inspector grasped that. She exercised her planning judgment accordingly, doing the best she could on the evidence before her.” (para 36).

2.11 It is also worth noting in this regard that this judgment makes the following comment regarding the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Technical Advice Note which is sometimes cited at Local Plan Examinations as a reason for excluding affordable housing as a policy-off in terms of FOAHN:

“This is not an official document and the relevant paragraphs cited do appear not to be consistent with case law... It would, of course, have been better had the Inspector either not referred to the Advice at all or recognised that it was (at least arguably) inconsistent with case law.” Context

Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA (2015)

2.12 The Luton Local Plan was underpinned by an iteration of the Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA published in 2015 (“the 2015 SHMA”), which concluded that OAHN for Luton was 17,800 dwellings over the period 2011-31 (equivalent to 890 dwellings per annum). The 2015 SHMA used ten year migration trends (from the 2001-11 period) and concluded that a market signals uplift of 10% overall was appropriate for the Luton and Central Bedfordshire HMA; it apportioned a 20% uplift to Luton and 5% to Central Bedfordshire (2015 SHMA para 4.105).

Luton Local Plan and Inspectors Report

Luton’s OAHN

2.13 The Council should not – as at is has done - take the Luton Local Plan Inspector’s report as a direct endorsement of the SHMA, not least because the SHMA tested at the Luton Local Plan Examination has now been superseded.

2.14 The Luton Inspector’s report and findings can be summarised as follows: 1 The starting point for assessing need (across both Luton and Central Bedfordshire) was the 2012-based household projections, which show growth of 53,336 households or 2,667 per

Pg 6 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

annum (IR 83), and a ten year trend (along with the SHMA’s adjustments) reduces this to 41,345 households (2,067 per annum) (IR 84); 2 The Inspector stated that it was not unreasonable to use a longer term trend (IR 85); 3 When considering the SHMA’s adjustments to the demographic data, the Inspector only explores the adjustments made to the data for Luton (IR 86-89). The issues in Luton related to likely under-counting of the 2001 Census, and the potential over-estimate of migration which subsequently resulted from comparing the 2001 and 2011 Census estimates (IR 86). These issues are very different from the adjustments the SHMA makes in Central Bedfordshire. 4 The Inspector concludes that “the Council’s downward adjustment falls within the bounds of what might reasonably be expected to occur” (IR 89) – “the Council” here being a clear reference to Luton Borough Council and not Central Bedfordshire. The specific adjustments made to the data for Central Bedfordshire (which relate to UPC for the 2001-11 period and further adjustments to post-2011 data by reference to “administrative sources”) were not explored by the Inspector. The adjustments made in Central Bedfordshire were a different type of adjustment to those made in Luton.

For these very simple reasons, the Luton Inspector’s conclusions cannot be interpreted as endorsement of the SHMA’s approach in Central Bedfordshire.

2.15 In addition, the Inspector noted numerous reasons why the OAHN (for either Luton or both Luton and Central Bedfordshire) may be “potentially higher” (IR 97): 1 The 2014-based projections, which were published during the examination, indicate growth of 6,500 households more than the 2012-based projections across Luton and Central Bedfordshire (IR 98). The Inspector noted that there were concerns about “data quality issues”, however stated it is “nevertheless a potentially significant increase”; 2 Luton Council’s concerns about 2001 Census errors now relate to an event which took place 16 years ago, and with the passage of time these issues will diminish. The migration trends (2001-11) upon which the 2015 SHMA drew also ended six years ago (IR 99); 3 Migration pressures from London and/or the result of London not meeting its housing needs, combined with the transport links that exist between London and Luton. However the Inspector ultimately concluded that the GLA had not requested that unmet needs be taken into account, and it was not possible to quantify/distribute these needs (IR 100);

2.16 All of the above factors could have an effect on the OAHN for Luton and its HMA; however the Inspector did not conclude that the examination should be suspended to re-visit housing numbers because:

• The PPG accepts that new projections are not rendered outdated every time new projections are published (IR 102);

• Suspending the examination would create significant delay, whereas adopting the Plan would give some certainty to other authorities on the scale of unmet need (IR 103);

• The previous Luton Local Plan was adopted in 2006 and only covered the period up to 2011 (IR 104); and

• If an updated SHMA showed a higher OAHN, in reality this would affect decisions outside of Luton, not within Luton itself given its constrained position (IR 105).

2.17 In light of the above, the Inspector recommended an early review to deal with housing numbers, which includes a re-assessment of migration trends and, if required, the approach set out in the Government’s ‘Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places’ consultation.

Pg 7 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Luton’s Housing Capacity

2.18 The Inspector identified Luton’s capacity for housing (over the 2011-31 period) to be 8,500, leaving (against a figure of 17,800) an unmet need of 9,300 dwellings to bet met elsewhere (IR 138). The emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan makes provision for some of this need (1,950 dwellings) (IR 14), with the remaining likely to fall to Central Bedfordshire. The Inspector notes that Aylesbury Vale is unlikely to be a ‘prime candidate’ to receive any significant quantity of Luton’s unmet needs’ (IR 141), and the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Plan does not make any provision for this.

Summary

2.19 In summary the Luton Local Plan Inspector’s report cannot be viewed as an endorsement of the specific assumptions and methods used to assess OAHN for Central Bedfordshire. These adjustments were beyond the scope of the Luton Plan Inspector’s findings, and the Inspector only explored and accepted the specific demographic adjustments insofar as they related to Luton. The adjustments and issues in Luton are entirely different to those in Central Bedfordshire. In addition, the Luton Local Plan Inspector noted a number of factors which were likely to increase the OAHN, albeit concluding that these issues were likely to affect surrounding authorities more than Luton and that it was more beneficial for Luton to have a plan in place and to undertake an early review, rather than to suspend the examination. Review of Luton & Central Bedfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017)

2.20 Since the Luton Local Plan examination, a 2017 SHMA has been prepared. It takes into account more recent data, including the 2014-based household projections and mid-year population estimates up to 2015/16. It concludes that OAHN for Central Bedfordshire is 31,778 dwellings 2015-35, or 1,589 per annum. For Luton it concludes on OAHN of 18,810 dwellings 2015-35, or 940 dwellings per annum (ie c.1,000 more than the OAHN that underpinned the adopted Luton Plan). This equates to a total of 2,529 dpa for the two authorities. Paragraph 47 requires authorities to “use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area” (our emphasis)

Demographic-led Needs

Context

2.21 The PPG at ID 2a-015 is clear that the latest household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government1 (DCLG) should form the starting point for the assessment of housing need. Over the 20-year plan period 2015-35, the latest 2014-based projections (published in 2016) project growth of 2,877 households per annum across Luton and Central Bedfordshire see 2017 SHMA (para 3.7), of which 1,729 are in Central Bedfordshire.

2.22 In total over the 20 year period, the household projections therefore project overall growth of 34,580 households. By contrast, the SHMA’s concluded OAHN for Central Bedfordshire (which purports to take into account employment, market signals and affordable housing needs) is less than this, at 31,778. In other words the SHMA concludes that OAHN is less than what the PPG itself defines as the ‘starting point’. Given the PPG (ID2a-017) is clear that the official projections should be regarded as “statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions” this immediately raises concerns as whether the adjustments made by the SHMA

1 Now Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

Pg 8 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

are reasonable and robust, particularly given Figure 35 of SHMA shows population growth in Central Bedfordshire has been increasing over time.

SHMA adjustments

2.23 The SHMA’s downward adjustment in Central Bedfordshire is not only the result of using long- term migration trends, but is the result of its ‘local demographic adjustments’. In short, the SHMA has adjusted the official mid-year population estimates (MYEs, published by the Office for National Statistics [ONS]) for Central Bedfordshire for the period 2001-11, and made further adjustments to the MYEs for 2011-15. It then uses these ‘adjusted’ estimates to create a scenario based on ten year trends. Below we review whether these adjustments are “clearly explained” based on “established sources of robust evidence”, as required by the PPG in ID 2a-017.

2.24 Paras 3.22-24 and Figure 36 of the 2017 SHMA show that following the 2011 Census, when the MYEs for 2001-11 were revised, international in-migration for Central Bedfordshire was revised upward. In addition, a downward adjustment – known as ‘unattributable population change’ or UPC - was made. The SHMA therefore equates these revised MYEs with a systematic error in migration estimates to Central Bedfordshire. However, this logic is flawed because: 1 Revision to one component of change (in this case, international migration) does not make it directly linked to the UPC adjustment which was subsequently needed; 2 The nature of UPC (being ‘unattributable’) means ONS cannot attribute it to any specific source. There are a number of potential sources of UPC, such as migration (internal or international), as well as errors in the 2001 and/or 2011 Censuses. The Census errors for Central Bedfordshire are shown in Figure 2.1 – they show a margin of error of just over 7,000 people in 2001 and just over 5,500 in 2011, which could explain some of the UPC without any effect on migration estimates. The SHMA does not consider this;

Figure 2.1 Margins of error around the 2001 and 2011 Censuses (95% level)

Source: Lichfields based on ONS confidence intervals for 2001 and 2011 Censuses

Pg 9 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

3 ONS itself notes that adjustments to international in-migration were needed in 2011 because the MYEs had missed large numbers of EU8 accession migrants arriving in the UK in the mid-late 2000s2, hence an upward adjustment to international migration is entirely reasonable in this context, and is likely to simply be capturing large numbers of immigrants that were missed; 4 The SHMA’s conclusions imply that ONS’s Migration Statistics Improvement Programme (MSIP) – a programme implemented to improve migration estimates – seemingly significantly worsened migration estimates in Central Bedfordshire, and the SHMA has not provided any evidence to explain why this has supposedly been the case. Taking the neutral stance that MSIP did improve estimates, revised estimates in the latter 2000s are more accurate, and therefore scenario which draw upon 10 year trends (either 2005-15 or 2006- 16, as published by ONS) are robust.

2.25 The SHMA goes on to make adjustments to the MYEs for 2011-15 on the basis that it believes there to be systematic error in ONS’s estimates. As a matter of principle, ONS itself will not have a robust basis for revising the MYEs until a Census is taken (i.e until 2021, which the SHMA acknowledges at para 3.32). The SHMA therefore automatically fails test in PPG which requires alternative assessments to be based on “established sources of robust evidence”.

2.26 The SHMA makes its adjustments because – it claims – there are administrative data sources that imply the MYE’s are showing excessive levels of population growth. The sources cited in the SHMA are the Patient Register, School Census and State Pension data. It is these (and these alone – there is no other narrative to explain what, in the real world, might explain why the growth did not occur) that are used to suggest a systematic error in the migration estimates. Unfortunately, the SHMA’s reliance on these administrative sources is flawed: 1 ONS already uses the Patient Register (“PR”) as one of a number of inputs in its MYEs, using changes in addresses (not the overall population numbers, as the SHMA does) to estimate internal migration. Therefore, ONS has already accounted for the PR in the MYEs; ONS has set its MYEs for Central Bedfordshire in full knowledge of the PR, and on the range of other sources available to them. The SHMA’s approach is clearly circular or ‘double-handling’ (not to mention incorrect), and concluding one should reject the ONS judgment on the MYEs (informed by the PR and a range of other data sources) by reference to the material that ONS already has taken into account is flawed. Further, ONS3 is clear that in its raw format (as used in the SHMA), the PR is not a reliable or robust source of data. It states; “The Patient Register has a number of issues when used for statistical purposes. The source has a number of both under- and over-coverage issues (when compared with the target statistical population) and time lags in the data. The source has limited audit and there is potential for distortive effects because of its role in General Practitioner (GP) finance. The effect of these issues will vary by geography, age and sex, the main variables in demographic statistics.” (p.2) “… NHS England’s Policy Book for Primary Medical Services says “a practice list can hold 3 to 8% of inaccuracy due to patient turnover alone”” (p.13) Only a relatively small difference would be needed in one year to occur, which is not repeated in subsequent years (or not repeated to the same degree) to wipe out the whole

2 ONS Long-Term International Migration estimates methodology, p.5 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/methodologies/longte rminternationalmigrationestimatesmethodology/pdf 3 ONS Patient Register: quality assurance of administrative data used in population statistics report, December 2016

Pg 10 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

basis for the SHMA’s adjustments. For example, according to the SHMA’s figures, in 2011 the PR recorded 1.8% more residents in Central Bedfordshire than the MYEs (which we can assume were relatively reliable as they were based on the Census). After 4 years (i.e. in 2015) the PR then appears to record 0.8% more residents in Central Bedfordshire than the MYEs for that year show. It could plausibly be the case that that: a In 2011 the PR had an unusually high error (and we take the 2015 error of 0.8% as ‘typical’). If in 2011 the level of error was just 1% higher than the typical error (i.e. in 2011 the PR recorded 2,500 more people than usual), the SHMA’s basis for its adjustment to fall away; or b In 2015 the PR had an unusually low error (and we take the 2011 error of 1.8% as ‘typical’). If in 2012 the level of error was just 1% lower than the typical error (i.e. in 2015 the PR recorded 2,500 fewer people than usual), the SHMA’s basis for its adjustment equally falls away. Further, other ONS Reports on the PR4 note there are a number of limitations that lead to an undercounting of people, and this clearly explains that areas with higher levels of migration (like Central Bedfordshire) are likely to see an undercount in the PR, notably for: those slower to register a change of address, mobile young adults, and international migrants. Between 2011/12 and 2014/15, international in-migration from Central Bedfordshire totalled 6,656. If [hypothetically] one assumed that there were no other changes in errors in the PR for Central Bedfordshire between 2011 and 2015, it would only take around 1 in 3 of these international in-migrants to the District not to register with a GP to explain all of the 2,340 difference between the MYEs and the PR. If these international migrants did not register with a GP they would not appear in the PR, however as ONS produces international migration estimates using a number of data sources (e.g. the international passenger survey) these migrants could have been picked up elsewhere, and hence be included in the MYEs. It is remarkable that the SHMA in using the PR as its primary administrative source fails to acknowledge any of these limitations. Either it was unaware of these limitations or it chose to ignore them and did not bring them to the attention of the local authorities relying upon the SHMA. Clearly, the PR alone does not robustly estimate population or change in Central Bedfordshire, nor does ONS in any way suggest [alone] that it could. It provides no basis for making purported ‘corrections’ to the MYEs in the way the SHMA has done. 2 There are conceptual differences between the School Census (“SC”) and usually resident population, and there is variation in results across local authorities (in terms of how closely aligned the School Census and MYEs are). ONS has also removed SC data from its most recent 2016 MYE Quality Assurance Pack, suggesting in ONS’s view it is no longer fit for making the type of comparison undertaken by the SHMA. For Central Bedfordshire, the accuracy of the SC in 2011 is also very questionable. The figures for the SC and MYEs for 5-9 year olds are similar, however for 10-14 year olds the SC shows c.1,000 fewer than the MYEs. If the starting point is not reliable then any change measured from this point is also not reliable. In addition, by 2015 the SC suggests the number of 10-14 year olds has declined, which appears at odds with growth across most other age groups.

4 Beyond 2011: Administrative Data Sources Report: NHS Patient Register November 2012

Pg 11 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Overall there are clear reasons to doubt the accuracy of the SC altogether, but particularly so in Central Bedfordshire. 3 State Pension Data (“SPD”) for Central Bedfordshire shows an increase of 6,320 people age 65+ compared to 6,850 in the MYEs. This is a difference of c.500 people equivalent to c.100 per year – in population of 45,000 this is a relatively small degree of variation, particularly given we would expect some differences between the two sources in any case.

Summary

2.27 The SHMA’s adjustments to ONS’s official projections are not based on established sources of robust evidence and therefore do not meet the PPG requirements for departing from the official projections. The SHMA has not fully explored potential causes of the UPC between 2001 and 2011, and the logic that upward revisions to international migration led to all of the identified UPC is flawed. The SHMA has also failed to show why in Central Bedfordshire ONS’s migration statistics improvement programme has seemingly had the opposite effect, and there is no reference to what might be happening ‘on the ground’, e.g. if there are difficult populations or specific issues related to students, armed forces, etc. There will also be no robust basis for correcting post-2011 estimates until the 2021 Census (even according to the SHMA itself), and the administrative sources used by the SHMA to make its adjustments do not (either alone or combined) represents a robust basis for making such adjustments. ONS itself makes this clear in a number of published documents.

2.28 There are a number of other reasons to doubt the adjustments made in the SHMA, and revert to the official data sources (e.g. ONS MYEs and the official population/household projections). For example: 1 The SHMA’s immediate assumption is that high growth must mean persistent errors in the data. Rather, historic data shows Central Bedfordshire has been progressively growing faster over time, and the degree of error due to migration in the 2001-11 period has likely been significantly overstated by the SHMA (because it does not consider whether Census error could account for some of this); 2 The SHMA’s approach reads entirely as a statistical exercise and there is no reference to what might be happening ‘in the real world’ which might explain – or not - the supposed ‘systematic errors’ in international migration estimates. For example, the area does not have a high proportion of student populations (which are generally acknowledged to lead to result in distorted international migration estimates for some university town areas); In its “Quality Indicators for Local Authority Mid-year Population Estimates” published alongside the 2016 MYEs, ONS provide estimates of “the percentage of a local authority population that consists of a difficult to estimate group. The higher the percentage, the greater the risk of uncertainty in the mid-year population estimate.” For Central Bedfordshire, the proportion comprising international migration is 0-2%; and 3 Other ONS data5 on the margins of error around the MYEs shows Central Bedfordshire is within the top 25% LPAs in England in terms of accuracy, i.e. the MYEs for Central Bedfordshire are considered by ONS to be amongst the most accurate (i.e. having a small margin of error) in England.

5 ONS Margins of Uncertainty around the MYEs. Based on the Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE), which underpins ONS’s preferred ‘bias-adjusted confidence interval. In Central Beds in 2015 the RRMSE is 1.08, which ranks it 74th out of the 326 English Local Authorities.

Pg 12 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

2.29 Given the SHMA’s assessment of demographic-led needs for Central Bedfordshire is fundamentally flawed, any assessment which flows from this (e.g. employment-led, market signals or affordable housing) will also be flawed.

Market Signals

2.30 The PPG sets out a clear two-stepped process to addressing market signals within the calculation of OAHN: 1 Firstly, it is necessary to determine whether a market signals uplift is necessary. This is set out in PPG ID2a-019 within the first sub-paragraph as follows: “Appropriate comparisons of indicators should be made… A worsening trend in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections.” 2 Secondly, when a market signals uplift is required, it is necessary to identify at what scale that should be set, with guidance given that it should be set at a level that could be expected to improve affordability. This is set out in PPG ID2a-019 within the second and third sub- paragraphs as follows: “In areas where an upward adjustment is required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable… they should increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable assumptions and consistent with principles of sustainable development, could be expected to improve affordability, and monitor the response of the market over the plan period.”

2.31 The principle of a market signals uplift in Central Bedfordshire (i.e. Stage 1) is not disputed. However, the scale of the uplift is disputed, principally because there no sound basis to conclude that the uplift can be reasonably expected to improve affordability, and the SHMA provides no evidence that it will do so. In addition, as previously noted, because the SHMA has applied its market signals uplift to a flawed demographic-led assessment of need, any figure flowing from this is itself also flawed.

Determining a scale of uplift

1. Review of National position

2.32 Under the current planning system, addressing affordability across the country will be a product of implementing a large number of Local Plans (i.e. a ‘think global, act local’ approach). Each area will have a role in contributing to Government’s aims as expressed in national planning policy. At the national level a number of studies have looked at what scale of housing delivery and dwelling stock growth would be necessary to address affordability problems: 1 The Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004)6 concluded that to reduce the long term house price trend to 1.1% per annum (the average across the EU) would require national delivery totalling 245,000 private dwellings per annum to 2026, alongside an increased provision of social sector housing (23,000 p.a.). The Barker Review concluded that such a level would be necessary for "improving the housing market" and ensure that "affordability is increasingly improved over time" (paras 1.39 and 1.40). Nationally, that scale of growth would represent dwelling stock growth of c.1.13% per annum7.

6 ‘Review of Housing Supply, Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs’ (March 2004), Kate Barker - http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_03_04_barker_review.pdf 7 23,733,000 dwelling stock in England in 2016 (CLG Live Table 100)

Pg 13 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

2 The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit’s (NHPAU) ‘Developing a target range for the supply of new homes across England’ (October 2007)8 concluded that (para 4.68) the “NHPAU believes that there is a realistic possibility of stabilising the affordability of market housing over the long-term if a supply target for 270,000 net additions to stock, in the right place and of the right type can be adopted through the planning system for delivery before or by 2016.” This would represent a 1.14% per annum scale of stock growth. 3 In July 2016, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs published their report ‘Building More Homes’9 which was the output of the House of Lords’ inquiry into the housing market. It drew upon evidence provided to the inquiry by HM Treasury (HMT) indicating that “modelling suggests that in order to keep the house prices to earnings ratio constant, somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 homes per year need to be built” in arriving at its ultimate conclusion that, “to address the housing crisis at least 300,000 new homes are needed annually for the foreseeable future.” (our emphasis). This would represent a 1.26% per annum scale of stock growth. 4 The Redfern Review10, a 2016 independent review of the causes of falling home ownership and associated housing market challenges, was informed by a housing market model built by Oxford Economics11 which looked at the impacts of different supply assumptions on prices and home ownership. It identified that “To put downward pressure on prices new supply would need to outstrip underlying household formation” modelling a boost in housing supply of 100,000 above their baseline forecast of 210,000 dwellings per annum, concluding that 310,000 dpa “helps to keep prices in check” up to 2026. This would represent a 1.31% per annum growth in dwelling stock.

2.33 What each of the above studies have demonstrated is that increasing dwelling stock growth would be necessary to address and improve affordability at the national level. Across the analysis it suggests that, at the national level, stock growth of between 1.1% and 1.3% per annum could achieve the beneficial impacts on affordability needed (recognising that in local areas this will clearly vary, depending on the local household growth rates). The figures would all represent significant increases above background projected household growth (c.210,000 households p.a. in the CLG 2014-based projections over the period to 2039 is the equivalent to c.215,000 dwellings p.a.) of between 21% and 44%. This gives an indication of the scale of dwelling delivery potentially required to address market signals at the national level.

2.34 Having established its 10% uplift for Central Bedfordshire, the SHMA states:

“The annual OAHN of 2,550 dwellings is the average number of dwellings needed every year over the period 2015-35 and represents an average increase in the dwelling stock of 1.3% each year over the 20-year Plan period, notably higher than the 1.0% growth required across England to deliver 239,500 dwellings annually” (SHMA 2017 para 5.92)

2.35 The source of the cited 239,500 figure appears to be based on the SHMA’s assessment of household growth nationally, accounting for long-term trends, concealed families and second/vacant homes (see SHMA 2017 para 5.7-17). However, in no way does this represent an

8 ‘Developing a target range for the supply of new homes across England’ (October 2007), NHPAU - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/5239 84.pdf 9 ‘Building more homes’ 1st Report of Session 2016–17 (15 July 2016) House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (HL Paper 20) - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeconaf/20/20.pdf 10 ‘The Redfern Review into the decline of home ownership’ (16 November 2016) - http://www.redfernreview.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/TW082_RR_online_PDF.pdf 11 ‘Forecasting UK house prices and home ownership’ (November 2016) Oxford Economics - http://www.redfernreview.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/20161114-Redfern-Review-modelling-paper.pdf

Pg 14 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

appropriate benchmark for measuring market signals uplifts in a national context given the PPG is clear that the official projections should be utilised.

2.36 The above reports show a clear consensus that around 250,000-300,000 homes per year are needed nationally. The Government’s proposed standardised methodology, which it is seeking to implement before the end of 2018, equates to a national total of 266,0000 homes per year (the figure is 300,000 without the 40% ‘cap’), although the methodology includes a caveat allowing authorities to plan for more than the methodology shows, for example if there are economic reasons12 (this is explored further below).

2.37 In the Autumn 2017 Budget, the Chancellor Phillip Hammond MP set out Government aspirations for housebuilding to reach 300,000 per year13. Overall It is clear that at a national level the consensus is that at least 250,000-300,000 homes per year are needed (not 239,500 cited in the SHMA), and this would represent annual growth in the range of 1.1% to 1.3% (not the 1% cited in the SHMA).

2.38 Given that some areas (i.e. with less affordability pressures) would be expected to do less than their ‘share’ of the nationally needed 1.1% to 1.3%, equally areas which are less affordable would be expected to do more than their ‘share’, i.e. more than 1.3%. As an area where affordability is worse than nationally (for example, the lower quartile resident-based affordability ratio is 9.3 and the lower quartile workplace-based affordability ratio if 11.5, compared to 7.2 for England), Central Bedfordshire needs to do more than the national average to address affordability. Table 2.1 shows the equivalent dwellings per annum under various annual growth rates for Central Bedfordshire.

Table 2.1 Growth rate and equivalent dwellings per annum

Growth rate Dwellings per annum Growth rate Dwellings per annum 1.0% 1,159 1.6% 1,854 1.1% 1,275 1.7% 1,970 1.2% 1,391 1.8% 2,086 1.3% 1,506 1.9% 2,202 1.4% 1,622 2.0% 2,318 1.5% 1,738 2.1% 2,433

Source: Lichfields based on DCLG Council Tax Base data - 115,876 dwelling as at 2016

2.39 For additional context, and to consider what scale of growth might “reasonably be expected to occur”, below reviews stock growth rates in adopted post-NPPF plans. Even the area with the highest growth rate (Cherwell, at 1.82%) will see this increase further soon, when it reviews its Local Plan to include unmet need from Oxford.

12 See ‘Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places’ consultation 13 See Autumn Budget at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661583/autumn_budget_2017_print .pdf

Pg 15 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 2.2 Adopted Housing Targets in post-NPPF Plans

Adopted Annual Housing Target Stock 2016 Annual Growth Rate Cherwell* 1,140(+) 62,402 1.82%(+) Taunton Deane 850 52,840 1.61% Milton Keynes 1,750 108,981 1.61% Swindon 1,625** 94,374 1.72% East Cambridgeshire 575 36,971 1.56% Examined but not yet adopted Mid Sussex 1,026 61,878 1.66%

Source: Housing targets - respective Local Plans. Stock - DCLG Council Tax Base data. *Figure for Cherwell will increase following Local Plan Review to take account of additional need from Oxford. **Total housing target 2011-2026 22,000 dwellings (1,467 dpa), however Policy SD2 of Local Plan states average annual housing delivery from 2016-2026 will be higher at 1,625 dpa

2.40 The above figures only cover areas with adopted plans (plus Mid Sussex), which currently stands at only around one-third of all local authorities. It does not include plans currently undergoing examination or any areas which have yet to submit plans, hence should not be viewed as an exhaustive list of areas with high growth rates. There are a number of areas without plans which are likely to see high rates of housing growth, for example Peterborough, Bedford, Southampton, Reading (and many other parts of Berkshire), Harlow and parts of Greater Manchester. As more areas progress through to adoption of their plans, the number of plans across England with high rates of housing growth will inevitably increase.

2. Affordability Modelling based on University of Reading/OBR assumptions

2.41 The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) produced Working Paper No.6 Forecasting House Prices in July 2014. The report identifies the following with regards to future average earnings growth and median house price growth (the components of an affordability ratio) in paragraph 3.12:

“Using some long-run assumptions for real income growth (2.2 per cent a year, including growth in the number of households of 1 per cent a year) and housing supply (keeping pace with the number of households), and assuming the housing discount rate and wage share variable are stationary, the model predicts around 3.3 per cent real house price growth a year in steady state. In addition, assuming consumer price inflation in line with the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target implies 5.3 per cent a year nominal house price growth in steady state.”

2.42 The University of Reading's affordability model found a high price elasticity (-2.0) in relation to increases in stock at regional level in England, implying in-effect that for every 1% increase in supply (with housing supply keeping pace with the household projections), relative prices would be expected to fall by 2%. These assumptions have been combined with the wage/house price growth forecasts in the March 2017 OBR Outlook to model affordability outcomes.

2.43 There are a number of examples elsewhere of where this affordability modelling has informed the scale of market signals uplift applied. In Mid Sussex, the Inspector’s interim conclusions on the housing requirement (published February 2017) concluded that:

• The Council’s 24 dpa uplift for market signals was not sufficient, and although it was similar to approaches elsewhere however there have been changes in circumstances and a new approach is needed (p.2/3);

• House prices and affordability have worsened markedly in recent years, and there is a ‘serious and growing affordability problem’ for those on lower incomes (p.3);

Pg 16 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

• The approach of comparing a District to its neighbours in terms of market signals is flawed, because if each authority replicated this approach the cycle of worsening affordability would be perpetuated (p.3)

• A significant uplift is needed to improve affordability, and the approach based on OBR/University of Reading has the ‘greatest value’ (p.5);

• An uplift of 20% is well-founded and realistic (p.6).

2.44 On 1st February 2018, the Inspector’s Report on the Waverley Local Plan (part 1) Examination was published. In respect of market signals, the Inspector noted that:

• Affordability is particularly poor in Waverley, it is amongst the least affordable area outside London and affordability is worsening (IR 20);

• The plans requirement, which incorporate a 5% upward adjustment to household formation rates to account for market signals is ‘not capable of addressing the Borough’s serious and worsening problem of housing affordability (IR 21);

• The OBR/University of Reading approach put forward by representors (which yielded a 28.8% uplift) represents a ‘credible approach’ to modelling supply and affordability. Overall an uplift on the starting point of 25% should be applied (IR 22).

2.45 Applying this approach to Central Bedfordshire (for illustrative purposes, lower quartile workplace-based earnings are shown) suggests that 2,550 dwellings per annum are needed to keep affordability at its 2016 level, as shown in Figure 2.2. This is set in the context that affordability has evidently worsened very significantly in the last 3-4 years alone. At the current SHMA OAHN, affordability would continue to worsen to around 15.0 by the end of the plan period.

Figure 2.2 Historic and forecast change in Lower-quartile affordability ratio

16.0

15.0

14.0

13.0 Historic 12.0 Baseline (1,800 dpa) SHMA OAN (1,589 dpa) 11.0 2000 dpa 10.0 2100 dpa 2200 dpa 9.0 Keep ratio constant - 2550 dpa Lower Quartile Workplace-based Affordability Ratio 8.0

7.0

6.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Source: ONS, Lichfields based on OBR/University of Reading/ONS

2.46 Table 2.3 shows the impacts on lower quartile workplace-based affordability as well as median resident-based affordability in the short and long term. It demonstrates a significant worsening at the SHMA’s current OAHN, and a clear improvement which direct relates to the scale of

Pg 17 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

housing growth. A level of around 2,550 dwellings per annum would be sufficient to maintain affordability in the longer term, although there may be a marginal increase in the short term still.

Table 2.3 Impact of scales of housing growth on affordability

Lower Quartile, workplace-based Median, resident--based Dwellings per annum Current Ratio in Ratio in Current Ratio in Ratio in ratio 2022 2035 ratio 2021 2035

1,589 (SHMA) 12.9 15.1 9.2 10.8 1,800 12.7 14.3 9.0 10.2 2,000 12.4 13.5 8.9 9.6 11.5 8.2 2,100 12.3 13.1 8.8 9.4 2,200 12.2 12.8 8.7 9.1 2,550 11.7 11.4 8.4 8.2

Source: ONS, Lichfields based on OBR/University of Reading/ONS

2.47 This exercise provides two useful conclusions in assessing what scale of uplift might be needed in Central Bedfordshire: 1 The SHMA’s concluded OAHN would clearly be insufficient to bring about any improvement whatsoever in affordability, and affordability would likely worsen significantly in the short and long term; and 2 Up to 2,550 dwellings per annum would be needed just to maintain affordability at its 2016 (which is the highest level seen in Central Bedfordshire), and arguably this should be treated as a minimum given affordability has worsened significantly in the last few years alone.

3. Apportionment of national needs

2.48 Central Bedfordshire is relatively worse in respect of affordability than the national equivalent. All other things being equal, to improve affordability across the country, Central Bedfordshire and its HMA peers would need to make a proportionately greater uplift than those where affordability issues are less acute. This exercise has been undertaken on the basis that Government now has a clear aim to bring housebuilding to a level of 300,000 per year by the mid-2020s, as set out in the Autumn 2017 budget13 (a level which is consistent with much of the literature review considered earlier in this section). This national total equates to an uplift of 85,000 on the household projections (which suggest a need for c. 215,000 homes per annum).

2.49 It is possible to consider how this required uplift should be shared between 320+ Local Planning Authorities across the country in order to seek to hold the affordability ratio (at least at a national level) constant. Three alternative scenarios for market signals uplifts across the country have been modelled, as follows: 1 Each district with an affordability ratio above the national ratio makes a market signals uplift in proportion to its difference with the national figure; 2 Each district with an affordability ratio above the national ratio makes a market signals uplift in proportion to its difference with the national figure (weighted 50%) and its projected household growth (weighted 50%); and

Pg 18 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

3 Every district (whether above or below the national ratio) makes a market signals uplift in proportion to its difference with the lowest affordability ratio, in Copeland at 2.6, (weighted 50%) and its projected household growth (weighted 50%).

2.50 The results for Central Bedfordshire under these methods is shown in Table 2.4. The uplift has been based on a demographic baseline of 18,000 dpa, based on the projections plus a vacancy rate. To meet a national figure of 300,000 per annum the scale of uplift would need to be 24% at least, although taking into account Central Bedfordshire’s relative size this could be as high as 45-49%.

Table 2.4 Outcomes for Central Bedfordshire - Apportionment of National Needs

National total of 300,000 Share of Uplift (to Dwellings 85,000 uplift 1,800) Method 1 0.51% 437 24% Method 2 1.04% 888 49% Method 3 0.96% 816 45%

Source: Lichfields based on ONS/DCLG

2.51 The analysis clearly shows that an uplift well in excess of the 10% put forward in the SHMA would be needed to reasonable expect an improvement in affordability in Central Bedfordshire, and for the District to be contributing to the need nationally for new homes, taking into account affordability and its size. It is notable that using a 300,000 per annum total, the uplift for Central Bedfordshire identified in the Government’s proposed standardised methodology – at 40% - falls within the range (24%-49%) identified through this exercise.

Summary

2.52 In light of the above analysis, there is a case to be made that at the very least, the market signals uplift for Central Bedfordshire should be at mininum 20%. Taking a demographic-led baseline of 1,800 dpa based on the latest projections, this would equate to c.2,150 dwellings per annum. Analysis of stock growth rates elsewhere shows this is in line with the level seen in Cherwell, and like Central Bedfordshire, Cherwell will need to accommodate additional unmet needs from its neighbour (in Cherwell’s case, from Oxford). OBR modelling suggests that an uplift even greater than this may be needed to improve affordability, however in light of stock growth elsewhere and the outcomes of method (3), a minimum of 20% is considered appropriate.

2.53 This clearly underlines the failure of the SHMA to adequately meet the PPG requirement to set its uplift at a level that is related to the problems of affordability or that could be expected to improve affordability; indeed, the SHMA fails to approach this question at all.

Employment-led Needs

2.54 The SHMA’s employment-led housing need assessment flows from its demographic assessment, which as shown above is fundamentally flawed, and this therefore infects the employment-led need assessment. Notwithstanding, below sets out some additional factors which place further upward pressure on needs overall as a result of economic growth, namely by reference to the National Infrastructure Commission.

National Infrastructure Commission

2.55 The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) published in November 2017 its report on behalf of Government on the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc. The NIC was asked by Government to provide “proposals and options to maximise the potential of the Cambridge-

Pg 19 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Milton Keynes-Oxford arc”. It published an interim report in November 2016 which identified the key challenges, and its full report re-iterates these challenges and makes recommendations.

2.56 Throughout the report, it is re-iterated that without addressing the chronic shortage of housing in the arc, its economic growth potential is at risk. The very first paragraphs of the report state clearly that:

“The Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc must be a national priority. Its world-class research, innovation and technology can help the UK prosper in a changing global economy. But success cannot be taken for granted. Without urgent action, a chronic undersupply of homes could jeopardise growth, limit access to labour and put prosperity at risk.

The Commission’s central finding is that rates of house building will need to double if the arc is to achieve its economic potential.” (P.3) (emphasis added)

2.57 The report also refers to recent housing delivery rates in the arc and the levels needed (in its view). These are:

• 12,250 homes per year delivered 2012-15;

• 14,330 homes delivered in 2016-17;

• 15,926 homes per year provided for in Local Plans;

• 20,135 homes per year in current SHMAs;

• 23,000 homes to meet local needs in full (i.e. needs arising within the arc); and

• 30,000 homes to meet local needs and pressures from land constrained markets (i.e. meeting unmet needs from London and addressing the impact this additional demand could have on the arc’s housing market).

2.58 Further, the report not only addresses the issue of housing supply overall, but mentions numerous times the need for affordable housing and its role in maintaining a varied labour supply. For example, it states that:

“The success of towns and cities across the arc has fuelled demand for homes. But a sustained shortfall in housing supply has led to high house prices and low levels of affordability, for both home ownership and private rental, and an undersupply of affordable housing. This is placing a fundamental constraint on the continued growth of the arc’s most successful economies. Workers at all levels are being priced out of local housing markets, restricting firms’ access to labour and impacting upon competitiveness. From post-doctoral students to professors, and from catering staff to managing directors, finding affordable and good housing is a struggle.” (p.7-8) (emphasis added)

2.59 The report’s findings therefore demonstrate that:

• The economic growth potential in this region is one of national importance, and likely that employment assumptions underpinning the SHMA should be viewed as a minimum. This suggests the employment-led forecasts in the SHMA are too low and do not align with the NICs view of the arc’s economic potential;

• Historically, a ‘chronic’ undersupply of housing, including affordable housing, has led to worsening affordability which is placing a ‘fundamental constraint’ on the arc’s economy. This demonstrates there is a clear case for making a significant market signals uplift both to address affordability and deliver more affordable housing;

• In the future housing supply (along with infrastructure) is one of main barriers to the arc achieving this potential, and demand is likely to be further exacerbated by people migrating

Pg 20 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

from London in search of more ‘affordable’ housing, pricing out local people. This re- iterates the findings of the Luton Local Plan Inspector who noted that pressures from London were likely to place additional pressure on housing demand in the area;

• The SHMA’s overall significant downward adjustments to the projected levels of population growth are at clear odds with the overarching thrust of the NIC report and its findings, namely that housebuilding levels need to ‘double’ and for central and local government to agree a deal which commits to ‘faster growth’.

Affordable Housing

2.60 Affordable housing needs are a component part of the OAHN for an area, as has been clarified by a number of recent High Court judgments (see above). In line with the NPPF (para 47, 159), Local Planning Authorities should;

“…use their evidence base to ensure their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing…”

“Local Planning Authorities should…prepare a SHMA which…addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable.”

2.61 The PPG sets out an approach to identifying affordable housing needs (ID 2a-022 to ID 2a-029), and states that total affordable housing need should be;

“…considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments…an increase in the total housing figures included in the plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”

2.62 The PPG sets out a structured methodology for the calculation of affordable housing needs with clear stages, not least because any deviation from this methodology can start to incorporate double-counting into the calculation.

2.63 The above High Court judgments go to the heart of addressing affordable housing within the identification of OAHN (as set out previously). The decision in Satnam establishes that affordable housing needs are a component part of OAHN, indicating that the “proper exercise” is to identify the full affordable housing needs and then ensure this is considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market/affordable housing development. The decision in Kings Lynn follows and amplifies the Satnam judgment in establishing that identified affordable housing needs (para 36) “should have an important influence increasing the derived FOAN since they are significant factors in providing for housing needs within an area.” This is mirrored in the Hinckley and Bosworth judgment. It is clear that affordable housing needs are a substantive and highly material driver of any conclusion on full OAHN.

2.64 Unfortunately, the SHMA fails to follow the prescribed methodology of calculating the affordable housing needs as required in the PPG. The SHMA uses its own ‘housing mix model’ as a way of estimating the level of affordable housing need. ORS provides little information about the sources of data which feed into this model, instead preferring a ‘black-box’ approach where it is not possible to assess any inputs or assumptions to test if they are suitable and reasonable.

Housing Benefit

2.65 The SHMA’s approach to determining affordable housing need revolves around an assessment of the number of people claiming housing benefit. The PPG does not state that this should be used in the assessment, rather it clearly states (ID 2a-025):

Pg 21 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

“Projections of affordable housing need will need to take into account new household formation, the proportion of newly forming households unable to buy or rent in the market area, and an estimation of the number of existing households falling into need. This process should identify the minimum household income required to access lower quartile (entry level) market housing (plan makers should use current cost in this process, but may wish to factor in changes in house prices and wages). It should then assess what proportion of newly-forming households will be unable to access market housing.”

2.66 The use of housing benefit as a way of assessing affordable housing need will inevitably lead to an under-estimation of affordable housing need, not least due to the strict eligibility criteria that applies. For example, the Government states that groups who are not eligible include:

• Those with savings over £16,000 (some pension exceptions apply). This effectively means those saving to buy would find themselves in an inescapable cycle whereby as soon as they save anything above £16,000 they then become ineligible for housing benefit, so have to spend their savings on housing (meaning they cannot purchase), before becoming eligible for housing benefit again; and

• Those who live in the home of a close relative. This would include, for example, adult children (including couples) who either remain in or move back into the family home, for example after returning from University.

2.67 Further, it will exclude from the assessment of need those who do not receive housing benefit but who spend significantly high proportions of their income on housing. Most SHMAs use a proportion of income as the basis for assessing affordable housing need, and the approach of ORS (the authors of the Central Bedfordshire SHMA) is most unusual in this regard. Interestingly, the same housing benefit-only approach is applied by ORS in its Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (“HEDNA”) which states (page 96) that:

“The affordability assessment used by the Model is relatively stringent insofar as it is only households that would be eligible for welfare support that are counted within the identified affordable housing need. There are likely to be other households who are spending more than 25% of their gross income (and sometime much more than this proportion), but who are not eligible for welfare support in relation to their housing. The Model’s assessment therefore focuses on those households with the most acute needs, and a broader affordability assessment would probably identify a greater number of households needing affordable housing. The Model therefore identifies a minimum level of affordable housing need.” (HEDNA’s emphasis)

2.68 No such qualification has been provided in the SHMA underpinning the Central Bedfordshire Plan despite the same methodological approach being adopted.

2.69 Only assessing households as unable to afford market housing if they are already claiming housing benefit or if they are not, but would be eligible is clearly an under-estimate of the true level of need given the groups excluded by Government..

2.70 Further, the SHMA assumes a continuing role for the private rented section (PRS) as a means of meeting the assessed affordable housing need. This was dealt with in the Eastleigh Local Plan Inspectors Report (paragraph 34) :

Pg 22 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

“…there is no justification in the Framework or Guidance for reducing the identified need for affordable housing by the assumed continued role of the PRS with LHA. This category of housing does not come within the definition of affordable housing in the Framework. There is not the same security of tenure…”

2.71 There is no basis in the PPG for considering housing benefit receipts as part of earnings, or as a means of meeting housing costs. The assertion of ORS that it is appropriate to assume that the figure for those claiming housing benefit in the PRS remains constant because this means that every time someone moves from PRS when claiming housing benefit, they are replaced by a newly forming household in the same position. This may or may not occur in reality (particularly if insufficient affordable housing is provided), but for the purpose of assessing need in the context of the NPPF, a newly forming household who cannot afford market housing without housing benefit is in housing need.

2.72 By assuming and using this constant rate, ORS is significantly and artificially dampening the true scale of affordable housing needs from newly forming households. The assessment is effectively predicated on the false assumption that rather than building enough affordable homes to meet needs, housing benefit and the PRS sector will somehow fill the void and so that the Council do not have to provide affordable homes for their residents. This is a ‘counsel of despair’, and not an approach supported by the NPPF (para 9) or the PPG.

2.73 The SHMA thus cannot be seen to provide an assessment of affordable housing need that is consistent with the PPG or (most importantly) paragraph 9 of the Framework which identifies that pursuing sustainable development is focused on improving the conditions in which people live, and widening the choice of high quality homes.

2.74 The SHMA is almost certainly an under-estimate of the true scale of affordable housing needs in Central Bedfordshire. Housing Market Area and Duty to Co-operate

2.75 The NPPF requires for local authorities to have a “clear understanding of housing needs in their area” (para 159) and to “use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area” (para 47).

2.76 The Luton Local Plan Inspector accepted that Luton’s capacity for housing (over the 2011-31 period) was 8,500, leaving (against a figure of 17,800) an unmet need of 9,300 dwellings to bet met elsewhere (IR 138). As a part of its Duty to Co-operate, and in response to the Examination of the LBC Local Plan, in respect of meeting the unmet needs of Luton, it was established that a Joint Growth Options Study (JGOS) was being undertaken as a joint commission by Central Bedfordshire Council (“CBC”), Luton Borough Council (“LBC”), Aylesbury Vale District Council (“AVDC”) and North Hertfordshire District Council (“NHDC”). The aim of the JGOS was to identify and assess at a high level how Luton’s FOAN could be delivered within Luton’s administrative area and the wider HMA. Subsequently, the NHDC and LBC Statement of Common Ground (“SoCG”) Addendum (October 2017) states that the conclusions of the JGOS study are agreed by all four authorities (LBC, CBC, NHDC and AVDC).

2.77 However, the 2017 SHMA has updated Luton’s OAHN to a new higher figure of 18,810 , and assuming Luton’s capacity remains unchanged this will increase the level of unmet need to be met elsewhere (by c.1,000). A very small part of Luton’s FHMA falls within Aylesbury Vale, however Aylesbury Vale has not indicated any plans to meet Luton’s unmet need (and the District also faces considerable pressure from within the Buckinghamshire HMA). A further small part of Luton’s FHMA falls within North Hertfordshire District, which has indicated that it

Pg 23 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

will meet 1,950 of Luton’s unmet need in its emerging Plan14. The remainder of Luton’s unmet need will therefore fall to Central Bedfordshire, which borders most of Luton.

2.78 It is imperative that the unmet needs of Luton are met within the areas of Central Bedfordshire which clearly have functional linkages with Luton. As shown in Figure 26 of the SHMA, Central Bedfordshire overlaps a number of Function Housing Market Areas (FHMAs) – the southern part of the District is within the Luton FHMA, however the western part of the District faces Milton Keynes, the northern part faces Bedford and the eastern part faces Stevenage. Central Bedfordshire borders most of Luton, with the exception of a small part of Luton’s eastern border with North Hertfordshire. Standardised Methodology

2.79 In February 2017 the Government set out its intention to proposed a standardised methodology for assessing housing needs in the Housing White Paper. In September 2017, as part of the Government’s consultation on ‘Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places’, Government set out this methodology, based on a simple formula using current household projections and current affordability ratio. The scope to adopt figures lower than this is significantly narrowed, however some areas may be required to plan for housing in excess of this (for example, if there is a need to support employment growth) – in instances where local authorities put forward higher figures, Inspectors are advised to accept these approaches as sound.

2.80 At a national level, this standardised methodology produces an aggregate figure of 266,000 homes per annum, which broadly accords with wider targets of 250,000-300,000 homes per annum. Government proposed to introduce either in March 2018 or when the revised NPPF was published (whichever was later); in a letter to Local Authorities on 30 January 2018, Chief Planner at MHCLG15 Steve Quartermain indicated that a revised NPPF was now expected in Summer.

2.81 Based on this new methodology, the housing need figure for Central Bedfordshire would increase substantially compared to its current OAHN, from 1,589 to 2,553 dwellings per annum. The objectively assessed need for Luton would also increase, from 940 to 1,417 dwellings per annum, bringing the HMA total to 3,970 dwellings per annum or almost 80,000 over a 20 year period. Whilst Central Bedfordshire will not be subject to this new methodology in its current iteration of the Plan (provided it is submitted before the new methodology becomes adopted) the new methodology highlights two issues:

• It indicates that, in the Government’s view, the scale of uplifts being applied in current SHMAs is insufficient to address affordability. For Central Bedfordshire (with a median affordability ratio in 2016 of 10.4) the uplift under the standardised methodology is 40%, compared to 10% applied in the current SHMA (and 5% in the previous 2015 version of the SHMA); and

• When Central Bedfordshire Council undertakes its Local Plan review (required within 5 years) it will need to take into account the new methodology, and the Council will need to begin considering additional sites which it can allocate in order to meet this higher need.

14 The LBC and NHDC SoGC Addendum (2017) and CBC and NHDC MoU (2017) states that it is agreed that NHDC can contribute 1,950 new homes, and maximised its contribution to the unmet need of Luton during the NHDC plan period 2011-2031. 15 Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, formerly Department for Communities and Local Government or DCLG

Pg 24 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Summary and Conclusions

2.82 The SHMA’s conclusions are not based on established sources of robust evidence, and it seeks to make significant downward adjustments to the projections by reference to sources which ONS itself describes as not suitable for use in their raw format (as the SHMA has done). The adjustment of MYEs post-2011 is also flawed because there is no robust basis to adjust these figures in Central Bedfordshire and the ONS will have no basis to do so until after the 2021 Census. The SHMA’s adjustments are for reasons that are unrelated to Luton or the Inspector’s consideration of the SHMA for that plan.

2.83 Overall the SHMA fails to provide any ‘real world’ analysis to demonstrate why it should not rely upon the official ONS data, or to explain why ONS methods would have such significant failings specific to Central Bedfordshire. It relies on an abstract statistical analysis (flawed in its own terms due to a failure to recognise the “administrative sources” have their own limitations) that is devoid of context or reasoning. As a result of its flawed demographic assessment, the analysis that flows from it is also infected.

2.84 The SHMA also does not demonstrate that a 10% uplift would reasonably be expected to improve affordability, and our analysis suggests that atleast a 20% uplift would be needed in Central Bedfordshire.

Alternative assessment

2.85 The demographic-led needs should be based on DCLG 2014-based household projections, which show growth of 1,729 households per annum 2015-35. Applying the second home/vacancy rate used in the 2017 SHMA (4%16), this equates to a need for 1,801 dwellings per annum, or 36,020 total over the plan period.

2.86 Our analysis of market signals suggests that at least a 20% uplift is needed to this in order to reasonable expect an improvement in affordability, which would equate to 2,150 dpa over the period, or around 43,000 in total over 20 years. At this OAHN, the Central Bedfordshire Plan would therefore fail to meet all of its own need, let alone make any provision for unmet needs from Luton.

2.87 It is notable that even at an OAHN of 2,150 dpa, the figure is under the Government’s proposed standardised methodology, which gives 2,553 dpa for Central Bedfordshire, or 51,000 in total over 20 years. This standardised methodology yields a figure of 1,417 dpa for Luton, which Luton will need to reflect in its Local Plan review. Based on a supply of 8,500, this would mean unmet need from Luton would then amount to almost 20,000 dwellings, most of which would likely need to be met in Central Bedfordshire given this is where most of Luton’s functional HMA lies. In this case, the total requirement for Central Bedfordshire would be upwards of 70,000 dwellings over 20 years – almost double the target in the emerging Plan.

16 Based on 2017 SHMA Figure 92, which shows 27,738 households generates a need for 28,889 dwellings (96%, or 4% vacancy)

Pg 25 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

3.0 Housing Delivery

3.1 Notwithstanding the conclusions on Central Bedfordshire’s OAHN in Section 2.0, this section sets out the Plans housing trajectory, including its components of supply and supporting evidence. It then analyses the Council’s components of supply to establish whether the Council’s housing trajectory has a realistic prospect of being delivered within the Plan period, which includes a review of the Council’s assessment on lead in times and build rates, and meeting the OAHN. It goes onto review whether the Council could demonstrate a five year housing land supply (“5YHLS”) upon adoption of the Plan. Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan Housing Trajectory

Housing Trajectory (2015-2035)

3.2 The requirement set out by the Plan is sourced from the new 2017 SHMA. The Plan sets out at Policy SP1: Growth Strategy that 39,350 homes will be delivered in Central Bedfordshire over the period 2015 to 2035. This includes the 32,000 OAHN for Central Bedfordshire (or 1,600 dpa), and a commitment to facilitate 7,350 of Luton’s unmet need’ – subject to ongoing ‘duty to co-operate’ discussions and formal Local Plan Examination. This equates to an annual housing requirement of 1,968 dwellings per annum.

3.3 Tables 6.2 and 6.3 of Plan sets out that the components of supply included in the housing trajectory for the Plan period 2015 to 2035, as shown in Table 3.1, which is principally evidenced by the Council’s Housing Implementation Strategy (HIS) dated January 2018. The housing trajectory sets out that across the Plan period the Plan would deliver 41,830 against a requirement of 39,350 dwellings, of which 23,528 are existing commitments. The Plan also makes allocations and provision totalling 18,302, which consists of 4 Strategic Sites – which make up over half of all allocations – and 52 Small and Medium sites.

3.4 In respect of the windfall allowance, based on an assessment of windfall completions between 2007 and 2017 across the District and referring only to previously developed sites (excluding garden land), the Council has brought forward a windfall allowance into Plan. The Council has assumed a windfall allowance of 307 dwellings in the first five years of the Plan (years 2-5), and a large windfall allowance of 2,590 dwellings across the remaining Plan period (years 6-15). Cumulatively, this equates to a windfall allowance of 2,897 dwellings across the Plan period.

3.5 The HIS is supported by a schedule of completions and a schedule of commitments as at 31st October 2017. This has formed the basis of Lichfields review of the housing trajectory.

Pg 26 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 3.1 Existing and Proposed Housing Land Supply

Existing Commitments Dwellings Local Plan Allocations Dwellings Net Completions (2015-2017) 4,335 Small and Medium 5,505 Existing Allocations 7,742 Strategic Allocations 9,900

Strategic Sites (with P/P) 6,780 Windfall Allowance (post 5 years) 2,590

Large Windfall (with P/P) 4,023 Windfall Allowance (5 year period) 307

Small Windfall (with P/P) 648 Total 23,528 Total 18,302

Source: Table 6.2 and Table 6.2 of the Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan 2035 Pre-submission January 2018

Five Year Housing Land Supply (1st April 2018-31st March 2023)

3.6 The Council’s 5YHLS position is set out in the HIS, at paragraph 4.2.1 and Figure 4, has a base date of the 1st April 2018 and ends on the 31st March 2023. Against a requirement of 10,781, the Council’s 5YHLS would total 10,976, or surplus of 194.6 dwellings, over the five year period 2018/19 to 2022/23, which results in a 5YHLS of 5.09 years. The 5YHLS position over the five year period 2018/19 to 2022/23 is displayed below in Table 3.2, and the components of supply, which are not explicitly stated, are shown above in Table 3.1. This is based upon a five year housing land supply calculation which:

• Utilises the Plan housing requirement of 1,967.5 dwellings per annum (dpa), which includes the Central Bedfordshire OAHN (1,600 dpa) and Luton unmet need (367.5 dpa);

• Includes the backlog since 2015 (start date of the Plan), which includes partial estimates of completions for Q3-4 of the 207/18 year17. Against a requirement of 5902.5 to date (2015- 2018, 1967.5 x 3), 5,472 dwellings have been delivered, which results in a 430.5 dwelling shortfall;

• Includes a windfall allowance of 307 dwellings for small sites (under 10 dwellings) over years 2-5 of the 2018/19 to 2022/23 five year period; and

• Applies a 5% buffer against the requirement and shortfall to date.

3.7 It is considered that, although not explicitly stated, the 5YHLS is made up of a number of components which are set out in Appendix A of the HIS, and individually listed within Appendix B.

17 “In order to provide a five year housing land supply estimate for 1st April 2018, completions for 2017/18 have been partially estimated.” – Footnote 1 of the Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018)

Pg 27 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 3.2 Central Bedfordshire 5YHLS

Five Year

Period 2018-23

a Plan Requirement 39,350 b Annual Requirement (a/20) 1,967.5 c Requirement to date (b x years) 5,902.5 d Completions 5,472 e Shortfall at 31/3/17 (c-d) 430.5 f Base Requirement over next 5 years (b x 5) 9,837.5 Base Requirement over next 5 years g 10,268 plus shortfall (f + e) 5 Year Requirement and shortfall plus h 10,781.4 5% (g+5%) Revised Annual Requirement over next i 2,156.28 5 years (h/5) j Deliverable Supply over next 5 Years 10,976 Total years supply over next 5 years k 5.09 years (j/i) l ‘Surplus’ (j – h) 194.6

Source: Lichfields based on Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018) Lead-in times and Build-out rates

3.8 The Plan’s housing trajectory is underpinned by assumptions and judgements made by developers and promoters and the Council’s local analysis regarding how quickly a site will come forward (lead-in time) and how quickly it will deliver (build-out rates). Such assumptions are of particular importance given that over half of the allocations in the Plan are of a strategic scale (1,000+ dwellings) and if sites fail to come forward and deliver at the assumed rate, this will invariably result in a shortfall against the Plan requirement (notwithstanding any critique).

3.9 Large strategic housing schemes typically experience long lead-in times, with long periods between initial identification/promotion, allocation and/or applications and then development getting off the ground, with houses being completed on site. Particularly in the case of very large strategic sites comprising thousands of units, they are often not a short-term or quick solution to housing land supply. Additionally, the rate at which sites can be built out are affected by range of factors from how quickly developers can sell, to availability of materials and labour, to practical site issues such as access and phasing.

3.10 In the context of the housing trajectory, Marston Vale (allocation for c.5,000) is the largest of the four strategic allocations, projected to begin delivering in 2021/22 and c.3,700 across the Plan period (2015-2031), at a peak build rate of c.300 dwelling per annum. When viewed alongside the other strategic sites, in particular North Luton (which has broadly similar projections), there is therefore a necessity to properly evidence assumptions on lead-in times and build-out rates are necessary to ensure the trajectory is justified and that the Districts housing need can be met across the Plan period.

Pg 28 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: Build-out Rate and Lead- in Time Analysis

3.11 The Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan (2015-2035) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (January 2018) (“SHLAA”) highlights the importance of understanding how quickly a site will come forward and how quickly it will deliver. It states that site delivery timescales included in the trajectory are based on evidence submitted by site promoters, and informed by the SHLAAs assessment of the site, which includes the impacts of required mitigation (para 3.6.11); and that most of the sites included in the trajectory benefit from site specific evidence (para 3.6.12). However, to ensure a robust trajectory and provide a benchmark for sites with no specific evidence of delivery (e.g. new allocations), the Council has undertaken two assessments underpinned by local examples across the District in respect of lead-in times and build-out rates.

3.12 With regards to the assessment of lead in times, the Council reviewed 26 sites which were under construction at the time, so as to ensure that the assessment reflected the up-to-date practices, to establish the time taken from submission of outline/full applications to the delivery of the first dwellings (shown in Appendix D of the SHLAA). The Council’s assessment concludes that:

• Registration of Outline application to first completion on site – c.3 years and 6 months; and

• Registration of Full application to first completion – c.2 years and 2 months.

3.13 Furthermore, the SHLAA anticipates that a larger number of sites allocated through the Local Plan will come forward with Full applications, on the basis that the principle of the development has already been established, and that where possible, Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs) will ensure a more efficient planning process (para 3.6.12).

3.14 A further assessment of delivery on sites of 10 or more dwellings over the past three to six years was undertaken, so as to ensure that the build rates included in the trajectory are realistic (para 3.6.14). The results of which can be seen in Table 3.3. The results exclude the first and last years of delivery, on the basis that they do not represent a full 12 months.

Table 3.3 Average annual delivery rates on sites in Central Bedfordshire over the past 3 years

Annual average dwellings Site Size delivery 10-20 c.1-2 years 21-50 21 51-100 44 101-200 46 201-500 87

Source: SHLAA (January 2018) – Table 4

National evidence

3.15 Although the Council has undertaken some [limited] analysis of local lead-in times and build- out rates across Central Bedfordshire, it is important to provide some context and reference points for the assumptions made by the Council in housing trajectory, particularly in respect of strategic sites, as the aforementioned analysis only reviewed sites between 0-500 dwellings.

Pg 29 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

3.16 In November 2016 Lichfields published a research report entitled ‘Start to Finish: How quickly do large scale housing sites deliver?’18 The report, through the review of more than 150 sites nationally, provides insight to what have become perennial discussions at Local Plan examinations and Section 78 appeals in recent years; what are realistic lead-in times for large scale housing developments, and once the scheme starts delivering, what is a realistic annual build rate?

3.17 Lichfields’ research, in respect of lead-in times, concluded that lead-in times typically average c.3 years for smaller strategic sites (up-to 100 units), but that these increase to an average of c.7 years for larger strategic sites of more than 2,000 units. This reflects the fact that invariably larger sites give rise to complex planning issues related to both the principle of development and the detail of implementation.

3.18 Whilst assumptions about the annual delivery of a site are usually based on the number of sales outlets expected to operate on a site of that size (the number of different house builders or different products being delivered), Lichfields research demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between the strength of the market (as measured by residential land values) and the average annual build rates achieved. Additionally, the build-out rates of strategic schemes are influenced by the number of houses that the market can absorb; the breadth of choice of products on offer (e.g. affordable housing or build to rent) will impact market absorption because a variety of options will appeal to a greater market.

3.19 The research concluded that, on average, annual build rates for smaller strategic sites (up-to 100 units) average c.30 units each year, but these increase to an annual average of c.160 units for larger strategic sites of more than 2,000 units, which reflects the limits to number of sales outlets possible on a site, and overall market absorption rates. It should be noted that a site could be expected to deliver more (or less) than this average, and that build rates on sites fluctuate over their life.

3.20 With regards to extremely large sites that need to span more than a decade, the development will most likely happen in phases. The timing and rate of these phases will be determined by a range of factors including: the physical layout of the site, the ability to sell the homes; trigger points for payment for key social and transport infrastructure obligations; the economic cycle; and local market issues.

Local evidence

3.21 Whist the Council has undertaken an assessment of local lead-in times for development, the sites assessed did not exceed 500 dwellings in capacity, and therefore the resultant lead-in times only represent a valid assumption for some of the housing trajectory. It is therefore important that appropriate, reasonable and realistic assumptions can be made in Central Bedfordshire, in respect of large strategic developments. Accordingly, Lichfields has reviewed large strategic sites currently ongoing in the District and in neighbouring authorities (This analysis is contained within Appendix 1).

3.22 Table 3.4 illustrates that the absolute minimum lead-in times for large strategic developments in Central Bedfordshire is c.3 years, and can extend upwards of 6.5 years; however, it is important to note that none of the sites reviewed have delivered housing to date, and therefore the lead-in times are likely to increase. For example, North Houghton Regis (Site 1) was granted outline planning permission just over one year after submission, but c.four years later has yet to deliver any housing.

18 ‘Start to Finish – how quick do large-scale housing sites deliver?’ Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (2016). http://nlpplanning.com/nlp-insight?category=1 . The Report won the RTPI Research Aware for 2017

Pg 30 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

3.23 Looking to developments in neighbouring authorities, Table 3.5 demonstrates that lead-in times can extend up to 14 years, for developments which have begun to deliver housing, although is not less than seven years. Ultimately, the analysis illustrates that existing lead-in times within the area, and in neighbouring authorities, would tend to support Lichfields research findings on reasonable assumptions of lead-in times nationally, of around 6-7 years for the larger strategic sites allocated. However, this analysis fundamentally highlights that in many instances it appears that housing delivery has been significantly delayed on sites in Central Bedfordshire and neighbouring authorities by long lead-in times.

Table 3.4 Past Lead-in Times for Strategic Developments in Central Bedfordshire

Strategic Application Application Application Time since Delivery Size Development Type Submitted Determined Registration Started

North Houghton 5,150 Outline 21/12/2012 02/06/2014 5.13 years No Regis (Site 1) North Houghton 1,850 Hybrid 26/01/2015 18/11/2015 3.04 years No Regis (Site 2) East of Leighton Linslade 1,210 Outline 28/07/2011 28/08/2015 6.54 years No (Clipstone Park) East of Leighton Linslade 9,50 Outline 03/08/2011 28/08/2015 6.52 years No (Chamberlains Barn)

Source: Lichfields Analysis

3.24 Similarly to the Council’s assessment of local build rates, the assessment only reviewed sites between 10-500 dwellings. Due to large strategic developments in Central Bedfordshire not delivering, Table 3.5 sets out the build rates of developments in the neighbouring District Bedford, for which completion data is available. It is assumed most of these sites operated on the basis of multiple outlets (i.e. more than one ‘sales frontage’) as completions included multiple land parcels or phases, and the rates recorded in individual years up-to c.211 units suggest there may have been four outlets operational at times. These figures tend to be corroborated by the national picture as well as the often used industry rules of thumb which indicate a single outlet can deliver 30-50 units per annum, depending on market strength and amount of affordable housing.

3.25 The analysis demonstrates that on average strategic developments deliver between c.100-120 dpa, with peak delivery rates reaching higher levels. Indeed, the highest build rate recorded was c.211dpa at Great Denham in 2016/17; however, build rates across the life of the development to date have varied significantly, resulting in an average build rate of c.120 dpa. Again, the analysis supports Lichfields research findings that on average strategic sites tend to deliver around c.161 dpa.

Pg 31 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 3.5 Past Delivery Rates/Lead-in Times of Strategic Scale Developments – Bedford Borough Council

Past Average Past Peak Delivery Strategic Delivery Rates Rates (dwellings Size Lead-in Times Start Development (dwellings per per annum) annum) Wixams (LPA: Bedford Borough 4,500 9 years 2008/09 101 160 Council) Great Denham (LPA: Bedford Borough 1,712 7 years 2009/10 120 211 Council) West Kempston (LPA: Bedford 1,064 8 years 2010/11 105 195 Borough Council) Land north of Bromham Road (LPA: 1,300 14 years 2016/17 33 ~ Bedford Borough Council)

Overall Average19 ~ 9.5 ~ 109 189

Source: Lichfields Analysis and Bedford Borough Council Annual Monitoring Reviews (2008-1016) Review of Housing Trajectory

3.26 The NPPF sets out that LPAs should identify land supply in order to meet their OAHN and that this should be based upon (para 159) realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and economic viability of land over the plan period. The NPPF is clear that Plans should be deliverable (para 173), and national policy states that in plan-making it is “important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planning infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.” (para 177).

3.27 Therefore, in order to ensure it is effective, the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan needs to ensure its housing trajectory is sufficient to meet the housing needs of the District, maintain a rolling supply of deliverable land and retain flexibility in order to ensure the Plan’s housing requirement is met.

3.28 It is considered that a majority of the sites included in the Council’s housing trajectory, subject to allocation, would be developed and delivered at some point over the plan period. However, the focus of this review of the housing trajectory has been to address the likely delivery of the larger strategic sites, sites where there are known issues and windfall assumptions.

Strategic Allocations and Commitments

3.29 The housing trajectory includes four large strategic allocations proposed within the Plan; however, the two largest allocations shown below, are expected to come forward within the formative five years of the Plan (e.g. 2021-2022), and are each individually reviewed below:

19 Overall Average of ‘Average Build Rate’ and ‘Peak Built Rate’ exclude Land North of Bromham Road due to the site having only just commenced, with a relatively low first year completion data, which would significantly reduce the average and peak build rates.

Pg 32 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

• North of Luton – An allocation for 4,000 dwellings, with 3,100 dwellings anticipated over the plan period, at an average build rate of 238 dwellings per annum and a peak delivery rate of 300 dwellings per annum.

• Marston Vale – An allocation for 5,000 dwellings, with 3,700 dwellings anticipated over the plan period, at an average build rate of 264 dwellings per annum and a peak delivery rate of 300 dwellings per annum.

North of Luton: Policy SA1

3.30 The Plan proposes the allocation of Land North of Luton for c.4,000 dwellings. The housing trajectory (HIS – Appendix B), on the basis of information supplied by the agent and the production of a framework, assumes that the site will commence delivery in 2022/23 with 50 dwellings delivered within the first year, increasing across the five years and then peaking at c.300 dwellings per annum in 2027/28 until the end of the Plan period. In total, the trajectory assumes that the site would deliver c.3,100 dwellings over the Plan period, with the remaining c.900 to be delivered beyond 2035.

3.31 The land is controlled by the multiple parties: the eastern part of the site is controlled by the North of Luton Consortium20 – as well as the Council – and the western part of the site is controlled by AXA. A formal land ownership agreement between the Council and other land owners is currently being undertaken, which the Council do not consider should unduly delay the progression of development.

3.32 Whilst the agent has indicated the expected delivery rates to the Council, it seems overly optimistic that the site will deliver housing within the next four years. Moreover, whilst the site should be considered ‘available’, in the sense that the landowners wish to sell/develop the site, the site should not be considered ‘deliverable’, on the basis that very little evidence has been given in support of this assumption.

3.33 In particular, the housing trajectory acknowledges site specific constraints regarding the issue of multiple land owners and the necessity of flood mitigation measures across the site. Furthermore, the proposed Policy SA1 sets out that prior to the approval of planning permission, a Development Brief including phasing and design codes for each phase will need to be adopted by the Council, and that the “development will be phased in accordance with the timing of supporting infrastructure and community facilities including the delivery of the Link road, which shall be delivered as soon as viably possible…to facilitate access to the first phase of development and Sundon RFI employment allocation.”

3.34 The extent of work to be undertaken in the context of this exceptionally large overall development, including the necessary supporting infrastructure (A6-M1 Link Road), are factors which serve to highlight it is unlikely that the site could begin delivering within the next 4 years. It is more realistic to consider units becoming available in the latter years of the trajectory, and therefore, it is considered that the earliest conceivable delivery will be in 2024/25 – reflecting a conservative six year lead in time.

3.35 In respect of delivery rates, the Council’s housing trajectory assumes that the site will deliver an average of c.238 dwellings per annum, with peak delivery rates reaching c.300 dwellings per annum for the last 8 years of the plan period, which appears overly optimistic in the context of the evidence of previous delivery rates and in the absence of any specific evidence to support how a higher rate would be achieved on the site. In particular, the assumed peak build rate [sustained for over 8 years], when compared to the delivery rates of Wixams, a site of

20 North of Luton Consortium – AXA IM, Martin Grant Homes, Davidsons, Taylor Wimpey, Prologis and Persimmon Homes

Pg 33 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

comparable size, the assumed average delivery rate would be over double (c.238 compared to c.101 dwellings per annum), and the peak delivery rate would nearly double (c.300 compared to c.160 dwellings per annum).

3.36 A strategic development of this size is likely to come forward in phases, most likely with multiple outlets operating on the site (North of Luton Consortium); however, both our research and delivery rates on sites of comparable size within the neighbouring authority would indicate that a more realistic and achievable delivery rate of c.225 dwellings per annum (peak), or an average of c.191 dwellings per annum, would be more reasonable. It is considered that adopting a reasonable lead-in time and adopting a realistic trajectory, evidenced by the delivery rates of comparable strategic developments, results in the site delivering c.2,100 across the Plan period, with the remainder delivered post 2035; c.1,000 dwellings less that the Council are currently relying upon for their housing trajectory.

Marston Vale New Villages: Policy SA2

3.37 The Plan proposes the allocation of Marston Vale for c.5,000 dwellings. The housing trajectory (HIS – Appendix B), on the basis of information supplied by the agent, assumes that the site will commence delivery in 2021/22 with 50 dwellings delivered within the first year, increasing across the following two years and then peaking at c.300 dwellings per annum in 2024/25 until the end of the Plan period. In total, the trajectory assumes that the site would deliver c.3,700 dwellings over the Plan period, with the remaining c.1,300 t be delivered beyond 2035.

3.38 The land is controlled by one owner (O&H Group Ltd), and the agent (David Lock Associates), on behalf of the landowner and in response to the Draft Local Plan (June 2017) (“DLP”), reinforced that the “with an effective planning framework, delivery can commence within 5 years” and that the landowner “welcome discussions with CBC regarding mechanisms to facilitate early delivery” (Appendix 1 Site Assessment Review - Delivery). Furthermore, an Indicative Framework Plan was submitted in support of the representation; however, is not available for review.

3.39 Whilst the agent has indicated, subject to an effective framework, that the site could begin delivery within 4 years, it is considered that such assumptions are optimistic. It is unclear as to what evidence has been submitted by the landowner to demonstrate to the Council that such a timescale could be feasible and achievable, however, on the basis that the Council has provided very little evidence in support of this assumption, it is reasonable to conclude that a site of such scale would not begin delivering until much later in the plan period.

3.40 In particular, as with all strategic allocations, prior to the approval of planning permission, a Development Brief including phasing and design codes for each phase will need to be adopted by the Council. Much like other strategic sites of this scale, both within the District and in neighbouring authorities, it is reasonable to assume that the scheme would be developed through a number of phases, and that accordingly reserved matters applications would be required for each phase. Furthermore, the land parcels would need to be sold to housebuilders prior to commencement. On the basis of uncertainty surrounding these matters, it is considered that this assumed speed of delivery is unjustified and there is no evidence that this is realistically achievable, and therefore a more realistic start date would be 2024/25.

3.41 It is also considered that the delivery rate contained within the housing trajectory is unrealistic or has not been sufficiently justified. It would be reasonable to assume that on a site of this scale, multiple housebuilders would operate across various phases; however, at present it’s unclear and uncertain as to how many housebuilders would potentially operate on site. Moreover, similar to the above critique of Policy SA1, the assumed peak delivery rate of c.300 dwellings per annum [sustained for 10 years] would far exceed that recorded in a scheme of

Pg 34 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

comparable size (Wixams), and would be almost double the average national delivery rates, as per Lichfields research.

3.42 The PPG provides guidance on assessing the availability of a site, and in particular, refers to the need to consider “the delivery record of the developers or landowners putting forward sites” (ID: 3-020). In this context, the assumed build rates at Marston Vale would be faster than the rates achieved by the landowner (O&H Group Ltd) at one of its other flagship schemes – the 6,320 Unit Hamptons Scheme in Peterborough – where average delivery rates have been c.224 dwellings per annum.

3.43 Against this context, it would be more reasonable to assume a realistic and achievable delivery rate of 225 dpa. As such the site would deliver c.2,100 dwellings across the Plan period, with the remainder delivered post 2035; c.1,600 dwellings less that the Council are currently relying upon for their housing trajectory.

Windfall

3.44 The NPPF, at paragraph 48, sets out that LPAs may include a windfall allowance sites in the five-year supply; however, is clear that any windfalls allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens. Moreover, the PPG states that LPAs can include this windfall allowance in broad locations in years 6-15 of the Local Plan, based on a geographical area, and subject to the criteria in paragraph 48 of the NPPF (ID: 03- 24).

3.45 The Council has included two windfall allowances in its housing trajectory of both the SHLAA and HIS, which are underpinned by the Windfall Topic Paper (2017) (“the Topic Paper”), which includes an assessment of windfall completions between 2007 and 2017 across the District and referring only to previously developed sites (excluding garden land):

• Small windfall allowance (sites under 10 dwellings) – Five year supply only; and

• Windfall allowance (Based on broad locations) – Years 6 to 15 only.

3.46 The Topic Paper recommends a small site windfall allowance of 140 dpa in years 1 to 5, and broad locations windfall allowance for all sites of 287 dpa in years 6 to 15 of the Plan period. However, the SHLAA highlights that it is important to ensure that any windfall does not double count with the existing committed windfall sites included in the housing trajectory. Accordingly, reductions are made for years where committed windfall sites are scheduled for delivery (para 3.7.4).

3.47 The reduced figures are set out in full in the housing trajectory and Table 6 of the SHLAA, which anticipates a small windfall allowance of 307 dwellings in the first five years of the Plan (years 2-5), and a broad location windfall allowance of 2,590 dwellings across the remaining plan period (years 6-15). Cumulatively, this equates to a windfall allowance of 2,897 dwellings across the Plan period. However, there are a number of discrepancies with the Council’s evidence, particularly in relation to the inclusion of a combined small and large windfall allowance in years 6 to 15 of the housing trajectory. The assumed windfall allowances are of particular importance, as the Plan states these components of the housing trajectory have been included to provide a contingency on the plan target (para 6.10.1).

Windfall Topic Paper (January 2018)

3.48 The Topic Paper examines the past trends and potential for future delivery of housing on windfall sites, across the 2007 to 2017 (10 year period), to establish whether a windfall

Pg 35 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

allowance for residential development should be included within the five year supply of deliverable housing land and beyond – summarised in Appendix 1.

3.49 Across April 2007 to April 2017 in Central Bedfordshire 12,694 dwellings were completed, of which 5,442 dwellings were on windfall land. This on average equates to around 544 dwellings per annum, or 44% of the average (1,269) annual completions. However, 12% of this was on ‘garden land’. Therefore, when excluding garden land, between 2007 and 2017, there have been a total of 4,782 windfall completions or 478 dwellings per annum. The assessment then breaks this down into two categories – small windfall (under 10 dwellings) and large windfall (over 10 dwellings). Of the 4,782, only 31% (1,481 or 148 dwellings per annum) were small windfall sites, with the remainder being on larger windfall sites. The initial assessment concludes that, in respect of a small sites windfall allowance, that an allowance should be included (para 2.3.7); however, in respect of larger sites, that there is no case to add such an allowance within the five year period, although it would be reasonable to include such an allowance in years 6-15 of the housing trajectory (para 2.3.9)

3.50 In respect of the small windfall allowance (e.g. five year supply period) (140 dpa), the assessment goes onto calculate the average expiry and completion rates for windfall on small sites between 2012 and 2016. It concludes that on average 34.43% will be completed whilst permission will expire for 4.40% in the following 12 months (para 3.1.2); however, to ensure a robust trajectory, an expiry rate of 10% is recommended (para 3.1.3). Moreover, the Topic Paper recognises that the delivery of large strategic sites may impact on windfall rates, and accordingly has reviewed the impacts of two large sites (Land East of Biggleswade and Land South of Leighton Buzzard) on windfall rates. Based on this analysis, the Topic Paper concludes that the impacts of large strategic sites on future windfall delivery will be negligible, however recommends a 5% deduction. Applying the above analysis and assessments to the initial average windfall allowance (148 dpa) gives 141 dwellings per annum, however, this is reduced to 140 dwellings per annum in the interest of robustness.

3.51 With regards to the PPG and the inclusion of broad location windfall allowances in years 6 to 15 of the housing trajectory, the Topic Paper states that there is a case for a windfall allowance for sites of all sizes to be included in the Trajectory after the first five years (para 5.3.2). It then undertakes analysis of the geographical distribution of windfall development over the past 10 years. The analysis indicates that predominantly windfall has been distributed throughout the District, although typically urban parishes contribute the most, which aligns with Major and Minor Services Centres in the Plan. With regards to non-implementation rates, the Topic Paper acknowledges that some permissions will expire; however, due to individual assessments of larger sites in the housing trajectory, a non-implementation rate is not necessary.

3.52 In respect of the PPG and the inclusion of broad location windfall allowances in years 6 to 15 of the housing trajectory, the Topic Paper states that there is a case for a windfall allowance for sites of all sizes to be included in the Trajectory after the first five years (para 5.3.2). It then undertakes analysis of the geographical distribution of windfall development over the past 10 years. The analysis indicates that predominantly windfall has been distributed throughout the District, although typically urban parishes contribute the most, which aligns with Major and Minor Services Centres in the Plan. With regards to non-implementation rates, the Topic Paper acknowledges that some permissions will expire; however, due to individual assessments of larger sites in the housing trajectory, a non-implementation rate is not necessary.

3.53 In establishing the potential impact of large strategic sites on future windfall sites (of all sizes), the Topic Paper indicates that its analysis of the impacts of two large sites (Land East of Biggleswade and Land South of Leighton Buzzard) on windfall rates as whole is more notable, and therefore tested reductions of 20%, 30% and 40% to the broad location annual average

Pg 36 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

delivery rates of all windfall sites, and concludes that although ‘the supply of windfall sites does not appear to be diminishing it is important for the Local Plan to not be overly reliant on this source of supply’ and recommended that a conservative approach is adopted and a 40% reduction should be applied to all broad locations (para 5.3.2). As such, the Topic Paper concludes that the initial average total windfall allowance of 478 should be reduced to 278 dwellings per annum in years 6 to 15.

Lichfields Review of Windfall Allowances

3.54 In respect of small windfall allowance, it is considered that the windfall allowance is evidenced by the Topic Paper, which specifies the historic windfall completions, accounting for lapse rates and the impact of large sites on the delivery of windfall sites, and therefore, the inclusion of the small windfall allowance in the housing trajectory, and subsequent 5YHLS, is broadly acceptable. Whilst the standard practice is to only apply it to years 3-5 of the current five year period to ensure there is no double counting with planning permissions which are currently being built out to come forward as windfalls (i.e. small site permissions), and the Council have applied this rate to years 2-5 of the five year period, as stated above, the SHLAA has reduced anticipated small windfall allowances on the basis of existing committed windfall sites included in the housing trajectory, and therefore does not double count (para 3.7.4). It is however, the ‘broad location’ windfall allowance in years 6 to 15 of the housing trajectory that is of significant concern.

3.55 The broad location windfall allowance includes all sites (e.g. small and large windfall sites) for years 6 to 15. Whilst the inclusion of a windfall allowance for broad locations in years 6 to 15 is considered acceptable, the inclusion of large windfall sites (10 dwellings and above) is not considered to be justified or in accordance with the PPG.

3.56 Whilst the it is noted that the importance of windfall sites, despite the proposed allocation of several strategic level sites, will remain, it should be noted that the Council acknowledge that the increase in permitted large windfall sites in the past is in part due to the effects of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (para 2.3.8, Windfall Topic Paper January 2018). Therefore, where historically the Council has been unable to demonstrate a 5YHLS, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF, the number of ‘large windfall sites’ has increased. However, if the Plan were to be adopted, the Council is required to allocate a sufficient and flexible amount of housing within its housing trajectory (para 14 of the NPPF) so as to ensure that the Council should be able to demonstrate a 5YHLS across the plan period. Critically, this means that the number of ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development21’ large windfall sites permitted should be nil.

3.57 In essence, the failure of CBC to have an up-to-date Local Plan has artificially inflated ‘windfall’ supply. The appropriate response to this is to ensure a proper plan-led response, not an assumption that such ‘windfall’ rates will continue in the future. Indeed, assuming it will, suggests that the Plan doesn’t have sufficient in-built flexibility.

3.58 Furthermore, paragraph 48 of the NPPF is clear that windfall allowances should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In its assessment of sites, the SHLAA only considered sites of 10 dwellings and above, and of the 756 sites assessed, only 69 were considered ‘deliverable’ and 20 considered ‘developable’. Notwithstanding any critique of the SHLAAs assessment criteria, the Council’s evidence (e.g. the SHLAA) states that only 89 sites across the District are acceptable for development within the plan period. So long as the

21 Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Pg 37 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Council maintains a 5YHLS, sites identified in the SHLAA as unsuitable, should not come forward under the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Table 3.6 Windfall Allowance Calculations

Council’s Windfall Calculation Annual Average Local Plan Supply Over Windfall Allowance Deduction Delivery Allowance Plan Period Council’s Windfall Calculation Small Windfall (five year supply 148 5% 140 307 period only) All Windfall from broad 478 40% 287 2,59022 locations (years 6-15 only)

Lichfields Windfall Calculation

Small Windfall (five year supply 148 5% 140 307 period only) Small Windfall from broad 148 5% 140 1,37323 locations (years 6-15 only)

Source: Lichfields based on Windfall Topic Paper (January 2018)

3.59 Therefore, any broad location windfall allowance should only include small sites. On this basis, as evidenced in Appendix 1, applying the small sites annual average (c.31%) across the broad locations and working on the Council’s reduction (5%), to take account of the potential impact of large allocated sites, Table 3.6 shows a revised broad location allowance for years 6 to 15 of the housing trajectory. This position includes a discount for those windfall sites which are already listed in the HIS, to ensure that there is no double counting. As a result, the revised broad location windfall allowance would equate to 140 dwellings per annum, or 1,373 dwellings over the Plan period, a -1,217 dwelling reduction.

Flexibility and security of land supply

3.60 The NPPF sets out at para 14 that Local Plans should retain “sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change”. In practice this means ensuring a housing trajectory has sufficient land supply across the Plan period so that it can adjust and accommodate any unforeseen circumstances. Critically, this means that to achieve a housing requirement a Local Plan must release sufficient land, or allow sufficient headroom, so that there is an appropriate buffer within the overall planned supply. This is separate from a buffer on the 5YHLS, although there is some overlap of function between the headroom and buffer; headroom covers the eventuality that across the plan period some sites may not come forward – at all, or at the allocated rates – and ensures that the minimum target is met.

3.61 The Plan, at Tables 6.2 and 6.3, evidenced by the trajectory in the HIS, sets out that the Plan makes provision for a supply of 41,830 dwellings over the plan period (2015-2035), which the HIS states results in a 2,480 – or 6% – surplus against the Plans requirement (39,350 dwellings). The Plan goes onto state that a “modest contingency on the ‘supply’ of sites has been applied to provide a failsafe if sites fail to come forward as scheduled in our delivery plan” to ensure that the plan will deliver throughout the plan period and so that Council can maintain a 5YHLS (para 6.6.2), which is principally achieved through the inclusion of a ‘moderate amount of windfall’ (para 6.10.1). Moreover, the Plan has identified Future Growth areas which may be required to “serve development needs in the longer term beyond the plan period or potentially

22 Excluding existing small and large windfall commitments included in the housing trajectory. 23 Excluding existing small windfall commitments included in the housing trajectory.

Pg 38 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

at an earlier point in time if the wider context changes” (para 7.9.1), subject to the Partial Review.

3.62 This contingency (6%) is lower than that included in the DLP, which at Table 7.2 included two contingency uplifts to the housing requirement [and unmet need] – 10% and 20% – which resulted in a range of between 19,000 to 31,000 dwellings. Whilst it is noted that the DLP stated that the next version of the Plan is likely to contain a certain level of growth, including a contingency, the Plan’s contingency is lower than the 10% identified as the “lower end of the range” in the DLP.

3.63 Notwithstanding the critique of the Council’s strategic site allocations above, it is considered that the Plans housing trajectory allows for limited flexibility in meeting the proposed 39,350 housing figure to respond to changing circumstances. If any single component of supply does not come forward or if, for example, the strategic sites falls behind the timescales indicated in the trajectory the housing figure is unlikely to be fulfilled and the housing needs will not be met.

3.64 In particular, the Council’s contingency relies significantly on the inclusion of two windfall allowances, despite the Topic Paper, in its recommendation for windfall allowances in the District, stating that “though the supply of windfall sites does not appear to be diminishing it is important for the Local Plan to not be overly reliant on this source of supply” (para 5.3.2). In line with the critique of the Council’s windfall allowances above, the housing trajectories headroom would further decrease by c.1,217. Moreover, whilst it is noted that future growth areas identified could come forward within the plan period ‘if the wider context changes’, these sites are not allocated in the Plan as reserve sites, are subject to further assessment, and therefore do not facilitate, nor constitute, additional headroom in the trajectory.

3.65 In the context of the above critiques on the Plans trajectory, including assumptions on strategic sites and windfall allowances, it is strongly recommended that greater flexibility be built into the Plan, through the allocation of further sites, to provide more headroom in the trajectory over the lifetime of the plan, irrespective of the Plan identifying future areas for growth.

Lichfields Alternative Trajectory

3.66 On the basis of the above housing trajectory review, it is considered that the housing trajectory for Central Bedfordshire across the plan period(2015-2035) is deficient, with the plan failing to identify sufficient sources of supply to meet its housing needs over the plan period. This is principally a result of over-optimistic assumptions regarding lead-in times and build-out rates at proposed strategic allocations, and a contingency rate underpinned on the incorrect application of a windfall rate across the latter part of the plan period. This is demonstrated in Table 3.7, which shows the supply against the housing requirement.

3.67 The Council’s trajectory includes a 2,480 surplus – or 6% contingency – against the housing requirement, which is primarily through the inclusion of a large windfall rate of c.2,590 in the latter part of the plan period. Under our trajectory, which includes more realistic, and achievable lead-in times and build-out rates, and the correct application of a windfall rate, the Council’s housing trajectory would not meet the housing requirement, with a shortfall of c.- 1,337 over the plan period (or a 3% shortfall) – a summary of our amendments can be found in Appendix 1.

3.68 When including a reasonable – if not necessary – 10% contingency buffer, even the Council’s housing trajectory would require the further identification and allocation of a further c.1,500 dwellings, to ensure that the housing trajectory is sufficiently flexible. However, this gap significantly increases on the basis of Lichfields more realistic trajectory, to c.5,300. Fundamentally, it is considered that the scale of shortfall (including a 10% contingency buffer)

Pg 39 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

in the trajectory for the plan period is significant, strategic in scale and would require the Local Plan to make additional allocations at vari0us scales. This is necessary in order to address the scale of the shortfall and ensure that a supply of specific sites or broad locations is available for the whole plan period as required by NPPF para 47.

3.69 In conclusion, even against the Council’s own housing requirement, notwithstanding our critique in Section 2.0, it is considered that the Local Plan would fail to make appropriate provision for sufficient housing to meet the housing requirement, with further site allocations required within this plan in order to ensure an overall strategy that is deliverable and sufficiently flexible to respond to change. Moreover, this does not factor in any increase to the Council’s OAHN – which Lichfields consider it should – and therefore, this undersupply would likely increase significantly, further emphasising that the Council will need to allocate more sites of varying sizes to ensure a robust trajectory, with sufficient flexibility, to meet housing needs across the plan period.

Table 3.7 CBC Housing Trajectory Breakdown by Type

Lichfields CBC (CBC Housing Target) Total Housing Requirement 39,350 Housing Requirement (including 41,711 6% contingency) Housing Requirement (including 43,285 10% contingency) Supply Net Completions (2015-2017) 4,335 4,335 Existing Commitments Existing Allocations 7,742 7,742 Strategic Sites (with P/P) 6,780 6,780 Large Windfall (with P/P) 4,023 4,023 Small Windfall (with P/P) 648 648 Total Existing Commitments 23,528 23,528 Local Plan Allocations Strategic Allocations 9,900 7,300 Small and Medium 5,505 5,505 Windfall Allowance (post 5 years) 2,590 1,373 Windfall Allowance (5 year 307 307 period) Total Local Plan Allocations 18,302 14,485 Total Supply against Requirement Total Supply 41,830 38,013 Shortfall/Surplus 2,480 (6%) -1,337 (3%) Gap (shortfall and 6-10% c.0-1,455 c.3,898-5,272 contingency)

Source: Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018) and Appendices

Pg 40 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Review of 5 Year Housing Land Supply

3.70 The NPPF sets out (para 47) that Local Planning Authorities should demonstrate a five year supply of housing (including an additional buffer) and that this should be maintained throughout the plan period. Upon adoption, it is crucial that the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan has a robust five year housing land supply.

Housing Requirement

3.71 Notwithstanding our critique of the Council’s OAHN and unmet needs, against the Council’s housing requirement set out in the Plan of 32,350, the Council identifies that over a five year period this amounts to 9,837.5 units (1,967.5 x 5). It is considered that this is calculated using the ‘Sedgefield’ approach to shortfall (e.g. including backlog in the five year period), including applying a 5% buffer. However, as set out in Section 2.0, Lichfields consider the proposed housing requirement would not meet the full OAHN of the District, or make contribution to the unmet needs of other parts of the housing market area.

3.72 The following reviews the assumed key components of the Council’s stated position from their Housing Implementation Strategy (HIS, January 2018 – Appendix B). The Council has used a base date of 1st April 2018.

Backlog and Buffer

3.73 The Council include backlog since the 2015 base date of the Plan. The HIS, at Appendix B, indicates that between 2015 and 2018 the Council has delivered 5,472 dwellings, which includes a partial estimate of Q3-4 of the 2017/18 period (equating to 1,137 dwellings). This result in a shortfall of -430.5 comparative to the need of 5,902.5 dwellings (1,967.5 x 4) over the same period. The Council acknowledges this under delivery, and applies a 5% buffer, as required under paragraph 47 of the NPPF, in order to:

“Provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.”

Housing Supply

3.74 The following sections review the sites included within the HIS (January 2018) to assess whether they are deliverable in the 5 year period. ‘Deliverable’ is defined in footnote 11 of the NPPF as sites which are available now, suitable now and achievable (including whether they are viable). However, the HIS is unclear as to what forms the components of supply in the Council’s 5YHLS, as it only states the total supply of c.10,976 over the period 2018/19 to 2023/24.

3.75 It is presumed that all sites, including allocations in the Plan, that are considered deliverable (e.g. within five years), and form part of the housing trajectory also form the 5YHLS. On this basis, we have reviewed the housing trajectory assumptions on lead-in times and build-out rates to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of the sites coming forward within the five year period. It is considered that largely the sites included in the Council’s 5YHLS could be considered deliverable against footnote 11 of the NPPF; however, the key issues arising from the Council’s five year housing land supply position are identified below under the different ‘presumed’ components of supply.

Strategic Allocations

3.76 As set out above, the Plan includes two strategic allocations – North of Luton and Marston Vale – which are assumed to begin delivering within the five year period (2018/19-2023/24), equating to c.200 dwellings across the later stage of the five year period. However, it can be

Pg 41 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

considered that the Council’s inclusion of these dwellings in the next five years is extremely unlikely to be delivered, as demonstrated above. Accordingly, it is considered that these sites are discounted form the 5YHLS, resulting in a reduction of c.200 dwellings.

Existing Allocations and Commitments 1 East of Leighton Linslade (Clipstone Park) – Outline planning permission (Ref: CB/11/02827/OUT) was granted in 28/08/2015 for c1,280 dwellings. The Council has included the site in the housing trajectory, with an assumed start date of 2019/20 at c.80 dpa, increasing to c.150 dpa in the second year. The site is expected to deliver c.530 dwellings in the five year period. The housing trajectory indicates that the housebuilders assumed a start date of 2018/19 and delivery rates of c.150 dpa; however, the Council have pushed the start date back by 1 year and included a c.80 dpa first year completion rate. Moreover, it states that applications for the service roads were expected in 2017, and the first reserved matters application to be submitted in January 2018. Notwithstanding the sale of the site, nor the uncertainty of the housebuilders that may be involved in the site, it does not appear that either of the necessary applications has been submitted. It is considered that the assumed lead in time of 1 year would not be sufficient time to secure both a reserved matters application, permission for services roads, and undertake the appropriate opening up works. Accordingly, it would be more realistic – if not conservative – to push the start date back by a further year, to 2020/21. As such, the sites would only deliver c.380 dpa in the five year period, a c.150 reduction. 2 East of Leighton Linslade (Chamberlains Barn) – The site benefits from outline planning consent (Ref: CB/11/01937/OUT) c.950 dwellings, granted 28/08/2015, and full permission for the necessary opening up works (Ref: CB/11/01940/FULL, granted 28/08/2015). The housing trajectory anticipates the site to deliver c.100 dwellings in 2019/20, increasing in the second year to c.150 dwellings per annum, and delivering c.550 dwellings over the five year period. The trajectory states the housing will be delivered prior to the completion of the access road, that groundworks are underway, and that 16 of the 17 pre-commencement conditions have been discharged, with the agreement of a ‘Area Design Code’ to be finalised and that a reserved matters application was to be submitted in December 2017. Furthermore, it notes that the agent (Savills) provided build rates of c.20 dwellings per annum in 208/19, increasing to c.150 dwellings per annum thereafter; however the Council have taken a conservative approach and pushed the assumed delivery date back by 1 year to 2019/20. However, although some work on the Area Design Code is underway, on the basis that no Reserved Matters applications have been submitted as yet, the lack of certainty or involvement of a housebuilder, and extent of work still to be undertaken in the context of the above, it is considered that the Council’s ‘conservative’ approach (e.g. pushing delivery back by 1 year) is not sufficient enough time to ensure that a Reserved Matters is secured and for development to commence. An assumed start date of 2020/21 ensures a more realistic 2 year lead-in time. Furthermore, whilst the agent (Savills) has indicated the expected delivery rates to the Council, it is considered that, in the absence of any specific evidence to support how a higher rate would be achieved, the assumed build rates are overly optimistic and unrealistic for the following reasons. Firstly, the assumed first year build rate (c.100) is contrary to the evidence given by the agent, who stated that the first year would deliver c.20 dwellings. Secondly, the housing trajectory states that the land is currently being sold to a housebuilder. On the basis that only one outlet would be operating on site (and there is no evidence to the contrary), it is considered that the Council’s assumed delivery rates of

Pg 42 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

c.100dpa and c.150dpa are not realistic or achievable. As such, it would be more realistic and achievable to assume a build rate of 100 dpa. As such, the assumed build rate has been reduced to c.20 in 2020/21, increasing to c.100 in the following years, which would reduce the sites output from c.550 to c.220 in the 2018/19-2022/23 five year period – a reduction of c.330 dwellings.

Concluded five year housing land supply

3.77 The above review of the Council’s five year land supply position from its HIS is summarised in the table below and a summary of Lichfields amendments can be found in Appendix 1. It measures the Council’s five year supply against its stated position and Lichfields’ housing land supply position, underpinned by the above review of housing supply, assessed against the Council’s requirement.

Table 3.8 CBC 5YHLS (as at 1st April 2018)

CBC Scenario 1

a Plan Requirement 39,350 39,350 b Annual Requirement (a/20) 1,967.5 1,967.5 c Requirement to date (b x years) 5,902.5 5,902.5 d Completions 5,472 5,472 e Shortfall at 31/3/17 (c-d) 430.5 430.5 Base Requirement over next 5 years (b f 9,837.5 9,837.5 x 5) Base Requirement over next 5 years g 10,268 10,268 plus shortfall (f + e) 5 Year Requirement and shortfall h 10,781.4 10,781.4 plus5% (g+5%) 5 Revised Annual Requirement over i 2,156.28 2,156.28 next 5 years (h/5) j Deliverable Supply over next 5 Years 10,976 10,296 Total years supply over next 5 years k 5.09 years 4.77 (j/i) l ‘Surplus’ (j – h) 194.6 -485.4

Source: Lichfields based on Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018)

3.78 The 5YHLS includes a number of strategic level sites, expected to begin delivering within the latter part of the five year period (2018/19-2023/24). The above review has demonstrated that a number of these sites include unrealistic and unjustified lead-in times and build-out rates, with little evidence to suggest that such assumptions are realistic and achievable, and as such should either be discounted or removed from the supply.

3.79 The review shows that against the Plan requirement (39,350) that the Central Bedfordshire does not have a five year housing land supply, with a housing land supply of 4.77 years and a shortfall of c.-485.4 dwellings. This shortfall is against the Council’s OAN and Luton’s unmet need; however, were the Council’s OAHN to increase, this shortfall would obviously increase more significantly.

Pg 43 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Summary and Conclusions

3.80 In summary, the Council consider that the housing trajectory set out in the HIS, underpinning the Plan, over the period 2015-2035, would equate to a 2,480 surplus (or 6% contingency) against the Plan requirement of 39,350. Furthermore, the Council also consider that the Plan would be able to demonstrate a 5YHLS of 5.09 years, with a surplus of c.194.6 dwellings over the five year period 2018/19 to 2023/24. However, the following conclusions can be drawn from Lichfields review of the housing trajectory and 5YHLS: 1 National and local evidence of comparable strategic schemes suggest average lead-in times of over 6 years, with average build rates of 120 dwellings per annum, and peak build rate of 211 dwellings per annum; 2 Both the North Luton and Marston Vale strategic allocations are unlikely to come forward until 2024/25, and not at the Council’s assumed peak delivery rate of 300 dwellings per annum; 3 The Council incorrectly includes a windfall allowance in the later part of the plan period which includes both small and large sites (over 10 dwellings); and 4 East of Leighton Linsdale – Clipstone Park and Chamberlains Barn are unlikely to come forward in the manner envisaged by the Council.

3.81 In conclusion, the above review of the Council’s housing trajectory and 5YHLS means that: 1 The overall the housing trajectory for the plan period is deficient and the scale of shortfall is considered too large and significant enough to require the identification of further supply, at varying sizes, now; 2 The Council does not have a five year housing land supply, particularly against Lichfields realistic and achievable land supply, with a shortfall of 437.6 dwellings; and 3 More flexibility should be put into the housing trajectory to ensure that the full housing need can be met across the whole of the Plan period, even against the Council’s flawed plan requirement.

Pg 44 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

4.0 Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives

4.1 The Council has concluded through the latest (January 2018) iteration of the Sustainability Appraisal (“the 2018 SA”) that the most appropriate and sustainable spatial strategy for the District is to meet Central Bedfordshire’s OAHN (32,000) and the unmet need of LBC (7,350). The purpose of this section is to review whether the Council suitably tested reasonable alternatives for growth in line with national planning policy and guidance requirements in selecting the appropriate level of growth, including the balancing of housing delivery against the wider sustainability objectives, and, in particular in electing to reduce its housing trajectory from the ranges identified in the DLP consultation. Policy and Guidance

4.2 The PPG sets out the requirements for SA based on the relevant legal framework. The 2004 Regulations set out the basis for Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Plans with regulation 12(2) necessitating the assessment of reasonable alternatives in the context of the objectives and geographic scope of the Plan.

4.3 The PPG sets out that the SA is to ensure that the proposals of the Plan are the most appropriate (ID: 11-001), given the potential effects of its policies on environmental, social and economic conditions and the requirements of the NPPF at paragraph 152. The PPG defines that reasonable alternatives should be considered at an early stage (ID: 11-017) and compared on a like-for-like basis at the same level of detail (ID: 11-018). The PPG states reasonable alternatives should be:

• Realistic and deliverable;

• Sufficiently distinct to highlight different sustainability implications of each; and

• Allow for meaningful comparison.

4.4 The PPG (ID: 11-018) requires SA should outline why the chosen alternatives were selected and, once these are appraised, outline the reasons rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach. Central Bedfordshire Growth Strategy

4.5 The DLP set out a Growth Strategy that included ranges of growth for the District, stating that the Plan sought to “deliver between 20,000 and 30,000 homes”, across four ‘Growth Areas’ (A- D) over the plan period 2015 to 2035. This range was underpinned by the Sustainability Appraisal (July 2017) (“the 2017 SA”), which identified a number of potential ‘Growth Scenarios’ at varying ‘Growth Locations’, which were formulated through the SA assessment framework, site assessments, and growth option studies (as shown in Table 4.1).

Pg 45 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 4.1 Central Bedfordshire Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Growth Scenarios

Growth Scenario Options Potential Housing Numbers Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 Area A North of Luton 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 Green Belt Villages 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 3,000 West of Luton 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 Area B Tempsford 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 0 East of Biggleswade 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 Biggleswade 0 0 500 0 0 East of Arlesey 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Villages 0 0 500 0 2,500 Area C Marston Vale 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Apsley Guise 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 Wixams South 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Villages 0 0 0 0 650 Area D RAF Henlow 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Villages 500 500 500 500 1,500 Totals 30,500 25,500 21,500 22,500 20,650

Source: Sustainability Appraisal (January 2018)

4.6 The Plan confirms the Council’s preferred approach to the growth strategy, which at Policy SP1 makes provision for the delivery of 41,830 homes over the plan period, of which c.23,528 are existing commitments, and c.18,302 are a combination of strategic (c.9,900) and small – medium scale (5,505) allocations throughout Central Bedfordshire, and a windfall allowance (c. 2,897 ), against a housing requirement of 39,350 over the period 2015 to 2035. This includes the 32,000 OAHN for Central Bedfordshire, and a commitment to facilitate 7,350 of Luton’s ‘unmet need’ – subject to ongoing ‘duty to co-operate’ discussions and formal Local Plan Examination. Appraisal of Growth Strategy

Levels of Growth

4.7 As noted above, the DLP set out a range of growth (20,000 to 30,000), underpinned by five growth scenarios tested in the 2017 SA. However, it is not clear [if not opaque] to what extent the range of development proposed planned for, in so far as it is understood that the figures tested represent ‘new dwellings’ over the plan period, exclusive of existing commitments. The 2017 SA and the DLP figures are therefore not accurate representations of the level of growth planned for over the plan period. Including existing commitments, as stated in the 2018 SA (23,85424), it is considered that the 2017 SA tested a range of growth scenarios with a minimum amount of 44,504 and maximum amount of 54,354 (as shown in Table 4.2).

24 This figure is reported lower (23,528) in both the Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan 2015-2035 (January 2018) and Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018) although it presumed that these documents were finalised prior to the 2018 SA.

Pg 46 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

Table 4.2 Actual Levels of Growth Tested

Growth Scenario Options Potential Housing Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 Totals 30,500 25,500 21,500 22,500 20,650 Including existing commitments 54,354 49,354 45,354 46,354 44,504 (23,854)

Source: Lichfields based on Sustainability Appraisal (January 2018)

4.8 At the Regulation 19 stage, taking into account consultation comments received and updated evidence, the Council decided to progress an approach to the Spatial Strategy, confirmed with the proposed SP1: Growth Strategy that aligns with Scenarios 3 and 5, with additional small- medium allocations in villages throughout the District. This is on the basis of a housing requirement of 39,350, which consists of the Central Bedfordshire OAN and Luton HMA unmet need, which the 2018 SA states falls at the lower end of the ranges identified at the Regulation 18 stage (para 8.10).

4.9 In its justification for the progression of the preferred spatial strategy, the 2018 SA sets out the reasons for selection/rejection of the growth scenarios in Table 8.2. This can be summarised as follows:

• Scenarios 1 and 2 – This has not been progressed as it proposes high levels of growth in Area B and C which are reliant on significant infrastructure delivery; and

• Scenario 4 – Not progressed as would not contribute to the unmet housing needs for Luton within the Duty to Cooperate for the Councils; nor provide opportunities from limited new development in the Green Belt in Area A. Development in the Green Belt will take pressure away from non-Green Belt areas to help avoid the coalescence of settlements in non-Green Belt areas.

4.10 However, we consider that the 2018 SA is fundamentally unclear in respect of how the Council arrived at their preferred approach for a number of reasons, and that there is no definitive conclusion as to why the progressed spatial strategy is lower than those tested throughout the SA process.

4.11 Firstly – and fundamentally – the Council’s assertion that the spatial strategy progressed at Regulation 19 stage is at the lower end of the ranges identified at the Regulation 18 stage is factually incorrect. Whilst it is noted that all scenarios tested (inclusive of existing commitments) would meet the Council’s housing requirement (39,350), it should also be noted that the growth strategy set out in Policy SP1 has not in itself been tested as a reasonable alternative through the SA process. This is evident by the fact that the growth strategy proposed is actually c.5,154 lower than the lowest scenario tested (39,350 compared to 44,504 - Scenario 5) in the 2017 SA. Although it is acknowledged that this figure was tested later in the Regulation 19 stage through the testing of the strategic policies (Policy SP1 - Appendix VI Strategic Policies), the spatial strategy should have been tested as a reasonable alternative growth scenario at the Regulation 19 stage, rather than its assessment as the preferred approach through strategic policy SP1. As such, the SA process has not ever properly tested the growth option taken forward by the Council, so as to draw meaningful comparison between the growth options tested throughout the SA process.

4.12 Secondly, at the Regulation 18 stage it was unclear as to why the Council had set out a range of growth options in the DLP, although it was presumed to be in accordance with the testing of reasonable alternatives. However, the 2018 SA appears to present two main justifications. The 2018 SA highlights that the Council were aware of Governments proposals for a standardised methodology for the calculation objectively assessed needs and therefore tested a range of

Pg 47 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

growth levels accordingly, and that the Council decided not to progress a preferred approach at the Regulation 18 stage, so that the views of consultees can be taken into consideration at the next stage of developing the Local Plan (para 5.117).

4.13 Subsequent to the consultation of the DLP, in September 2017 the Government published ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’, which amongst other things, set out the Government’s proposals for a standardised methodology for calculation objectively assessed need in order to remove much of the complexity that exists within the current system (“CLG Methodology”). The 2018 SA acknowledges that CLG Methodology would result in a local housing need of 51,060 new homes over the plan period (or 2,553 dwellings per annum) (“the CLG LHN”), which the SA states represented a 60% increase on the current OAHN and was far in excess of the average increase of 35% across local authority areas nationally (para 8.4).

4.14 Consequently, on the basis of current delivery figures within the District (c.1,800 dpa), the Council considered that such a significant increase in requirement could not practically be delivered due “to lack of skilled labour, materials and potentially land banking by developers” (para 8.4). It goes onto state that against the CLG LHN, the Council would not be able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and so consequently it would be more difficult to resist speculative planning applications leading to unplanned and unsustainable development.

4.15 We consider that the implications of the CLG LHN appear in part to have influenced the Council’s adoption of the preferred spatial approach, with the 2018 SA stating that on the basis of the above the Council chose to retain the published OAHN of 32,000, and updated its Local Plan timetable to allow submission of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan before 31 March 2018 – and thus allowing the use of the current housing need figure (32,000 new homes) as the basis for plan-making. Whilst this approach is not necessarily unreasonable, insofar as the Framework states that the Council should plan to meet its housing needs (para 14) [notwithstanding our critique of the Council’s OAHN], it is considered that the Council’s justification for being unable to meet the identified need is unreasonable, and ultimately not based on evidence (for example on the lack of skills and materials or allegations of land banking).

4.16 Higher level growth scenarios were tested (i.e. 54,354), which exceeded the Council’s housing requirement; however, against the CLG LHN (51,060) and the Luton HMA unmet need (7,350), the upper end of the ranges tested would fall significantly short – c.4,000. The PPG clearly states that reasonable alternatives should be identified, as the assessment of these should inform the local planning authority in choosing its preferred approach (ID: 11-017). Indeed the Friends of the Earth High Court judgment25 states that ‘Reasonable alternatives’ have to be identified described and evaluated because, without this, there cannot be a proper environmental evaluation of the plan. And although the CLG Methodology was published towards the latter stages of the plan making process, it is considered that the Council, prior to the adoption of the preferred approach, should have assessed all reasonable alternatives, rather than updating the Local Plan timetable to avoid the application of the CLG LHN.

4.17 Therefore, at the Regulation 19 stage and prior to pursuing a preferred approach, it is considered that the CLG LHN should have fed-back into new testing which assessed a higher growth scenario including the unmet need of the Luton HMA (58,410), so as to demonstrate whether or not such levels of growth could be sustainably delivered across the Plan period, and to therefore inform the selection of the preferred approach.

25 Paragraph 88 of R (Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland Ltd) v The Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin)

Pg 48 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

4.18 However, in the absence of this reasonable alternative being tested in the SA, and irrespective of the Council’s lack of evidence to suggest that Central Bedfordshire could not practically deliver higher levels of housing in terms of lack of materials, skilled labour and land banking, the 2018 SAs justification therefore does not present meaningful or sufficient evidence to inform the application of the tilted balance to weigh up the relative benefits vs the harm of higher levels of growth in the District. This is of particular importance, as the results of the Regulation 18 2017 SA did not demonstrate that all of the reasonable alternatives, including the higher end of the scale, were unsustainable and unsuitable. It appears implicit that they were therefore broadly acceptable. As such, it is considered that the Council has therefore failed to demonstrate or sufficiently evidence how such levels of growth, in respect of the CLG LHN as a reasonable alternative, could not be sustainably delivered within the District across the Plan period.

4.19 In view of the above, it is considered that the Council should have tested further reasonable alternatives at the Regulation 19 stage; which include the growth strategy set out in Policy SP1, and the higher levels of growth set out in the CLG LHN. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the SA has failed to consider all reasonable alternatives.

4.20 Furthermore, in respect of the sustainability of higher levels of growth, and when viewed in the context of our critique of the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2018) (SHMA) – set out in Section 2.0 – which Lichfields consider makes a number of questionable assumptions, resulting in downward adjustments to the Council’s OAN to align with the Plan housing requirement, the Councils decision to not pursue a growth strategy with higher levels of growth despite being considered broadly sustainable, and instead adopt a growth strategy significantly below those tested in the SA further emphasises the lack of clarity in the Council’s evidence.

4.21 Fundamentally, the option to deliver the 39,350, as set out in Policy SP1 of the Plan, is not adequately justified or evidenced in respect of its preference to higher levels of growth, which the SA found to be broadly sustainable. Crucially, neither the level of growth planned for, nor the CLG LHN and LBC unmet need have been tested in the 2018 SA as reasonable alternatives, so no meaningful comparison can be drawn from the SA. In particular, it appears that the implications of the CLG LHN figure on Central Bedfordshire have unduly and unjustifiably contaminated the Councils adoption of the proposed spatial strategy, in so far as the Council elected to pursue a preferred option, with a smaller level of growth across the Plan period, despite indications that greater levels of growth were broadly sustainable and could have been delivered over the plan period. Ultimately, this failure to test all reasonable alternatives, has resulted in a spatial strategy set out in policy SP1 that has not been informed by robust evidence, or an objective view on the reasonable alternatives, and is therefore not justified.

Distribution of Growth

4.22 Lichfields consider that the Council’s rejection of higher levels of growth is fundamentally predicated on the 2017 SAs intrinsic linkage of higher level growth scenarios (Scenarios 1 and 2) with specific combinations of strategic sites. The 2017 and 2018 SAs do not disaggregate the assessment of these (i.e. the distribution of growth or spatial strategy) from the assessment of the overall growth.

4.23 It is unclear as to why such an approach has been adopted, principally as the sustainable spatial distribution of growth and levels of growth should be decoupled. Through the identification of a sustainable spatial distribution of growth, at Regulation 19 stage, there is an opportunity – if not necessity – to establish whether the preferred spatial distribution, which in this case is a hybrid combination of Scenarios 3 and 5, could sustainably deliver higher levels of growth, such as those tested at the higher ranges (Scenarios 1 and 2).

Pg 49 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

4.24 Indeed, the Council broadly acknowledge this decoupling by way of progressing an approach to the Spatial Strategy which aligns with growth scenarios 3 and 5. However, any balance weighing environmental harm against social and economic benefits of increasing the level of growth across the preferred spatial distribution was not revisited in light of the existing evidence indicating that the higher level growth scenarios were broadly sustainable, which ultimately should have fed-back into new testing of previously-judged alternative growth locations and sites. By way of example, there are further options for growth in Luton, Marston Moretaine and throughout the villages in the District which could still facilitate further growth in a sustainable manner without fundamentally altering the preferred spatial strategy; however, the 2018 has failed to test how an increase in growth across the preferred spatial approach would impact sustainability.

4.25 Fundamentally, the [unclear] reasons for the rejection of higher growth within the District are not considered adequate in the justification of why the most sustainable spatial distribution could not sustainably facilitate the higher levels of growth in Scenarios 1 and 2, or indeed the CLG LHN. Moreover, alternative levels of growth across the preferred spatial distribution have not been tested, so it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether the higher levels of growth could not be sustainably delivered throughout the District. Summary and Conclusions

4.26 In summary, there is no robust evidence base produced by the Council to justify the spatial growth approach progressed by the Council, and contained within Policy SP1 of the Plan. Set out below are the main reasons why we consider that the evidence underpinning the Council’s proposed spatial strategy is seriously flawed:

• The spatial strategy progressed at Regulation 19 stage is lower than those tested at the Regulation 18 stage (39,350 compared to 44,504), with no clear evidence or justification;

• The growth strategy set out in Policy SP1 has not in itself been tested through the SA process. As such, the Council has not ever properly tested the growth option taken forward in the Plan and no meaningful comparison between the growth options tested throughout the SA process can be made;

• Aware of the CLOG LHN, the Council failed to test a higher level growth option to meet this identified need, and the implications of the CLG LHN on Central Bedfordshire appear to have unduly and unjustifiably contaminated the Councils adoption of the proposed spatial strategy, despite the evidence indicating that higher levels of growth were broadly sustainable; and

• The spatial strategy progressed is underpinned by an SA that has failed to consider all reasonable alternatives in line with national policy and guidance, which has resulted in a spatial strategy, set out in policy SP1, that has not been informed by robust evidence, or an objective view on the reasonable alternatives, and is therefore not justified.

Pg 50 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 This report has considered the evidence underpinning the Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan 2015-2035 (January 2018) and in particular has reviewed the existing evidence on housing needs (to establish the scale of need and demand for housing in the District), the housing trajectory and five year land supply position which underpins the Plan, and whether the Council suitably tested reasonable alternatives in establishing its preferred approach. The analysis is prepared on behalf of Abbey Land Developments, Richborough Estates, Catesby Estates and Rainier Developments. The key points are summarised below: Housing Need

5.2 The 2017 SHMA, and its previous iterations, contain a number of fundamental flaws specific to Central Bedfordshire which mean it does not form a robust evidence base. In particular, the 2017 SHMA, makes significant downward adjustments to the projections for the District, in respect of sources which ONS itself describes as not suitable for that type of use in their raw format. The adjustment of MYEs post-2011 is also fundamentally flawed as there is no robust basis to adjust these figures in Central Bedfordshire. As a result of its flawed demographic assessment, the analysis which flows from this is also flawed. The SHMAs conclusions are therefore not based on established sources of robust evidence, and further fails to provide any ‘on the ground’ analysis to explain clearly why statistically robust official ONS data should not be relied upon for Central Bedfordshire. The approach of the SHMA to Central Bedfordshire is distinct from that in Luton, and no weight should be given to the fact the SHMA’s demographic approach was accepted by the Luton Local Plan Inspector (albeit the Inspector suggested the SHMA under-estimated need in Luton).

5.3 Further, the SHMA’s 10% market signals uplift is insufficient and there is no evidence to show – as required by the PPG – that it could be reasonably expected to improve housing affordability.

5.4 The 2017 SHMA also fails to follow the prescribed methodology of calculating the affordable housing needs of the HMA as required in the PPG, and its assessment is based only on analysis of housing benefit claimants, which is flawed, failing to recognise that many people who spend significant proportions of their income on rent and who would be eligible and in need of affordable housing, will not themselves be eligible for housing benefit. Alongside this, the 2017 SHMA also fails to engage with how affordable housing needs should influence overall OAHN.

5.5 Our appropriate and robust assessment, in line with the PPG, demonstrates that:

• The demographic-led needs should be based on the latest, official DCLG 2014-based household projections;

• DCLG 2014-based household projections show a growth of 1,729 households per annum over the plan period (2015-2035);

26 • Applying a second home/vacancy rate of 4% , as used in the 2017 SHMA, equates to a need for 1,801 dwellings per annum, or 36,020 total over the plan period; and

• A 20% market signals uplift is necessary in order to reasonably expect an improvement in affordability, which would equate to 2,150 dpa over the period, or around 43,000 in total over 20 years.

26 Based on 2017 SHMA Figure 92, which shows 27,738 households generates a need for 28,889 dwellings (96%, or 4% vacancy)

Pg 51 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

5.6 On the basis of the above OAHN, Lichfields consider that the Central Bedfordshire Plan would therefore fail to meet all of its own need, let alone make any provision for unmet needs from Luton.

5.7 This alternative estimate of OAHN is lower than the CLG proposed standard methodology for local housing need,which is 2,553 dpa for Central Bedfordshire, or 51,000 in total over 20 years, and excludes any further unmet need arising from Luton, which subject to its Local Plan Review could be around 20,000 dwellings27. This increased unmet need would most likely need to be met in Central Bedfordshire, given this is where most of Luton’s functional HMA lies, which would equate to a total requirement for Central Bedfordshire would be upwards of 70,000 dwellings over 20 years – almost double the target in the emerging Plan. Housing Delivery

5.8 A review of the supply position suggests that housing trajectory underpinning the Plan has been informed by a number of unrealistic, unachievable and overly optimistic assumptions regarding the delivery of sites within the District, with limited evidence given in support of the assumed rates of delivery being realistically achievable.

5.9 In particular, the Council assumes that two strategic level schemes would begin delivering within 3-4 years of the Plan being adopted, despite existing strategic scale commitments within the District and neighbouring authorities having lead-in times of over 5 years, and slower build- out rates. Moreover, this is further exacerbated by the inclusion of an incorrect and unreasonable windfall allowance in the later part of the plan period. As a result of these assumptions, and that two existing large scale commitments are unlikely to come forward in the manner envisaged by the Council, the Plan would be unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.

5.10 On this basis, Lichfields consider that the housing trajectory for the Plan plan period is insufficient, and that the scale of shortfall, particularly when including a reasonable 10% contingency buffer to ensure sufficient flexibility over the plan period, would be of a significant scale that would require the identification of further sites at varying sizes to meet the Council’s housing needs. Spatial Strategy

5.11 The growth option (39,350) progressed by the Council is lower than those tested at the Regulation 18 stage (44,504 and 54,354), with insufficient or unclear justification for such an approach in the evidence base. Fundamentally, and more importantly, the level of growth planned for in the Plan has not ever properly been tested as a reasonable alternative through the SA process.

5.12 Furthermore, although the 2017 SA tested higher level growth options, which were considered broadly sustainable, the Council has failed to test a reasonable alternative in line with the emerging CLG standardised methodology. The methodology was published during the plan- making process, however should have fed-back into new testing at the Regulation 19 stage which assessed a higher growth scenario (58,410 - CLG LHN and unmet need), so as to demonstrate whether or not such levels of growth could be sustainably delivered across the Plan period, and to therefore inform the selection of the preferred approach.

5.13 As such, the 2018 SA underpinning the Plan growth strategy, set out at Policy SP1, has fundamentally failed to consider all reasonable alternatives in line with national policy and

27 Based on the CLG standardised methodology figure of 1,417 dpa, and a supply of 8,500.

Pg 52 Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan : Review of Housing Need and Land Supply

guidance, and therefore has not been informed by robust evidence, or an objective and meaningful view on the reasonable alternatives, and is therefore not justified. In summary, there is no compelling evidence base produced by the Council to justify the spatial growth approach progressed by the Council, and contained within Policy SP1 of the Plan.

Pg 53

Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan: Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Table A1.1 Past Delivery Rates/Lead-in Times of Strategic Scale Developments – Bedford Borough Council

Full Average Peak No. Application Application Years to First Lead-in Completions Site Lead-in Build Build Dwellings Received Approved Determine Completion Time to Date 31 32 2008/9 2008/9

2009/10 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Time Rate Rate

Wixams 4,500 17/11/1999 02/06/2006 6.5 8 190 160 138 113 109 109 44 37 2008 2 9 908 101 160 Great Denham 1,712 28/03/2002 26/09/2007 5.5 0 92 150 159 71 122 150 125 211 2009 2 7 1,080 120 211 West Kempston 1,064 28/03/2002 20/03/2007 5.0 0 0 43 102 192 167 144 195 103 2010 3 8 946 105 195 Land north of 1,300 09/01/2002 27/03/2014 12.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2016 2 14 33 33 33 Bromham Road Overall Average33 2.3 9.5 109 189

Source: Lichfields Analysis and Bedford Borough Council Annual Monitoring Reviews (2008-1016)

31 Dwellings per annum. 32 Dwellings per annum. 33 Overall Average of ‘Average Build Rate’ and ‘Peak Built Rate’ exclude Land North of Bromham Road due to the site having only just commenced, with a relatively low first year completion data, which would significantly reduce the average and peak build rates.

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan: Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Table A1.2 Historic Windfall Rates – Previously Developed Land and Size Completions Previously Developed Land Small and Large Sites (April 2007-April 2017) Windfall not Small Sites Large Sites Windfall on Year Completions Windfalls on garden (<10 (10+ garden land land dwellings) dwellings) 2007/08 1,367 643 (47%) 491 (76%) 152 (14%) 195 (40%) 296 (60%) 2008/09 937 562 (60%) 497 (88%) 65 (12%) 170 (34%) 327 (66%) 2009/10 700 331 (47%) 274 (83%) 57 (17%) 74 (27%) 200 (73%) 2010/11 1,227 716 (58%) 641 (90%) 75 (10%) 118 (18%) 523 (82%) 2011/12 1,310 598 (46%) 556 (93%) 42 (7%) 128 (23%) 428 (77%) 2012/13 965 317 (33%) 277 (87%) 40 (13%) 125 (45%) 152 (55%) 2013/14 1,264 439 (35%) 368 (84%) 71 (16%) 150 (41%) 218 (59%) 2014/15 1,522 564 (37 %) 502 (89%) 62 (11%) 180 (36%) 322 (64%) 2015/16 1,626 511 (31%) 475 (93%) 36 (7%) 115 (24%) 360 (76%) 2016/17 1,773 761 (43%) 701 (92%) 60 (8%) 226 (32%) 475 (68%) Total 12,691 5,442 (43%) 4,782 (88%) 660 (12%) 1,481 (31%) 3,301 (69%) P/A 1,269 544 (43%) 478 (88%) 66 (12%) 148 (31%) 330 (69%)

Source: Lichfields based on Windfall Topic Paper (January 2018)

Table A1.3 Lichfields Broad Location Windfall Allowance All Sites Annual Small Sites Annual Broad Location Average Broad Location Average Delivery (2007- (Inc. 5% Delivery (2007- 2017) Reduction) 2017) Dunstable and Houghton Regis 166 51 (35%) 49 Leighton Linslade 73 23 (15%) 21 Biggleswade, Sandy and Potton 54 17 (11%) 16 Ampthill, Flitwick and Maulden 32 10 (7%) 9 Stotfold, Arlesey and Stondon 34 11 (7%) 10 Shefford, Clifton and Henlow 34 11 (7%) 10 Cranfield and Marston Moretaine 6 2 (1%) 2 Barton, Toddington and 11 3 (2%) 3 Harlington The rest of Central Bedfordshire 69 21 (14%) 20 Total 479 148 141

Source: Lichfields based on Windfall Topic Paper (January 2018)

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan: Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Table A1.4 Broad Location Windfall Allowance - Trajectory

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 Total Small Windfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Commitments35 Broad Location Windfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 0 0 1,400 Allowance Broad Location Windfall Allowance (excluding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 133 136 137 139 140 140 140 140 140 0 0 1,373 existing commitments)

Source: Lichfields

35 Figures sourced from housing trajectory in Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018) – Appendix B

Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan: Appendix 1: Housing Delivery and Windfall Calculations

Table A1.5 Lichfields housing trajectory and 5YHLS amendments

Site 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 2034/35 5 Year Total Trajectory Total Plan Post 5YHLS Reduction Trajectory Reduction 2015/16 2016/17 Central Bedfordshire Council Housing Trajectory – Site Specific Details and Windfall Rate North of Luton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 200 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 50 3,100 900 ~ ~ Marston Vale 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 250 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 3,700 1,300 ~ ~ East of Leighton Linslade (Clipstone 0 0 0 0 80 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530 1,280 0 ~ ~ Park) East of Leighton Linslade 0 0 0 0 100 150 150 150 150 150 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 950 0 ~ ~ (Chamberlains Barn) Windfall Allowance (based on broad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 250 283 284 205 287 287 287 287 287 0 0 0 2,590 0 ~ ~ locations) Total 730 10,670 2,200 ~ ~ Lichfields Alternative Housing Trajectory – Site Specific Amendments and Updated Windfall Calculation North of Luton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 0 2,100 1,900 -50 -1,000 Marston Vale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 0 2,100 2,900 -150 -1,600 East of Leighton Linslade (Clipstone 0 0 0 0 0 80 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 1,280 0 -150 0 Park) East of Leighton Linslade 0 0 0 0 0 20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 30 0 0 0 0 220 950 0 -330 0 (Chamberlains Barn) Windfall Allowance (based on broad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 133 136 137 139 140 140 140 140 140 0 0 0 1373 0 0 -1217 locations) Total 600 7,803 4,800 -680 -3,817

Source: Lichfields based on Housing Implementation Strategy (January 2018)