CENTRAL LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION – AUGUST 2017 On behalf of Bellcross Company (including Bellcross Homes and Builders Ltd) 25th August 2017

INTRODUCTION

1. The following representations are made by Rapleys on behalf of the Bellcross Company (including subsidiaries, Bellcross Homes and Kensworth Builders Ltd) in respect of their land interests within .

2. The land interests are fourfold –  Land off Parkside, , comprising some 13.8ha being promoted for residential development;  Land off Trafalgar Drive, , comprising some 7.3ha being promoted for residential development;  Land off Road, Caddington, comprising some 46ha, part of which is being promoted for residential development; and  Land off Chalton Heights, Chalton, comprising some 14ha being promoted for mixed residential/employment/roadside development.

3. All four sites have previously been promoted through the iterations of the Local Plan and call for sites exercises. Rapleys welcomes the opportunity to participate in this consultation exercise and provide the following comments below in respect of the Councils draft Local Plan.

4. The representation commentary focusses in generic terms on the overall strategy being considered by the Council, as this is a major element of this consultation and should be read in that context. It is important to get this right rather than be too centred at this stage on the more general development control policies such as affordable housing, open space provision, etc. We reserve the right to provide further comment on these matters at the appropriate time (i.e., the next consultation). Separate comment is then provided in respect of each of the client sites.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS IN RESPECT OF HOUSING NUMBERS

5. The SHMA estimates Central Bedfordshire's housing need as 32,000 dwellings 2015 to 2035. The Draft Local Plan covers the period 2015 to 2035 and is therefore consistent with the SHMA. The publication of the initial Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for and Central Bedfordshire is welcomed as it demonstrates the Council’s intention to meet the objectively assessed development needs of the plan area. In addition, it is recognised that the Council is also fulfilling its Duty to Co-operate by joint working with Luton Borough Council in looking to meet their unmet housing needs. However, whilst the background SHMA work deals with the Duty to Co-operate with Luton in particular, it is not clear whether the Council has undertaken the Duty to Co-operate requirement with the Greater London Authorities into account as well. Essentially, if not, why not? Such consideration may affect the overall housing need.

6. The use of the latest population data through the use of the CLG 2014 based household projections is supported.

7. The SHMA identifies that the annual average OAN of 2,550 dwellings is notably higher than the recent rate of housing delivery in Luton and Central Bedfordshire over the 10 year period from 2001-11 which averaged about 1,320 dwellings each year. Therefore, there is a required step change in the delivery of housing over the forthcoming plan period. Consequently, the strategy for delivering this growth has to be sound and deliverable – see further comment on this under the ‘Strategy’ section.

8. The latest Five Year Housing Land Supply and Trajectory is dated July 2017 and is based on the latest 32,000 dwelling figure endorsed by the SHMA equating to 1,600 dwellings per annum. Over the first 2.25 years completions were 3,710 against the requirement of 3,600, i.e., a surplus of 110 dwellings. This leaves 28,290 dwellings to be found, equating to a five year requirement with 5% buffer of 8,367.

RAPLEYS LLP 1

9. Supply is significant at 20,506 excluding completions and the 2,550 dwellings that are anticipated after 2035. The 5 year supply equates to 9,625 dwellings giving 5.75 years overall.

10. The housing trajectory appears unbalanced towards the first 5 years (9,625 completions) (the remaining 13 years total 10,881 dwellings). Once the April 2017 completions data is available a comparison can be made to see how realistic the trajectory is and we reserve the right to be able to do this.

11. There is a good variety and spread of sites, with the land supply not dominated by a single site. However, half of the supply is in 3 locations (4,830 at North of Houghton Regis, 2,430 east of Leighton and 3,500 at ).

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Strategic Options: Scenarios for Distributing Housing Growth

12. In developing the Strategy for the Local Plan the Council has divided the administrative area into four broad planning locations, A-D and considered five development scenarios. This demonstrates that the Council intend to produce a plan that addresses the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development by systematically taking into account the environmental, economical and social impact of proposals, alongside the consideration of alternatives. Overall this is welcomed.

13. All four client sites identified above lie within Area A. Area A lies entirely within the Green Belt and is focussed in the south-west part of the district around Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis and Leighton Linslade. Specifically, in terms of settlement hierarchy, Houghton Regis and Flitwick are Major Service Centres (and settlements inset from the Green Belt), Caddington is a Minor Service Centre (inset from the Green Belt) and Chalton is a Small Village (washed over by the Green Belt with infill only boundaries).

14. Four of the five development strategy scenarios looked at by the Council propose growth within Area A. It is noted that one scenario avoided growth in the Green Belt altogether. However, this has been discounted, notably because it would not assist in meeting the considerable unmet need for Luton, which CBC is bound to do under the Duty to Co-operate. It makes logical planning sense to seek to provide for Luton’s unmet needs (purported to be around 7,350 dwellings over the plan period) as close to Luton as possible – this inevitably means development within the Green Belt within area A. Consequently, a strategy which includes development in area A is supported.

15. Furthermore, the Sustainability Appraisal which sits behind the Local Plan assesses growth in area A as having a major positive effect on the housing objective which seeks ‘to ensure that the housing needs of all residents and communities are met’ (Table 5.1). This conclusion is supported, as whilst the area A is located within the Green Belt, it does have the potential to deliver sustainable housing growth close to existing infrastructure at the main town locations of Luton, Houghton Regis/Dunstable and Leighton Linslade, as well as the rail corridor between Luton and Flitwick as identified at Local Plan paragraph 5.1.6.

16. The importance of the sustainability of area A cannot be over-emphasised, particularly in the context of the level of growth that has been identified as necessary through the SHMA and Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN), and the proposed development strategy being considered.

Strategic Growth Locations

17. The growth strategy is identified in Policy SP1, setting a minimum requirement of 20,000 dwellings to be delivered over the plan period, in addition to the 23,000 commitments already in the pipeline.

18. The strategy, which reflects the scenario where there is higher levels of growth across the whole of the district, essentially consists of:

 North of Luton - 4,000 dwellings (Area A);

RAPLEYS LLP 2

 Limited extensions to towns and villages within the Green Belt - 2,000 dwellings collectively (Area A);  West of Luton- 2,000 dwellings (Area A);  7,000 houses in a new town at (Area B);  3,000 houses east of in new villages (Area B);  2,000 houses east of Arseley (Area B);  Some 8,000 houses in ‘new villages’ within the Marston Vale/ rail corridor (Area C);  500 houses at Wixams (Area C) and  Mixed use (Upto 250 houses) at RAF (Area D).

19. It is noted that the policy states that ‘subject to further assessment of sustainability and deliverability, new development will be planned for at a selection of these locations’. In other words, not all of the identified locations will be taken forward in the Local Plan. The following observations are offered up on this:

(i) On one level, this raises questions about the robustness of the Sustainability Assessment already carried out to identify these locational options. It also raises questions about the findings of the assessment, particularly in relation to sites that are not being progressed, or options that have been overlooked, notably in the Green Belt, where, despite the conclusion of the Sustainability Appraisal overall that development should take place within the Green Belt, all options to identify strategic growth on the edge of Green Belt Towns and Villages appear to have been discounted at this stage;

(ii) The locations selected for what is major growth do not follow the settlement hierarchy identified in section 10 of the Plan. For example, eight settlements are ‘Major Service Centres’ including five in the Green Belt (Area A). However, only two (both outside the Green Belt), Biggleswade and Wixams, are singled out for specific strategic development – a potential total of 3,500 dwellings. (It is acknowledged that Houghton Regis/Dunstable and Leighton Linslade already have a large number of committed dwellings in the pipeline and further development here beyond their defined physical extent at this stage would be inappropriate – time is needed to deliver these houses and for associated communities to be formed). A disproportionate number of dwellings are potentially identified to come forward in larger villages – some 8,000 as new villages in the Marston Vale/Apsley Guise area between the Green Belt and Bedford.

(iii) The potential development at Marston Vale/Apsley Guise is identified on the back of the creation of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Government has made commitments to the strategic infrastructure requirements, the timing of this is uncertain, and in any event, further funds will be needed to support the delivery of key infrastructure to unlock and accelerate housing delivery. At this stage the Council does not know the outcome of its bids in respect of funding from the Large Sites Capacity Fund, Estate Regeneration Fund and Accelerated Construction Fund. Furthermore, as acknowledged in the report on ‘Development Gain and Economic Benefit from East West Rail’, the route of the railway has yet to be finalised and consequently timescales for its delivery (as well as funding) are very uncertain. The key point is that, currently, no Government funding has been secured to help deliver and unlock the infrastructure required to be sure that the housing levels being proposed here will actually be delivered in the plan period. There does not appear to be an Infrastructure Delivery Plan to support the development strategy. This raises questions about the deliverability of the plan and its consistency with national policy.

(iv) Overall CBC is looking to commit to delivering a significant (circa 15,000) amount of housing at a ‘new’ town and villages. The fact that the Council is prepared to consider the creation of new settlements (like its neighbour Bedford Borough) is to be welcomed. However, the potential heavy reliance on housing provision though the creation of ‘new’ towns and villages is questionable especially when the funding for infrastructure delivery is currently unknown and such a step change in housing delivery is required during the plan period. There needs to be a greater balance between the level of housing to be provided in ‘new’ settlements and that in extensions to existing settlements, even

RAPLEYS LLP 3

if this means more land being removed from the Green Belt in the major service centres, like Flitwick.

Focussed Comment on Area A

20. The identification of development locations that are sustainable is essential, hence CBC is looking at the east-west rail corridor outside of the Green Belt, and the north-south corridor from Luton through to Bedford within the Green Belt. In broad terms, and notwithstanding the comments above, this principle is generally supported. In reality, this makes Area A the most sustainable geographical area, notwithstanding the Green Belt.

Inset Green Belt Villages (Village Extensions) 21. The presence of the Green Belt should, in our view, lead to greater definition of sites to be released. However, the plan, and particularly the language and wording used, both within Policy SP1 and the justification text in section 7, is both muddled and confusing in respect of Area A.

22. For example, paragraph 7.8.1 states ‘this version of the plan only looks at key growth location options. In the main these are of a strategic scale except for the collective growth that is proposed through limited extension to large villages and towns inset into the Green Belt (Area A)’. However, Policy SP1 states under Area A ‘Inset Green Belt Villages (Village Extensions)’.

23. Several points arise –

(i) The ‘collective growth’ to these inset Green Belt large villages and towns amounts to some 8,000 dwellings – this is by definition ‘strategic’ and in our view, in this context, the proposed sites should be defined;

(ii) The only identified extensions to ‘towns’ in Policy SP1 are those to the north and west of Luton for some 6,000 dwellings – both these sites are strategic in scale and hardly ‘limited’;

(iii) SP1 does not specifically identify extensions to ‘inset Green Belt Villages’;

(iv) Some 2,000 dwellings at expected to be provided in the Inset Green Belt Villages – however, no sites are identified. Furthermore, it is not clear whether this means locations throughout Area A or just focussed within the north-south rail corridor. In this respect, Flitwick and Harlington are the ONLY settlements with railway stations; Flitwick is a Major Service Centre, a town not a ‘village’, whilst Harlington is a Minor Service Centre – we presume that ‘Villages’ equally includes Major/Minor Service Centres – in any event, consistency of terminology throughout the document is of paramount importance;

(v) Key diagram figure 8.1 adds to the confusion stating ‘plus small scale growth in villages across Central Bedfordshire but only where this can be supported by existing services and TRANSPORT NETWORKS’.

24. Overall Area A has been identified for accommodating a potential 8,000 dwellings. However, it is not at all clear whether this is simply for the provision of Luton’s unmet housing need (certainly the suggested 6,000 at north and west of Luton can reasonably be assumed to be for this purpose), or whether there is an element of provision for the CBC internal needs and growth within Area A. This must be clarified. It is unacceptable in our view not to provide for CBC’s own needs within Area A, Green Belt or not.

25. Furthermore, when the background documentation is examined (notably the Site Assessment Studies, the Green Belt Studies and the Sustainability Appraisal), more confusion arises with regard to the location of these 2,000 dwellings within the Inset Green Belt Villages (or settlements). The Sustainability Appraisal does not identify these preferred broad locations even though they are integral to the overall preferred Spatial Strategy and should be tested at this stage. Without this sequential approach to site selection being undertaken early, the credibility of delivering the housing requirement is put into doubt.

RAPLEYS LLP 4

26. In our view, irrespective of Green Belt, the options for accommodating these 2,000 dwellings, or anything over and above this required as part of CBC’s own needs for Area A, are extremely limited, given the stated focus on the rail/transport corridors. This position is exacerbated even more by the total rejection within the Site Assessment Studies and Green Belt Studies, of every site put forward by interested parties, in Flitwick in particular, including our clients land at Trafalgar Drive. Such a position simply cannot be sustainable given the level of housing need identified.

27. The Trafalgar Drive site at Flitwick is in reality one of the most sustainable sites that could and should be identified. In our view, the 8ha can be developed for around 250 dwellings, a level that can reasonably and readily be accommodated within the town without detriment to its existing services, infrastructure or environmental capacity. Indeed the background studies note that, ignoring Green Belt, the town has a medium to high capacity for further growth – and yet nothing is specifically identified.

28. The site has no environmental constraints – it is not AONB, SSSI or CWS; it is not in flood Zone 2, 3a/b; it is not ecologically sensitive; it lies within 1,200m of the train station and main retail and service facilities, hence it is easily accessible and sustainable in its own right.

29. The Site Assessment Study rejects the site because of -

(i) Green Belt and issues of coalescence with to the north – the CBC strategy is predicated on exceptional circumstances and the need for Green Belt site development; there is a large and deep swathe of land between the site boundary and the A507 and Ampthill to the north that is being developed as a Country Park and has established playing fields within it; existing tree planting renders the site invisible (or at worst views are severely restricted) from the A507/Ampthill and further tree planting will only serve to re-inforce this position;

(ii) Proximity to sewerage works – the sewerage works are located some way to the north of the part of the site being promoted for development and in reality is no closer that the estates at Ampthill to the north. The issue of proximity to the works was not raised as an issue or even mentioned in either the CBC pre-application response or environmental impact assessment screening opinion response provided to our client in 2016 and 2017;

(iii) Grade 2 land – this is purely based on the overall Land Classification Map, which identifies the majority of Bedfordshire as Grade 2 or 3a quality, the Council has not undertaken a site specific analysis. The land has not been used for arable cultivation, but rather left unused as rough grassland/pasture;

(iv) The site needs to make at least a 100 dwelling contribution to the Luton HMA, and from CBC point of view, less than 100 dwellings are likely – it is not clear, given the lack of environmental, social and economic constraints where an assessment yield of 100 dwellings comes from – the client has consistently discussed around 250 dwellings as an achievable yield. It is interesting to note that this Study views the site as contributing to the Luton HMA, i.e., for Luton’s unmet need. Notwithstanding the fact that nowhere else is there any reference to a minimum site yield contribution to the Luton HMA, either way, whether as part of the Luton HMA or as CBC’s own needs, the site does have an important role to play towards achieving the overall housing requirement.

30. It is our view, that Trafalgar Drive, Flitwick should be identified as a suitable and specific site allocation for housing to meet the overall requirement within the plan period.

West of Luton (Town Extension) 31. Whilst we do not disagree with the principle of providing for Luton’s unmet needs in part to the west of the town (around 2,000 dwellings), we question whether the option being promoted is really the most sustainable, achievable and appropriate.

RAPLEYS LLP 5

32. The M1 creates a large, unavoidable, prominent and permanent barrier to the ability to be able to ‘tap’ into any of the existing services that are currently provided in the westernmost extent of the built up area of Luton. In any event, at this scale, permanent infrastructure facilities will be necessary within the urban extension itself if a truly sustainable community is going to be created. Indeed, Infrastructure requirements include:

 Improved pedestrian and cycle connection would have to be provided between the surrounding settlements as well as Luton (the other side of the M1),  comprehensive new public transport and highway infrastructure to Luton  community centres/facilities and mix of retail uses whilst not undermining viability of Luton/Houghton Regis/Dunstable town centres  extensions to existing schools and new provision, etc.

33. This swathe of land lies immediately east of Caddington. The rationale contained within the Implementation chapter of the draft plan is to create a new settlement appropriately separated from existing settlements of Caddington, and Woodside to prevent coalescence.

34. We question this rationale and suggest that it would in actual fact be much more sustainable and logical to create and design the west of Luton requirement around Caddington itself. Caddington is a Minor Service Centre in the CBC settlement hierarchy, already containing a reasonably high level of existing infrastructure and facilities. It would be much more logical to build on/make use of these existing facilities, whilst of course acknowledging that additional infrastructure would be required - this could be readily phased as house building progressed, but at day 1 there would be infrastructure in place that could be used.

35. The southern part (outwith the AONB) of the 46ha off Dunstable Road, Caddington owned by our client is ideal in this regard, notwithstanding the reasons for rejection in the Site Assessment Study, which were of course made in the context of maintaining Caddington as a separate settlement -

(i) Northern part is in the AONB as well as Green Belt – this is acknowledged, and only the southern part of the site is being promoted; see comments in paragraph 28 (i) above in respect of Green Belt;

(ii) Southern part is ‘within the setting of the AONB’ – in the context of the proposed urban extension location, also in the ‘setting of the AONB’ this argument is nonsensical and falls away. Furthermore, the southern part of the site is the most sustainable being in close proximity to the central service area of the settlement;

(iii) It is ecologically sensitive – further assessment is needed in this regard before such a bald statement can be made, whist acknowledging its proximity to Folly Wood; furthermore, if this was to be the case, mitigation may be possible, particularly making use of that part of the site which lies within the AONB and therefore has less development potential;

(iv) Development here would be ‘harmful to the appearance and character of the area’ – again this is a very bald statement with little analysis to back it up and is considered no less ‘harmful’ than the development of 2,000 houses on the north-eastern flank of the settlement. Furthermore, the site performs weakly in respect of all functions of the Green Belt.

36. It is our view that the whole of the west of Luton urban extension should be focussed and developed around the settlement of Caddington and that our client’s land off Dunstable Road is a logical and sustainable location for some of those 2,000 dwellings to be identified.

North of Luton Extension (Town Expansion) 37. The new A5/M1 link and M1 junction lies immediately to the south/south-east of the client land at Chalton Heights, Chalton. Immediately to the east of the M1 and it junction is the proposed north of Luton extension for 4,000 dwellings and some 40ha employment land. From a strategy point of view, such a location to meet the needs of Luton makes logical and sustainable sense and in that regard no objections are raised per se to this proposed site. The location also combines the proposed Junction 11A strategic employment area.

RAPLEYS LLP 6

38. The client site is strategically well placed for the delivery of further sustainable residential development as well as a suitable economic development location in the context of the north Luton urban extension. Our client supports the consideration of a range of land uses on his site and the delivery of mixed use development.

Parkside, Houghton Regis 39. Our client and the Council have been working together for a while now to prepare a planning application on this land, sandwiched between the existing development at Parkside and the HRN1 land that has permission for some 5,000 houses. The client land can accommodate around 350 dwellings.

40. The current strategy and accompanying documentation do not mention development at Houghton Regis other than in the context of the existing commitments (including HRN1). Furthermore, at this stage and level of planning, it is not clear whether as a result of the HRN1 permission, the defined urban area boundary will be extended to include the HRN1 site – logically one would expect that it would and therefore its removal from the Green Belt would be cemented. If this is the case, then it must follow that the client site would also be removed from the Green Belt (albeit it is accepted that any application on the client site would still, at this stage, have to justify exceptional circumstances to remove it from the Green Belt). Consequently, the client site should either be shown as white land capable of development within the urban area, allocated as a development site, or treated as a windfall.

41. Policy SP6 is concerned with development within settlement envelopes and notes that ‘within settlement envelopes of both Major and Minor Service Centres, the Council will support the principle of housing, employment and other settlement related development proportionate to the scale of the settlement’.

42. This principle is supported and welcomed, assuming the aforementioned changes to the Houghton Regis urban area boundary. In any event, further clarity on the defined Houghton Regis urban area boundary is required.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

43. In summary, we welcome the opportunity to comment on the CBC Local Plan strategy proposals, but reserve the right to make further comment on a number of aspects of the plan and its strategy at the appropriate time.

44. The recognition by CBC of a substantial housing need, and the notable attempt to accommodate the unmet need from Luton is also welcomed and supported in principle. However, further clarity is required as to whether there has been any allowance for the needs of Greater London, which may result in the overall requirement increasing. Clarity is also needed as to whether Area A development proposals include an allowance for CBC’s internal housing needs within this area or whether the proposals are merely in respect of the Luton HMA requirements.

45. The consideration of alternative options is welcomed, albeit some of the assessment and justification needs further explanation and justification.

46. The phraseology and terms used within the text of the plan and individual policies is inconsistent and needs clarifying, particularly in relation to development within Area A.

47. The strategy is too reliant on the delivery of new settlements, not least because of the level of infrastructure required as part of their development, but also in respect of the level of development proposed at circa 15,000 dwellings. Much of this new settlement development is within a rail corridor that has yet to be wholly defined, never mind delivered on the ground, for which funding is not yet identified. This raises questions about the sustainability, deliverability and realism of the strategy and whether therefore, this is acceptable and in accordance with the NPPF.

RAPLEYS LLP 7

48. All sites/locations that are cited as part of the key locational strategy, but especially those within the Green Belt, should be identified and defined. There are limited realistic options here after all, particularly if the emphasis is on the north-south rail corridor through Area A. In this regard, Trafalgar Drive, Flitwick should be identified as a deliverable and sustainable development proposal going forward in the next version of the plan.

49. Caddington should be the basis of the western expansion of Luton – it is an existing service centre with existing facilities that could be used at day 1 to serve some of Luton’s needs. It makes no logical sense to seek to retain an artificial ‘gap’ between the urban extension and Caddington when the urban extension is already separated from Luton by the M1 and will be developed as a separate entity in any event. As such, land off Dunstable Road, Caddington would be a sustainable location for some of this development to take place.

50. The northern expansion of Luton is both logical and sustainable. Further expansion and consolidation west of this, combined with the strategic employment site which could expand west to logically include land at Chalton Heights should also be considered.

RAPLEYS LLP 8 SITE LOCATION PLAN Scale @ A4 : 1:5000 Land to the East of HOUGHTON REGIS. Plan No. : 352/58/1_SLP01 This map is for identification purposes only and should not be relied upon for accuracy. Reproduced by permission of Geographers' A-Z Map Co. Ltd. Licence No. A0203. This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey® - © Crown Copyright 2001. Licence No. 100017302 and © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. Licence No. ES 100004619

0870 777 6292 www.rapleys.co.uk

LONDON BRISTOL EDINBURGH HUNTINGDON MANCHESTER

INDICATIVE RED LINESITE LOCATION PLAN Scale @ A4 : 1:5000 FLITWICK. Plan No. : 82/177/1_SLP1

This map is for identification purposes only and should not be relied upon for accuracy. Reproduced by permission of Geographers' A-Z Map Co. Ltd. Licence No. A0203. This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey® - © Crown Copyright 2001. Licence No. 100017302 and © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. Licence No. ES 100004619

0870 777 6292 www.rapleys.co.uk

LONDON BRISTOL EDINBURGH HUNTINGDON MANCHESTER

SITE LOCATION PLAN Scale @ A4 : 1:5000 Land to the South of CHALTON. Plan No. : 625/172/1_1

This map is for identification purposes only and should not be relied upon for accuracy. Reproduced by permission of Geographers' A-Z Map Co. Ltd. Licence No. A0203. This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey® - © Crown Copyright 2001. Licence No. 100017302 and © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. Licence No. ES 100004619

0870 777 6292 www.rapleys.co.uk

LONDON BRISTOL EDINBURGH HUNTINGDON MANCHESTER