Support

Representation ID: 71682

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Aside from the policy specific comments set out above, Taylor Wimpey also considers that in accordance with Basic Condition 8(2)(e), the RLSNP should be better aligned to the review policy (DS19) sets out within the WDLP.
Policy DS19 ‘Review of the Local Plan’ commits WDC to either a whole or partial review of the Local Plan prior to the end of the plan period in the event that one or more of the following circumstances arises:
(a) ‘Through the Duty to Co-operate, it is necessary to accommodate the development needs of another local authority area within the district and these development needs cannot be accommodated within the Local Plan’s existing strategy;
(b) “Updated evidence or changes to national policy suggest that the overall development strategy should be significantly changed;
(c) “The monitoring of the Local Plan (in line with the Delivery and Monitoring Activities section and particularly the monitoring of housing delivery) demonstrates that the overall
4
development strategy or the policies are not delivering the Local Plan’s objectives and requirements;
(d) “Development and growth pressures arising from the specific circumstances in the area to the south of Coventry (as identified in Policy DS20). The Council has committed to a partial review of this area within five years of adoption to consider whether additional housing is needed and the availability of infrastructure to deliver it; or
(e) “Any other reasons that render the Plan, or part of it, significantly out of date.
“In any event the Council will undertake a comprehensive review of national policy, the regional context, updates to the evidence base and monitoring date before 31 March 2021 to assess whether a full or partial review of the Plan is required.
In the event that a review is required, work on it will commence immediately.’
The WDLP identifies a range of circumstances which will be monitored and which could trigger the need for the Council to undertake an early review of their adopted Plan in advance of the statutory requirement to do so (within five years of the adoption of the Plan i.e. 2022) as required by the NPPF.
As identified above, in respect of land at Old Milverton, a review of the WDLP which responds to a change in housing need for the District could ultimately lead to the Council undertaking a full review of their spatial strategy, housing opportunities and Green Belt. At which point the Council will look to the most sustainable settlements within the District, such as Leamington Spa, to meet a proportion of housing need for the District. Such a review would render certain policies of the RLSNP out of date where they conflict with the Local Plan.
There is no requirement to review or update a neighbourhood plan. However, where policies within a neighbourhood plan conflict with policies in a local plan covering the neighbourhood area, and where the local plan is adopted after the making of the neighbourhood plan, it is the more recent plan policy which takes precedence in decision making.
As noted above, any review of the WDLP would be likely to impact upon key policies within the RLSNP. Therefore, to ensure that the neighbourhood plan remains a consideration in the decision making process, the RLSNP would need to be reviewed at the same time as the WDLP.
Section 7 of the RLSNP ‘Monitoring and Review’ identifies a series of circumstances which would require a review of the Neighbourhood Plan, but does not frame these comments in a specific policy and so can only be seen as an ‘intention’. Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that while the draft RLSNP generally meets the basic conditions, in order to fully comply with Basic Condition 8(2)(e), Section 7 of the RLSNP should include a specific Review Policy which clearly defines the circumstances which would trigger a review in a way which can be measured against the Local Plan whilst also ensuring that the RLSNP remains effective.