Royal Leamington Spa Neighbourhood Development Plan

Object

Representation ID: 71679

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Taylor Wimpey consider that policy RLS2 can be read as a duplication of key elements from policies SC0 and BE1 of the WDLP, as well as the Warwick District Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Within the explanatory text to Policy RLS2, the RLSNP notes that “The Warwick Local Plan, through Policy BE1 Layout and Design, sets a framework for assessing the design of planning proposals. This includes all the key features and attributes of what is considered to be good design. Policy RLS2 does not need, or seek, to repeat these, but seeks to add further policy detail.” Notwithstanding Taylor Wimpey’s comments relating to the duplication of policies from the WDLP, where the RLSNP has included ‘further policy detail’ is around the requirement for proposals to achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
A Government Deregulation Bill in 2015 revoked the Code for Sustainable Homes from planning policy guidance, meaning that local planning authorities and qualifying bodies preparing neighbourhood plans should not set in their emerging local plans, neighbourhood plans, or supplementary planning documents, any additional local technical standards or requirements relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings. This includes any policy requiring any level of the Code for Sustainable Homes to be achieved by new development.Therefore, as currently drafted Policy RLS2 is both a duplication of policies within the adopted WDLP and includes policy requirements which are not in accordance with national policy, thus not meeting basic conditions 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(e).

Object

Representation ID: 71680

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Taylor Wimpey is concerned that the drafting of Policy RLS4 is both unclear and ambiguous, as well as the policy itself reading as a collection of different, unrelated elements. In addition, draft Policy RLS4 includes references to proposals needing to ‘maintain views of higher slopes, skylines and the wider landscape’. There is no document contained within the evidence base for the RLSNP which assesses the landscape surrounding the Town, or indeed providing any identification of what is meant by ‘Higher slopes, skylines and the wider landscape’.
In accordance with the PPG, Taylor Wimpey consider that the policy should be re-drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications, and supported by proportionate evidence.

Support

Representation ID: 71681

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Policy RLS8 refers to the ‘possible’ designation of Local Green Spaces within the plan area. Again Taylor Wimpey considers that the wording of the policy should be more prescriptive and clear to allow a decision maker to apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications.
While Taylor Wimpey does not seek to make individual comments on the ‘possible’ local green spaces identified, they are very concerned to see the following reference made within the Policy:
“Development of designated Local Green Spaces will only be supported when consistent with national Green Belt policy (emphasis added)”.
While Taylor Wimpey recognises that the reference within Policy RLS8 to Green Belt may be erroneous, they reiterate that Local Green Spaces are much different to the allocation of Green Belt, with NPPF paragraph 135 confirming that “New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances” with such changes being made through strategic plan making. Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that the reference within Policy RLS8 to Green Belt should be removed.

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.