3 Spatial Strategy

Policy SP1: Growth Strategy

Section 1.4: Calculating Housing Need

Sections 1.5 & 5.5: Partial Plan Review

Section 1.7: Requirements of Plan Making

Section 5.2: Key Spatial Objectives

Section 5.4: Spatial Strategy Approach

Section 6: The Proposed Locations for Growth

Section 12.8: Education and Skills Introduction

1. This representation has been made on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Limited to the Regulation 19 pre-submission draft of the Central Council (CBC) Local Plan 2015 – 2035.

Summary of Representation

2. This representation highlights the failure of the Draft Plan to deliver the amount of overall housing required to meet current needs and, in particular, its failure to adequately provide for ’s unmet housing and educational needs in appropriate locations, and in a timely manner.

3. This representation also objects to the failure of the Draft Plan to expressly identify West of Luton as a housing allocation from the outset, and to instead consider its possible allocation as part of a future Local Plan Review. We also object to its site capacity being identified as 2,000 dwellings. We consider that the location supports the allocation of 4,600 dwellings (3,500 dwellings as a new allocation, and 1,100 dwellings in respect of Safeguarded Land to be released via the Partial Local Plan Review).

Policy SP1: Growth Strategy and Spatial Strategy Approach (Section 5.4)

4. We have submitted a separate and more detailed representation in relation to the failure of Policy SP1 to identify West of Luton as an immediate Local Plan allocation, and to instead rely upon a future Partial Local Plan Review to do this (as detailed in paragraph 5.5 of the Draft Plan).

5. Separate representations have also been submitted with regard to other matters; including the content of the Draft Plan’s Vision and Objectives and the Sustainability Appraisal.

6. In addressing serious deficiencies in the overall Spatial Strategy, our representation draws heavily upon the findings of two particular documents. Firstly, the Central Bedfordshire Pre-submission Local Plan: Review of Housing Need and Land Supply prepared by Lichfields (seeAppendix 3.1). This Report has been jointly commissioned by Abbey Land Developments Ltd, Richborough Estates, Catesby Estates, and Rainier Developments Ltd. Secondly, we refer extensively to the content of (LBC)’s Schedule of Draft Representations to the Draft Plan as reported to its Executive Meeting on 20 February 2018 (see Appendix F of Appendix 3.2). We quote in brackets the relevant paragraph numbers of the reports.

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 23 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Section 1.4: Calculating Housing Need

7. The Central Bedfordshire Pre-Submission 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.

Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA (2015)

8. 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 10-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).

9. The Lichfields Report has concluded 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 (2.13).

10. 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):

11. 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 noted 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.

24 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Review of Luton & Central Bedfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017)

12. 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.

13. 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” Lichfields has stated that this immediately raises concerns as whether the adjustments made by the SHMA are reasonable and robust, particularly given Figure 35 of SHMA shows population growth in Central Bedfordshire has been increasing over time (2.22).

14. Lichfields have found that 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 (2.27). Indeed, they point out that other ONS data on the margins of error around the MYEs shows Central Bedfordshire is within the top 25% LPAs in 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 (2.28).

15. In light of the above analysis, Lichfields state that there is a case to be made that at the very least, the market signals uplift for Central Bedfordshire should be at minimum 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 (2.52).

16. Lichfield have criticised 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 (2.53).

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 25 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Housing Market Area and Duty to Co-operate

17. A Joint Growth Options Study (JGOS) was prepared by LUC consultants on behalf of Luton Borough Council, Central Bedfordshire Council, North Hertfordshire District Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council. 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).

18. Lichfields have pointed point that 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 will meet 1,950 of Luton’s unmet need in its emerging Plan. The remainder of Luton’s unmet need will therefore fall to Central Bedfordshire, which borders most of Luton (p.77).

19. We consider it is imperative that the unmet needs of Luton are met within the areas of Central Bedfordshire which clearly have functional linkages with Luton. Figure 26 of the SHMA shows that 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.

20. We are surprised at the apparent failure of CBC to ensure agreement with LBC concerning key components of its Draft Plan before embarking on Regulation 19 Consultation (p.53 of the Schedule to the 20 February 2018 meeting of LBC’s Executive).

“Since the consultation on the Central Bedfordshire Plan (Reg 18) last summer there has been little opportunity for more detailed discussions under Duty to co-operate on various aspects of the Plan before this stage. We understand that CBC took the decision to accelerate its local plan timetable in order to meet the Government’s deadline of March 2018. However, this has meant that matters raised by Luton at Reg 18 have not been discussed sufficiently to date. To that effect Luton feels that more time would have allowed more progress eliminating the need for many of the soundness issues and clarifications requested in this schedule….”(our emphasis).

26 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 21. We further note that LBC has also commented in its draft schedule of representations in respect of the failure of the Draft Plan to provide clarity and certainty regarding how, where and when Luton’s unmet housing need will be met (p.58).

“Work will also be required to assess the detailed aspects of any future housing requirement in more detail– for example the implications for job creation and school places.

Whilst the generic commitment to deliver 7350 dwellings for Luton is welcomed, LBC objects that the Local Plan is not positively prepared, justified or effective as this commitment needs to be set out in policy specifying the amount, the location and when it will be delivered. This can be addressed through modifications to the Local Plan with a new policy addressing these matters”.

Standardised Methodology

22. 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.

23. 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 (now expected to be summer 2018) Lichfields have stated that the new methodology highlights two issues (2.81):

●● 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.

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 27 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 24. Lichfields have underlined that 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 (2.82).

25. 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. Lichfields have emphasized that 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 (2.83).

26. Nor does the SHMA demonstrate that a 10% uplift would reasonably be expected to improve affordability, and the Lichfields analysis suggests that at least a 20% uplift would be needed in Central Bedfordshire.

Housing Trajectory (2015-2035)

27. The Council’s housing trajectory indicates 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.

28. Lichfields have analysed the proposed delivery timescales for the strategic allocation sites. It found that in respect of ‘North of Luton’ 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 (3.36).

28 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 29. Similarly, Lichfields consider that in respect of ‘Marston Vale New Villages’ 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 (3.43).

Lichfields Alternative Trajectory

30. On the basis of the above housing trajectory review, Lichfields 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 an amended Table 3.7, which shows the supply against the housing requirement.

31. 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 the Lichfields 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 (3.67).

32. The application of a 10% contingency buffer to the Council’s housing trajectory would require the further identification and allocation of an additional 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) 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 (3.68).

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 29 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Table 3.7: CBC Housing Trajectory Breakdown by Type

Lichfields CBC (CBC Housing Target)

Total Housing Requirement 39,350

Housing Requirement 41,711 (including 6% contingency) Housing Requirement 43,285 (including 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) 648 648 648

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 2,590 1,373 (post 5 years) Windfall Allowance 307 307 (5 year 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)

33. Lichfields’ 5YLS 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 (3.79).

30 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives

34. Our separate representation in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal draws attention to a wide range of deficiencies within the SA process.

35. There is no robust evidence base produced by the Council to justify the spatial growth approach progressed by it, and contained within Policy SP1 of the Plan. In fact the opposite is the case in that the GOS strongly points to an allocation of land to the West of Luton as a sustainable and deliverable approach for the Local Plan. Set out below are the main reasons why Lichfields consider that the evidence underpinning the Council’s proposed spatial strategy is seriously flawed (4.26):

●● 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.

36. The following allocations have been identified for the ‘South Area’.

●● North of Luton c.4000 dwellings

●● Extensions to Barton Le Cley, Chalton, Eaton Bray, Flitwick, Harlington, Hockcliffe, , Leighton Linslade, Luton (Caddington Parish), Toddington & Westoning

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 31 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 37. It is apparent that extensions to small and medium sized villages will not be well located in terms of addressing Luton’s unmet housing and educational needs as they will be largely located significantly away to where the need arises (see Figure 3 of our representation in respect of Policy SP1 and section 7.9). This approach is both completely unsustainable, and also contrary to the stated position of LBC, which is to seek allocations as close as possible.

Education and Skills

38. We would draw attention to the content of the Luton Local Plan Examination Inspector’s Report (see Appendix 3.3) and LBC’s evidence to its Local Plan Examination on schools (see Appendix 3.4), which highlighted the importance of educational facility deficiencies in Luton.

“127.Although the demand for, and supply of, school places is referred to in the supporting text, this only emerged as a significant issue during the course of the examination. The Council’s difficulties in providing sufficient school places to meet projected housing growth are set out briefly in the notes relating to the 2016 SHLAA. The detailed analysis provided with the Council’s hearing statement of August 2016 more clearly indicates the severity of the situation”.

128. The analysis is quite stark. Based on a projected housing delivery of only around 6,900 dwellings, an additional 4 or 5 secondary schools are said to be required by 2030. New primary schools are also thought to be needed. As it stands the Council concludes that it does not currently have land or school expansion options to meet the growth from new development after 2021, even taking into account the site-specific proposals for a new and a new primary school in Policy LP24. This is said to be a particular problem in central and south Luton.

130. Despite the timescale to 2031, the Plan does not make any provision to meet this identified need beyond that set out in Policy LP24. Furthermore, given the limited availability of land and the size of existing schools, the Council was unable to draw my attention to any specific solutions based on the expansion of existing schools or the development of new sites. …..

32 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 131. The Framework attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available. It also requires that the capacity of education infrastructure is assessed and that required infrastructure should be positively planned for. The Plan does not meet all of these objectives over the full plan period. Furthermore, it is unlikely that finding a solution will be a particularly easy task. This is because sites in the right locations will need to be identified and procured (in an area with a limited supply of land) before specific school proposals can be planned, designed and funded. This could be an even more difficult prospect if some of the land has to be found in neighbouring authorities outside Luton, possibly in connection with urban extensions, a possibility raised at the hearing session” (our emphasis).

39. Consequently, the Draft Plan disregards Luton’s problems in meeting its educational needs in the future. It was confirmed at the Luton Examination when considering Luton’s urban capacity that there was an acute shortfall of land available to meet both future primary and secondary educational needs particularly in South Luton. While new schools will be provide as part of the allocation to the North of Luton this is not where the educational need arises which would mean children being driven or bused to school from other parts of Luton adding to the amount of traffic on already congested roads and by additional public costs of providing public transport.

40. We have prepared a plan which shows the location of CBC’s proposed smaller and medium sized housing allocations of 5,505 dwellings, 2410 of which are located in the Luton HMA (see Figure 3 of our representation in respect of Policy SP1 and section 7.9). It demonstrates that these are poorly positioned geographically to meet Luton’s educational needs. Furthermore, school provision in villages necessitating significant amounts of vehicle journeys for pupils would be very unsustainable. This is particularly true with regard to secondary school provision, which due to their scale, size and catchment, are unlikely to be suitable for the vast majority of villages.

41. In terms of addressing Luton’s significant and pressing unmet educational needs, LBC has highlighted that the North of Luton allocation will be of less benefit than the West of Luton development as it is located away from where school place deficiencies are most acute (p.112).

“…Two schools sites have been allocated in the Luton Local Plan to cater for rising school roles over the initial years of plan period and the next review of will consider this matter further. Urban extensions to the North of Luton propose school provision however, Luton considers that bringing forward development West of Luton will have more benefits to development and the town, where the highest school pressures exist, mainly in and around the town centre and to the south” (our emphasis).

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 33 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd Partial Plan Review

42. Paragraph 6.2.8 of the Draft Plan identifies Land West of Luton as an ‘Identified Location for future development’ that will be considered in the Partial Plan Review. The land is stated as having a potential capacity for around 2,000 homes, but does not contribute to the Plan target of 39,350 homes.

43. We do not accept that it is appropriate to delay proper consideration of Luton’s unmet housing needs to a future Local Plan Review. The evidence is very clear, that there is a pressing current need for additional housing provision, particularly where it will address Luton’s unmet housing and educational needs, which are worsening.

Luton Borough Council Executive Meeting: 20 February 2018 (see appendix 3.2)

44. Our concerns over delivery are strengthened by the content of the report being submitted to Luton Borough Council (LBC)’s Executive Meeting on 20 February 2018 in connection with the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-35 consultation. We believe the content of LBC’s draft consultation response to be highly pertinent, particularly given that it will be reliant upon CBC to meet a very significant amount of unmet need arising from Luton. We highlight below key comments and observations of relevance with regard to the West of Luton proposal.

45. Paragraph 17 of the Cover Report states:

“There is also much to commend within CBC plan – not least the commitment to addressing Luton’s unmet needs of 7,350 dwellings and the inclusion of West of Luton as an ‘Identified Location for Future Development’ as well as North of Luton proposed Urban extension. However, Luton considers that there is considerable merit in bringing forward the West of Luton option within the plan period in order to help CBC’s plan with housing delivery and ensure that Luton’s needs are addressed earlier in the plan period or at least secured through review of Green Belt boundaries within the plan. Luton will also need to suggest areas of clarification in making representations, in order to secure consistent approach to policy on the distribution of housing need and how Luton’s needs are addressed by the CBC plan”.

46. It is important to recognise that paragraph 4.8 of the Adopted Luton Local Plan (November 2017) states:

34 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd “The Borough Council considers that the interests of the town and sustainability, would best be served by meeting Luton’s unmet housing needs as close as possible to the communities from which the need arises. Indeed under the duty to cooperate and in response to neighbouring plan preparation, particular account should be taken of this Council’s policy supporting development to the west* of Luton and requesting a thorough examination of strategic cross boundary options around the town (i.e. that an assessment of options north, east, south and west of Luton should be examined).” *NB: Luton Borough Council resolved at its meeting on 18 January 2011 to support development West of Luton.

47. Furthermore, p.54 explicitly requests that CBC amends its Green Belt boundary and identifies Safeguarded Land in respect of West of Luton.

LBC considers the identification of the area West of Luton in the Local Plan as an ‘Identified Location for Future Development’ to be welcomed as an important step to recognising West of Luton as a suitable location for strategic development. However, LBC considers that there is a case based on needing to boost housing delivery especially in the earlier years of the plan, for the location West of Luton to be an Allocation in the current plan period (2015-2035) and that this alteration should be made to the Local Plan in order to ensure soundness. The reasons for this are provided in more detail below in the schedule representations.

Luton recognises that CBC needs to complete remaining technical work on the West of Luton identified location. This work will also be informed via joint working with LBC following a recent submission of a joint LBC and CBC Expression of Interest for a new strategic transport and options study of the “southern” east-west Expressway corridor. This study will also consider the impact of expansion which would (with the mitigation schemes the study would recommend) help to unblock delivery of a series of major sites through Hertfordshire and across to the west of Luton in Central Bedfordshire. For these reasons CBC should also be urged to redefine the Green Belt to the west of Luton (including provision for any longer term Safeguarded Land) should allocation not be achieved in this plan period but be subject to an early review as signalled by CBC, pending resolving technical work and joint evidence on the impact of London Luton Airport and decisions to be made on east – west connectivity.

48. The following comments relating specifically to ‘West of Luton’ are contained in LBC’s Draft Schedule of comments to the CBC Local Plan consultation (p.60- 61) and are considered particularly pertinent:

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 35 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd “The revised SHMA and projected OAN for Central Bedfordshire and the wider HMA points to increased needs over the plan period while development performance is struggling to deliver needs particularly over first five years of the Local Plan. Allocating West of Luton can help to ensure that further housing is planned for delivery within the Luton HMA to provide further deliverable supply within the first 5 years of the plan”.

“Allocation of West of Luton will complement the allocations North of Luton and East of Luton in terms of delivery and providing differentiation in the market – providing choice in location for potential future residents of these developments. It also provides an important safeguard should one or multiple urban extensions’ housing delivery slow or stall in the future”.

“Furthermore, the scale proposed at West of Luton (2,000 dwellings) should provide the critical mass required to deliver needed supporting infrastructure including a school to serve the needs of the development and not rely on Luton’s oversubscribed schools”.

49. Luton Councils views on the Strategic Allocation West of Luton, as reported to its Executive on 21st August 2017, welcomed the potential of growth to exceed the 2,000 dwellings proposed west of Luton and that it provides scope for testing to accommodate Luton’s longer-term development needs post 2035. Luton would welcome further discussion under duty to cooperate to agree a way forward on these matters. LBC has expressed its disappointment that an initial housing allocation for the West of Luton site has not been included in the plan which benefits from being adjacent to the recently completed Chaul End Road development, and the close proximity of these sites to the Luton Busway. Sites to West of Luton therefore, have the opportunity for higher levels of sustainable travel. In this context, whilst the Council’s preference would be for buses serving that development to use the tunnel under the M1 connecting into the bend at the west end of Road, changes would be required to the layout of the junction of Chaul End Lane with the Busway.

50. West of Luton is LBC’s preference for the growth of the town. This area was also assessed as being the most sustainable location for growth out of all of the growth options considered by the independent consultants in preparing the Growth Option Study. West of Luton was assessed as a better location for the growth of the town that the North of Luton – so why have CBC allocated land to the North of Luton and excluded the land the West of Luton?

51. The Plan acknowledges that growth to the West of Luton has significant potential and should be considered as part of a Partial Plan Review to be started within 6 months of the adopted of the plan. The plan refers to the capacity of 2,000 homes to the west although from the promoter’s representations at the Regulation 18 stage we know that the capacity is at least 4,600 homes.

36 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 52. The plan says at paragraph 7.9.2 that ‘there is currently insufficient technical evidence and/or supporting infrastructure to support allocation. However, at the Regulation 18 consultation stage the Promoters submitted the following technical evidence to support the allocation of the land:

●● Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

●● Green Belt Assessment

●● Heritage Assessment

●● Agricultural Land Classification

●● Transport Strategy

●● Preliminary Ecology Appraisal

●● Sustainability Strategy

●● Aviation and Traffic Noise Assessment

●● West of Luton Masterplan

53. Further engagement with CBC took place following the Regulation 18 stage and as a result further work was commissioned. This can be seen within section 4.2 of our representation in respect of Policy SP1 and section 7.9.

Summary and Conclusions

54. 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, and that the Plan is 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 (3.80):

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;

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 37 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 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.

55. Lichfields’ review of the Council’s housing trajectory and 5YHLS has concluded 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.

56. We would draw attention to the fact that the Lichfields Report has found that 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 (5.2).

57. The SHMA’s 10% market signals uplift is insufficient and there is no evidence to demonstrate that it could be reasonably expected to improve housing affordability.

38 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 58. The 2017 SHMA has been found by Lichfields to also fail 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 (5.4).

59. Lichfield’s robust and PPG compliant assessment (5.5) 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);

●● 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.

60. 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 (5.6).

61. 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 dwellings (our emphasis). 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 (5.7).

Housing Delivery

62. Lichfield’s’ 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 (5.8).

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) 39 Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 63. The Council assumes that two strategic level schemes (including North of Luton) 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 buildout 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 (5.9).

64. 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 (5.10).

65. 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 (5.11).

66. 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 (5.12).

67. Lichfields have concluded that 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 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 (5.13).

40 Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Representations on behalf of Abbey Land Developments Ltd 68. In terms of delivering 7,350 dwellings to address Luton’s unmet needs, providing 4,000 dwellings at North Luton and 3,350 dwellings amongst the small and medium size villages will be inadequate. Firstly, significant concerns arise as to the timescale for delivering the North of Luton allocation due to its substantial infrastructure provision requirements. Secondly, as we have already referred to above, further development in small and medium size villages some distance away from Luton will fail to address the specific needs that they are supposedly being allocated to rectify. Thirdly, it is apparent that the 7,350 unmet housing need figure for Luton is now out of date, and will be rising significantly. It is entirely appropriate that this Draft Plan lays down proper foundations to address this from the outset.

69. The Key Spatial Objectives (paragraph 5.2) refer “to grow existing communities across Central Bedfordshire, proportionate to their scale and environmental context, so that they are more sustainable through improved services, facilities and employment opportunities, leading to reduced travelling and outflows”. They also refer