Land at Hitchin Road, .

Regulation 19 Representations on behalf of ASK-Re The Property People Ltd

OCL Ref: P602m

CBC Client Ref: 1148

CBC Site Ref: ALP265

22 February 2018

Version F

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Contents

1.0 Introduction

Part 1 – Site Specific Considerations 2.0 Site Details – ALP265

Part 2 – Representations to the Plan and Technical Documents 3.0 Representation to the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan (January 2018) 4.0 Representation to the SHLAA (January 2018)

Appendices

A Site Details

B Site Allocations Review (Prepared by Optimis Consulting)

2

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Optimis Consulting (1148) presents this representation on behalf of our client, Aske-Re The Property People Ltd.

1.2 This Representation is provided in two parts. Part 1 is a presentation of the qualities of our site in Henlow and Part 2 details the specific Representations to Regulation 19 Local Plan and supporting technical documents.

1.3 This representation relates to CBC site reference:

Site ALP265 – Hitchin Road, Henlow.

3

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Part 1 – Site Specific Considerations

2.0 Site Details – ALP265

2.1 The site lies on the southern physical boundary of Henlow and to the north of Henlow Camp, at 72 Hitchin Road. The settlement is well served by a wide range of facilities, including very good proximate access to educational facilities. Henlow has a lower school (Raynsford VC Lower School) which is a 10 minute walk from the site, and middle school (Henlow VC Middle School) which is a 16 minute walk from the site.

2.2 Henlow Camp has its own lower school (Derwent Lower School) which is a 25 minute walk from the site. The closest upper school is the Samuel Whitbread Academy in Shefford, which is a 40 minute walk from the site.

2.3 Henlow village has a number of facilities for the community, including a post office, estate agents, car sales and petrol station, as well as a number of pubs and hotels (including a spa). These facilities are mainly located towards the centre of the village. From the site it is an 11 minute walk to the post office, and a 5 minute walk to the closest pub and restaurant, The Crown. There are also a number of formal recreational areas within Henlow, including the Pit and Boyd Field. Both of these are within a 10-15 minute walk from the site.

2.4 Henlow Camp is further away from the site, however, still easily accessible. The site is 1.5 miles from Henlow Camp and to walk from the site would take 30 minutes, or by car 2 minutes. Henlow Camp also has a range of facilities including a pharmacy, doctor’s surgery, petrol station, convenience shops, takeaways, hairdressers and pubs.

2.5 Henlow is well served by public transport, with a number of buses running through the village to various destinations. There are a number of bus stops close to the site, with the closest located outside The Crown pub on the High Street. This is approximately 400m from the site; a 5 minute walk. The bus that departs from this stop runs through Henlow to Hitchin and Bedford. This is a frequent bus service which throughout Monday-Saturday runs every hour throughout the day, and on Sundays a reduced service runs every 2 hours.

2.6 There is a train station in , which is approximately 900 metres from the site and a 10 minute walk. From this station there are train routes to London Kings Cross, Peterborough, Stevenage and Cambridge. The trains to London run about every half hour and take between 38 and 51 minutes to reach Kings Cross.

2.7 To the north-east boundary of the site there is a successful business, The Japanese Koi Company, which has been trading for 18 years. The site comprises land and buildings extending to 1.017ha, 90% of which is vehicle hard standing. This is an urban feature on a prominent corner of Henlow, which is adjacent to the settlement and provides a visual gateway to the settlement. To the east of the site the boundary runs alongside Hitchin Road. This road has links to Shefford and the A1 (on the A507) and Langford (on the A6001). The other boundaries on this site are to the adjoining

4

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

agricultural land, in the same manner as other dwellings along Hitchin Road, between this site and Henlow Camp to the south.

2.8 The shape of the site is roughly rectangular with the west side curving inwardly. The site is approximately 0.55 acres. The site is currently made up of one dwelling, outbuildings and an internal access road and is enclosed by hedgerows of mixed hawthorn and elder. The dwelling is on the south of the site and is currently in poor condition. The current dwelling is not prominent from the road, due to the verdant screened boundary. The entrance to the site is off Hitchin Road.

Flood Risk

2.9 The site has been modelled for flood risk and the accurate position that is now agreed with the EA is below. The majority of the site, about 95% is in Flood Zone 2 and having been subjected to both a sequential and exception test the site is considered suitable for development.

2.10 The suitability for development has been established under planning permission (Ref: CB/16/04555/OUT), in which the Council’s drainage expert supported proposals to redevelop the site.

5

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Landscape considerations

2.11 The site lies within the “Upper Ivel Clay Valley” (Area 4C) Landscape Character Area (coloured Green below):

2.12 The area boundaries are based on changes in geology, topography and land use, with the level valley with drift deposits of Glacial and River Gravel differentiated from the surrounding higher ground of the Claylands to the east, Lower Greensand to the west and Chalk to the south. To the north the Ivel valley continues and here the boundaries follow field boundaries which broadly indicate the change in land cover to the Lower Ivel Clay Valley (4b), a less settled and wooded character area.

2.13 The guidelines that relate to development in the Wooded Greensand Valley for the whole of the Character Area are as follows:

4C.1.17 Resist development that will result in further loss/fragmentation of hedgerows and hedgerow trees. Enhance hedgerows by replanting.

4C.1.18 Create new wetlands and enhance existing open water bodies and their margins to increase biodiversity interest and strengthen character.

4C.1.19 Safeguard the rural character and qualities of the Ivel corridor. Plant further woodlands (in particular wet woodlands) that will create a more rural edge to development on the margins of villages.

6

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

4C.1.20 Create further connections between the villages and the rivers and floodplain through for instance tree planting or wetland habitat creation that would enhance access links.

4C.1.21 Avoid the coalescence of towns and villages (e.g. the linear merging of Shefford and Clifton along the road).

4C.1.22 Enhance landscape boundaries at exposed urban edges.

4C.1.23 Conserve the historic cores of the villages and distinctive features such as footpath links to riverside pasture, village ponds and historic bridges.

4C.1.24 Conserve the character of secondary roads, limiting urbanising influences e.g. kerbing and widening and ensure that traffic management measures are sympathetic to those sections of the area with a rural character.

4C.1.25 Safeguard the distinctive character of , with its historic pattern of small fields.

4C.1.26 Explore options for improving low key recreational opportunities and informal access to the river. Monitor the associated development of facilities e.g. visitor centres and car parking that might impact upon

Proposals for the site

2.14 The site is able to accommodate 12 dwellings as has been demonstrated by the planning permission (Ref: CB/16/04555/OUT), which was approved for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. houses and 6 no. flats with 19 parking spaces on 07 February 2018.

2.15 However, it is considered that the site is suitable for a residential scheme with 30% affordable housing (4 units).

2.16 This site is a suitable location for development, with excellent access to amenities and facilities and on the edge of a sustainable village.

2.17 We therefore seek an allocation for up to 12 dwellings, together with such improvements to the highway as is required by the highways authority.

7

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Part 2 – Representations to the Plan and Technical Documents

3.0 Representation to the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan (January 2018).

Section 2 – Key Themes

3.1 We support the intention to find the most suitable sites for development and in areas that meet the wider growing needs of the District (Para 2.3.3).

3.2 We support the need to manage growth in order that it does not damage the role and special value of market towns and villages, particularly by directing growth to locations where it can make a difference in improving local services (Para 2.4.2).

3.3 We are concerned by the plans emphasis on the delivery on new large settlements (minimum of 1,500 homes) as in the past proposals for urban extensions have provided to be difficult to implement (Para 2.51).

Section 5 – The Spatial Strategy

3.4 The Spatial Strategy Approach at 5.4 (page 31), the second bullet deals with the delivery of new homes through new villages, and moderate extensions to existing and village; however, we consider that the word moderate should be replaced by ‘proportionate and this would be relevant to both the size of the settlement and the existing level of facilities.

3.5 Please note: The second bullet point indicates reference indicated by superscript 4, but there is no footnote or end note to link this; what does it mean? Does this link define what is meant by the deliver numbers?

3.6 The prevention of coalescence (bullet point 3), should be caveated so that it refers only to coalescence where there is demonstrable harm by either complete physical merger or where existing visual gaps are detrimentally eroded. Some gaps might benefit from development either through landscape enhancements or the provision of key facilities and these should be positively encouraged.

3.7 The Partial Plan Review is supported in principle, but it also needs to review how the release of strategic development sites, and delivery of homes are being achieved. An opportunity exists for an immediate improvised adjustment so that if there is an under provision, reserve sites, for example, can immediately be introduced.

3.8 The Partial Plan Review should also commit to review the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) based on the new formula presented through the revised NPPF, so that it is relevant to the latest and most up to date means of calculation.

8

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Section 6 – The Proposed Locations for Growth

3.9 The Plan breaks the District into four locations of growth, The South Area, The A1 Corridor, The East West axis, and The Central Area. The merits of dividing the areas into four is not clear and is not properly explained, nor is the delineation of the boundaries. The Boundaries do not follow the Housing Market Areas, which would be the most logical approach.

3.10 Whilst it is not clear why these are not based on the defined HMAs, there is a conflict because the delivery of the Growth Strategy is difficult to interpret if it is to be considered against the four Growth Areas A-D rather than the HMAs.

3.11 It is noted in para 6.6.2 that only a “modest contingency” has been applied for the supply of sites to provide a failsafe if sites do not come forward. The Council continues to support the proposition of significantly large strategic sites that have often failed to deliver through the past 9 years (since CBC merged MBDC and SBDC) because of the slow infrastructure delivery and a constrained market place. This continued under delivery of the main strategic sites around , for example, has had consequences on the success of section 78 appeals, where numerous Inspectors have had little regard to the delivery of dwellings from strategic sites. It is important that this plan delivers certainty so that the Council can achieve a comfortable supply of homes, not just a minimum 5-year supply.

3.12 We advocate for a greater number of smaller more modest sites such as this site in Henlow to deliver a present housing target but also acknowledge that the target will be significantly increased when the plan is reviewed and the new methodology for OAN is required to be calculated.

Policy SP1 – Growth Strategy

3.13 Policy SP1 provides a Growth Strategy for the District for the full requirement of homes and employment land. It does not provide a breakdown over the 20 year period as the Council is presumably relying on a smooth delivery of development. Given the reliance on so many large sites this is a dangerous strategy and given the “modest contingency” there is a reasonable chance that the land supply might not meet the requirements of a rolling 5 year supply.

3.14 In our view it would be helpful if the policy included targets for each 5 year period of the plan to give the policy some structure and to give clarity on the anticipated delivery for each strategic area. This will also allow for adjustments through windfall delivery, where the 5 year supply falls below the minimum requirement.

3.15 Our concern for the role of the strategic sites is centred around a misunderstanding, in our view, that they are delivered expeditiously. This is not evidenced, nor a satisfactory basis to place so much reliance on. The new settlement in took 33 years from conception to the delivery of its first phase and it delivered 2250 homes over 18 years (125p.a). If the same lead in time were to occur for the new settlements proposed in this plan this policy would fail considerably and there needs to be an opportunity to have an early warning sign that could be introduced through a monitoring delivery

9

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

mechanism. It is noted that the development management team at CBC insist that a delivery timetable is introduced into section 106 agreements to monitor the delivery of homes by developers. We think this concept might also be introduced into this plan to effectively monitor the outcomes.

3.16 The third paragraph would benefit from not limiting the growth of settlements to those defined as towns or villages, but to all sustainable locations for growth; which can include hamlets.

3.17 The final paragraph is negatively written and lacks any objective test, for which any application might reasonably be judged. It fails the test of the NPPF (para 154).

3.18 Para 6.7.1 identifies sites of up to 650 dwellings as medium sized developments. These are not medium but substantial developments that may require significant infrastructure before they deliver homes. Unless started early in the plan their contribution to the overall 20 year period may be limited.

3.19 The policy may rely on the delivery of homes through Neighbourhood Plans but is unclear whether these are in addition to the 39,350 requirement or included within it. The plan needs to provide clarity in this regard, so that a proper assessment of its delivery can be robustly judged. It would be inappropriate for the Plan to rely on outside bodies to deliver its own homes as this would leave the plan open to immediate review.

Section 7 – Implementation

3.20 The anticipated delivery rates do not account for the cumulative effect of other development sites. Furthermore, these rates are not consistent with the evidence of other sites that are more advanced in delivery, such as the existing strategic commitments. (see section 3.35 onwards)

3.21 We do not consider that the strategic sites will deliver in accord with the table 7.1 and given the “modest contingency” further sites should be allocated in areas that are not located near to strategic allocations. The cumulative impact of many sites being allocated in close proximity can have the effect of reducing the success of delivery as the market can only accommodate at a maximum rate of sale. Such over reliance on few strategic locations is unhelpful. A site of the size proposed at Hitchin Road, Henlow, where there is limited provision proposed, would be a sensible proposition.

Policy SP3 - General Requirements for Strategic Sites

3.22 The policy background to SP3 recognises the value of large sites, although reference should be to sites over 500 units not 1,500. CBC has previously considered this to be the threshold for strategic sites and recognition must be had that although these are sustainable options for growth, they are NOT necessarily the most sustainable. Furthermore, the delivery of these sites is very difficult to predict and the reliance on them in this Plan needs further control than is imposed by SP3. The Plan cannot allow the delay of the proposed strategic sites in the same way that HRN1 and 2 (Houghton

10

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Regis North) have been allowed to stall, because these sites are vital to the delivery of the plan over the entire plan period, because the Council relies so heavily on them.

3.23 To achieve a level of control, the Council should consider imposing milestones that if they have not met the delivery timetable the allocations may be removed from the plan. Not only will this encourage early planning negotiation through the Development Management process it will prevent unwanted land banking, that could cripple the delivery of the planned housing requirement.

3.24 We advocate that the Policy SP3 includes key milestones for the submission of outline/reserved matters and implementation of consent to ensure that the delivery can be controlled.

3.25 The policy requires the inclusion of a number of community facilities, non-residential uses and specialist housing provision, but this is not recorded in the individual allocations.

Strategic Sites – Policies SA1 – SE4

3.26 We consider that the Council has unrealistic expectation for the delivery of the homes in the various sites and has not fully considered the impacts of cumulative impact and an overstretched housing market, along with other site-specific concerns.

Policy SA1 – North of Luton

3.27 The delivery of the residential units is recorded in the Housing Implementation Strategy as beginning in 2022/23. In the commentary this is noted as being supplied by the agent. It is noted also that one of the potential barriers to development is the multiple landowners. Despite some significant infrastructure works including flood mitigation measures the anticipation that the first delivery of homes might be as early as 2022 is extremely optimistic and unlikely for such a constrained site. Suggesting that the first 50 dwellings might be delivered within the next 5 years is in our view erroneous.

3.28 It is noted that other sites that are deemed to have multiple land ownership issues but are much more modest in scale with limited infrastructure constraints are projected to deliver much later in the process, such as HAS05 Barton Le Clay, HAS07 , HAS10 Clifton, HAS20 Harlington, HAS23 Henlow, HAS29 Houghton Regis, HAS30 Langford, HAS46 , HAS49, Toddington.

3.29 Even schemes with consent such as land south of Wixams (former policy MA3) is not due to commence until 2023/24 and yet this has “no known barriers to development”. The same can be said of HRN1, Houghton Regis, which has a consent dated 2013, but no delivery expected until 2023/24, despite the major infrastructure now in place. Development at Arlesey also predicts delivery of home in 2023/24.

3.30 In our view the anticipated date to deliver homes in SA1 is significantly over-estimated.

11

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

3.31 The Council has acknowledged and demonstrated in their own analysis that the lead-in to the delivery of homes on strategic sites is significantly longer than is ordinarily planned. The delays through planning, secretary of state approval and approval of statutory bodies and landowner/developer agreements introduce significant unforeseen delays. The projected delivery on North of Luton is not a credible position.

3.32 In our view the earliest that the units will be delivered will be 2025/26.

3.33 Not only is the speed of implementation overestimated, there is no evidence that the site will deliver 300 dwellings per annum, as the Council advocates on the advice of the landowner’s agent. Wixam delivered only 125p.a in its first phase that took 18 years to complete. The delivery proposed on similar large sites (over 500 dwellings) in the plan at their highest annual delivery, is as follows:

Arlesey (HT005) 150 Arlesey (HT006) 100. East (HT014) 100 Houghton Regis HRN1 200 Houghton Regis HRN2 150 (HT078) 150 Leighton Buzzard (HT079) 150 Wixams (HT116) 100 Wixams (HT117) 150

3.34 Only one committed site is predicted to be above 150 per annum and that is HRN1, which is a consent for over 5,000 dwellings; and yet this is only as high as 200 per annum.

3.35 We therefore consider that the North of Luton site, will not achieve greater than 150 dwellings per annum at its most prolific delivery. We consider the rate should be reduced to 150 dwellings per annum, maximum.

3.36 Based on this site starting on 2025/26 and reduced to a maximum of 150 dwellings, this site is over estimated by 2,350 dwellings in this plan period.

Policy SA2 Marston Vale New Village

3.37 The concept of this village in an area of degraded landscape provides positive regeneration opportunities. However, the delivery timescales of the village is significantly overestimated, both in numbers and timeframes. The village of Wixams took 33 years from the initial concept to the delivery of the first phase. This provides anecdotal evidence of how long it will take to deliver a village of this scale, given the vast infrastructure requirements.

3.38 The Council is not encouraging piecemeal delivery and therefore there will be no quick delivery of homes from small sites and the process of an overarching comprehensive development delivery is

12

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

reliant on a very detailed and slow planning and delivery process, similar in kind to Wixams. Although learning the lessons from Wixams may prevent a 33 year wait for the delivery of the first home, it is inconceivable that the first homes might be delivered in three years from this plan.

3.39 There is a danger that the Council has considerably overestimated the delivery of the residential development for a site that is a long way from an outline application being consented. To expect the first delivery of homes in 2021/22 is completely unrealistic, even if a piecemeal approach was taken. This date should be revised to 2031/32 so that there is no undue pressure on the first phases to be delivered.

3.40 The rate of delivery is also overestimated, when compared to the other sites in the area. Marston Vale has undergone significant expansion and the housing market can only accommodate enough to satisfy residual demand. No consideration has been given to the expansion of nearby development in Milton Keynes, Bedford west, , Wootton, Stewartby, Wixams and Marston Moretaine. The cumulative impact of the vast delivery from many large sites on the edge of these towns will reduce the sales rates in this new village.

3.41 For further evidence that the Council has overestimated, the present trajectory for Morteyne Farm (HT082) reaches a predicted maximum of 100 dwellings per annum. This allocation in the Marston Village should not be any higher as the market cannot accommodate a higher delivery rate.

3.42 Based on a more sensible delivery rate of 100 per annum, if the first delivery was in 2021/22 as predicted by the LPA then the plan has overestimated by 2,350 and if that got pushed back to 2031/32 the overestimation would be 3,200. We consider this site will only deliver 450 dwellings in this plan period.

Policy SA3 – East of Arlesey

3.43 This site should be removed and replaced with an Important Local Gap. Previous plans have sought to protect the gap to Fairfield hospital and although the proposals suggest that there will be a country park there is little detail in the policy that provides any certainty on the distribution of the land uses. In absence of such important further detail the allocation should be removed, and more appropriate sites allocated, with a more modest development on the edge of Arlesey, commensurate in proportion to the existing community.

3.44 Notwithstanding the unsuitability of the site, the proposals indicate delivery in 2023/24 and given the vast infrastructure component this is an overestimation. It is more realistic to seek delivery in 2025/26 to give time for the adjoining housing allocation to proceed and the vast infrastructure on this site be delivered.

3.45 Furthermore, the delivery rate is overemphasised and should be reduced to 100 per annum at its greatest. This would be consistent with other sites in the area (HT006) and will reflect the cumulative market supply of homes.

13

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

3.46 If the site is reduced to an annual delivery of 100 dwellings per annum, this would reduce the LPA projected plan delivery by 450. If this is further delayed as we suggest this will reduce the delivery by 650.

PolicySA4 – East of Biggleswade

3.47 Biggleswade has been a centre of growth over successive plan periods and substantial number of homes have been delivered into a relatively small market area. The most recent expansion to the east of Biggleswade is not expected to complete until 2027/28 according to the Council’s HIS. It is therefore over-optimistic to propose that a new expansion for a further 1,500 homes would start delivery in 2023/24. Not only is there a limited housing demand in the locality, that is largely saturated, but the high infrastructure implementation that is required for the site will delay the proposed start times and influence the annual delivery rate.

3.48 In our estimation the delivery start should be amended to 2026/2027 to coincide with the end of the earlier phasing. The Annual delivery should also be no higher than 100 per annum in recognition of the existing projections at Biggleswade East.

3.49 The reduced rate to 100 dwellings per annum would reflect a reduction of 450 dwellings within the plan period, using the Council’s start date and this would reduce further to 600 if the first units were not delivered until 2026/27.

3.50 Based on the adjustments that we have proposed to the above strategic sites, this would require further allocations to accommodate the shortfall of 6,800 dwellings that we do not consider will be realistically achieved in this plan.

Policy HA1 – Small and Medium Allocations

3.51 In our view there are many proposed small and medium sites that do not warrant being treated as the best alternative locations for development in the plan period and should not be allocated. The Policy is flawed because there are better sites, in our view and the process of identifying the best sites has not been objectively assessed because good sites have been ruled out for inappropriate reasons. The sites that have been chosen are not satisfactory in number nor are they the most suitable sites in the Borough and we comment on the proposed sites in Appendix B.

3.52 In the Appendix B attached we provide our critique of sites and the summary from that is the following sites should be considered for deletion from the Plan, either because they are in unsustainable small settlements, are harmful due to their cumulative number, represent unwanted and unrestricted encroachment into the countryside or other site specific reasons:

• HAS03 • HAS05 Barton Le Clay East

14

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

• HAS06 Biggleswade North • HAS07 Caddington • HAS08 Campton • HAS09 Chalton • HAS12 Cranfield South • HAS13 Dunton • HAS14 • HAS15 Everton North • HAS16 Everton South • HAS17 West • HAS20 Harlington West • HAS21 Harlington South • HAS22 Haynes • HAS24 south • HAS25 Hockliffe North • HAS26 Hockliffe West • HAS27 Wixams • HAS35 Marston Moretaine • HAS38 • HAS40 • HAS41 • HAS42 • HAS48 Sutton • HAS50 Toddington West • HAS51 North

3.53 We consider that with the removal of the above sites one such replacement is this site in Henlow, which provides a better option to develop adjacent to a sustainable settlement whilst providing significant benefits to the village. The removal of all or most of the above sites would lead to a requirement to find between 1 and 3,407 additional dwellings and this site would provide a contribution towards that requirement.

Section 8.0 – Green Belt Coalescence, and Settlements

Coalescence

3.54 Following its assessment of the Green Belt, this chapter then deals separately with coalescence and it is unclear whether this is in relation to Green Belt in isolation or local gap policy. The section does not correctly consider the impact of physical coalescence versus visual coalescence; both very important but with different characteristics. In the case of the Green Belt the test of coalescence is

15

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

embodied in the purpose of the Green Belt to prevent “merger”, which is the closing of a gap in physical terms.

3.55 Sites that do not actually merge towns physically or give the visual impression of merger, should not be judged by this criterion, because all sites on the edge of any town will be proximate in some degree to another town. It is the actual coalescence in physical or visual terms that is to be prevented, not the mere development of land between two towns.

3.56 Recognition should also be given to the opportunity to mitigate any coalescence, in either physical or visual terms. The Council has identified some sites for development in the Green Belt where they have advocated the need to introduce gaps within the site, or extensive buffer planting in order to mitigate any impact on the wider Green Belt and this should be accepted as a suitable form of mitigation.

Policy SP5 – Preventing Coalescence and Important Countryside Gaps

3.57 Policy SP5 is vague and ambiguous. The second para is negative and advocates refusal to any extension of a built-up area, that “might” lead to coalescence. This should only be applied to sites that will either physically or visually join. In this way the opportunity exists to mitigate any impact through buffer planting or introducing land to form a gap within the site. This should not relate to sites that merely bring two towns closer together – they must actually merge for the impact to be permanent and unacceptable.

3.58 Policy SP5 should be positively written and might for example include terms that might permit support for example:

“Sustainable Development that gives rise to extensions of towns in sustainable locations that can demonstrate that they provide essential land uses to assist the local community will be supported where there is neither physical merger of towns nor the visual merger of towns.”

Section 9.0 – Settlement Envelopes and Settlement Hierarchy

3.59 The Plan recognises that within the settlement hierarchy, Henlow is defined as a large village. It is noted that the definition of each settlement is made having regard for their ‘local sustainability credentials’ (para 9.1.1) due to their access to a variety of services and facilities.

Policy SP7 – Development within Settlement Envelopes

3.60 The role of the Settlement Envelope is defined in this plan to represent the boundary between settlements and the surrounding countryside. It is stated clearly that their role is not to identify land for development. Therefore, the Council must not attempt to try and draw boundaries that frustrate development any more than might encourage it. They must not define the boundary as being brownfield versus greenfield, but rather it is a judgement of what might constitute urban and rural land uses.

16

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

3.61 It is essential that the Council defines this clearly and, in their review, they include all land uses that relate to the land use of the settlement, including formal open space, rear gardens, church grounds, schools etc. In the past the Council introduced a different approach which is misleading and attempts to frustrate suitable infill development, which is a vital component of the delivery of housing.

Section 11.0 – Housing

Policy H1 - Housing Mix

3.62 This policy advises that all developments for new dwellings include a mix of housing types and sizes in order to meet the needs of all sections of the community. However, it should be accepted that a professional house builder will make proposals instructively to meet a market and they are likely to be experts in understanding the local market for housing. The policy or the supporting text should recognise that such expertise is relevant.

Policy H2 – Housing Standards

3.63 The characteristics of some main stream housing sites may not be suitable for the inclusion of adaptable homes, such as limited access to facilities or topographical limitations to a site. It is therefore appropriate to use an evidence approach to ensure the specific requirement for a site, as opposed to using a prescriptive percentage for all sites.

Policy H4 – Affordable Housing

3.64 The Policy should avoid prescription of affordable tenure and amount. The tenure split should be considered on a site by site basis with an overall target, that may or may not vary dependant on specific situations. Furthermore, tenure split requirements should be requested by housing departments based on evidence of need, using Local Housing Need Surveys.

Policy H5 – Rural Exception Sites

3.65 As has been brought to the Council’s attention in previous representations this policy does not meet the requirement of the NPPF. The eighth bullet point advises that the site must “relate well to the existing pattern of development…” this is neither in accord with the NPPF, nor is it in accord with the interpretation of Inspectors. An appeal in Henlow (relating to this site) confirmed this position, as Central lost an appeal to this effect. The Inspector in this case clarified this position in the appeal:

17

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

3.66 This policy should be altered to include the definition of the NPPF (see Annex 2: Glossary page 55) which does not include the geographical relationship to a settlement. The policy is unsound if it includes the need for such sites to be ‘well related’ to a settlement. By definition rural exception sites are capable of being located anywhere in the rural area where they meet other criteria. Furthermore, the policy should not limit the number of market units to 20%. This is contrary to the NPPF definition as well as the overriding consideration is that of viable delivery not proportionality.

Policy H7 – Self and Custom Build Homes

3.67 The sentiment in the policy is proactive, however it is ambiguous. As a starting point, all forms of sustainable development should be considered “favourably” and therefore in what circumstances is the Council willing to “…consider favourably applications for the delivery of serviced plots on sites of less than 10 dwellings.” Is this policy alluding to development in the open countryside? If this is related to ten dwellings within the settlement boundary, then this would be favourably considered any way – what is the benefit to an applicant to take the self-build route as this policy does not provide anything that is exceptional.

3.68 Furthermore, to insist that within a development of over 10 dwellings up to 20% should be for self- build is to fail to understand that market place and to understand how house-builders develop and how they operate commercially. The majority of sites that deliver over ten dwellings will be built by commercial developers who have sales targets and key delivery timescales to ensure that their Return of Capital Employed meets their commercial terms, both to their Board as well as any financial lender. To bolt self-build plots onto a mainstream housing site will fail to deliver the plots in sensible timescales. The self-build plots would most likely be delivered late in the development phases, because a developer will not wish to hamper their own sale targets by offering competing self-build plots. The last units on a site will therefore be the self-build plots. Noting that there is no ‘commercial incentive’ for a developer to deliver the self-build plots, as they cannot form part of their sales delivery targets, they will have little relevance to a housebuilder and therefore their importance within a development site will be of the lowest priority.

3.69 In our view this policy should be about creating ways of accommodating self-build away from normal policy restrictions on mainstream housing. These plots should not be seen as a ‘burden’ to development and we would advocate, that like affordable homes, they are delivered as an exception to the countryside and Green Belt policies. This way there is an incentive for landowners to deliver the self-build homes and to free the mainstream housebuilders from a further obligation, that will act as a burden to the delivery of their development sites.

18

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

3.70 For example, a policy that allowed (up to a finite number – say 10) the positive presumption in favour of self-build plots located outside BUT adjacent to a Settlement Envelope, subject to other criteria on delivery, scale etc would in our view deliver opportunities for new self-build plots in modest clusters that would not be harmful to the wider countryside policies, whilst delivering a sensible source of housing.

Chapter 15 – Environmental Enhancement

3.71 We consider that Policy EE1 (Green Infrastructure) is a nebulous policy that provides a lack of clarity on what might be acceptable. What is net gain and how is tested at development management? The policy should identify considerations for what might constitute net gain, not necessarily an exhaustive list but one which provides clarity on what is sought and that all planning applications can be judged against. It is noted that the policy supports schemes that have regard for enhancement of the infrastructure network and are multi-functional and high quality.

19

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

4.0 Representation to the SHLAA (January 2018)

4.1 The SHLAA is a key piece of evidence for informing strategy and in identifying suitable sites for allocation. The purpose is to establish which sites are “suitable, available and achievable” known as ‘deliverable’ (para 1.1.2). The SHLAA does not seek to determine whether sites should be allocated for development as most importantly it is the Local Plan that must decide which sites are most appropriate (para 1.2.3)

4.2 In viewing the Preliminary Site Assessment Results it is noted that the site at Hitchin Road Henlow was excluded from the Local Plan process at Stage 1A.

4.3 The justification for this is commented as:

“Site fails at Stage 1A. Site would not accommodate ten dwellings or more. Site is 50% or more within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Site is 50% or more at risk of surface water flooding.”

4.4 The Executive Summary of the Supporting Technical Document advises that these are the initial conclusions of the Council and these conclusions do “…not represent a full assessment of sites, and does not draw conclusions on the suitability, availability and achieve ability of sites…”. In fact, the document seeks only to not rule this site out, rather than rule it in. This is a somewhat unusual method of positively promoting land for development. The local plan process should not be seen as reluctant exercise; LPAs are encouraged to “…plan positively for the development…” that is required for their area (para 157 NPPF).

4.5 However, as has been demonstrated below, the assessment was flawed and incorrect. The evidence provided in the previous representations and as might be recognised from the planning history of the site, it had not been duly considered. In particular, the site is capable of being developed for residential purposes and the Environment Agency has no objection.

4.6 A copy of the Committee report to application (ref: CB/16/04555/OUT) for 12 affordable homes is found on the Council’s website, dated 04 July 2017. This report provides a recommendation for approval and in consideration of the reason for the site not progressing, the report confirms:

• The site can accommodate 10 or more dwellings

• There is no objection from the EA or IDB to the development of the site, in light of a detailed model of the adjacent flood zone.

4.7 Subsequently the s106 agreement has been signed and planning permission has been issued in respect of the above development. However, we propose that this site is allocated for up to 12 no. dwellings with 30% affordable, rather than as a Rural Exception site.

20

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

4.8 In light of the above this site should have passed the Assessment and been considered for inclusion in the Plan.

4.9 Furthermore, the landowner reiterates that this site is suitable for allocation and welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate that the site is suitable for allocation for up to 12 residential units. It should not have been rejected at Stage 1A. In this situation, the site would have been further considered for suitability.

21

Representation no: 1148/ALP265

Appendix A - Site Information

22