Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability
The Council is pleased to continue to work with SDC and WDC on duty to cooperate matters and will continue to do so. The Council recognises that the South Warwickshire Plan is still at an early stage in is process and the Council’s views set out at the scoping stage remain valid and should be taken into account as part of this consultation too. This is particularly the case with regard to potential cross boundary transport links which will/may include the need to take into account initiatives such as the Balsall Common Relief Road and increasing/improving cycling connectivity. For convenience a copy of the previous comments is attached to this response.
Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order). Network Rail is also a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and associated estate. It owns, operates and develops the main rail network. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure, therefore any proposed development which is in close proximity to the railway line or could potentially affect Network Rail’s specific land interests will need to be carefully considered. Asset Protection Comments: Developments in the policy area should be notified to Network Rail to ensure that: (a) Access points / rights of way belonging to Network Rail are not impacted by developments within the area. (b) That any proposal does not impact upon the railway infrastructure / Network Rail land e.g. • Drainage works / water features • Encroachment of land or air-space • Excavation works • Siting of structures/buildings less than 2m from the Network Rail boundary / Party Wall Act issues • Lighting impacting upon train drivers’ ability to perceive signals • Landscaping that could impact upon overhead lines or Network Rail boundary treatments • Any piling works • Any scaffolding works • Any public open spaces and proposals where minors and young children may be likely to use a site which could result in trespass upon the railway (which we would remind the council is a criminal offence under s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) • Any use of crane or plant • Any fencing works • Any demolition works • Any hard standing areas For any proposal adjacent to the railway, Network Rail would request that a developer constructs (at their own expense) a suitable steel palisade trespass proof fence of at least 1.8m in height. All initial proposals and plans should be flagged up to the Network Rail Town Planning at the following address: Email: TownPlanningLNW@networkrail.co.uk Railway Station Consideration should be given in Transport Assessments to the potential for increased footfall at Railway Stations as a result of proposals for residential development / employment areas within the neighbourhood area. Location of the proposal, accessibility and density of the development, trip generation data should be considered in relation to the station. Where proposals are likely to increase footfall and the need for car parking, the council should include developer contributions (either via CIL, S106) to provide funding for enhancements as part of planning decisions. Level Crossings Developments within the neighbourhood area should be accompanied by a TS/TA which includes consideration of the impact of proposals upon any level crossings with mitigation implemented as required. We would encourage the Council to adopt specific policy wording to ensure that the impact of proposed new development (including cumulative impact) on the risk at existing level crossings is assessed by the developer(s), and suitable mitigation incorporated within the development proposals and funded by the developer(s). TS/TAs should be undertaken in conjunction with the local highways authority with advice from Network Rail. Contributions will be sought where proposals impact on level crossings to mitigate the impacts of those developments. Where level crossing closure is the only option, the applicant is advised that closure would be via s257 of the T&CPA, and that closure would be required before the occupation of any dwellings
Q-13: Hayfield consider that Option 13a is the correct approach, with different rates of CIL applicable in different parts of the South Warwickshire area, to reflect the varying market and viability conditions of each area. Q-I5: Hayfield consider it imperative that the South Warwickshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) takes into account the evidence submitted as part of these representations in relation to land north of Tailor’s Lane in Upper Quinton, with regards to the deliverability of the site. This evidence demonstrates that there are no substantial reasons preventing future development and allocation of the site (see Site Assessment section above).
The delivery of supporting infrastructure is fundamental to the delivery of any site, whether strategic or nonstrategic. However, the Part 1 Plan seeks to focus more so on the strategic growth elements. Therefore Option 12b would be more appropriate. However, Terra believe that both options should be amalgamated in some form to ensure that infrastructure delivery is suitably accounted for. The Councils run the risk of neglecting smaller settlements which are in need of infrastructure improvements if they focus purely on the strategic options. Further, leaving infrastructure provisions to a Part 2 Plan could cause significant delays if the Part 2 Plan is delayed or, indeed, the strategy changes and this is not continued with. This could therefore worsen any existing or future problems if there are delays. Therefore, Terra believe that it would be more appropriate to identify the infrastructure requirements through the Part 1 Plan, with any additional detail being introduced through the Part 2 Plan. Q-I3: Terra agree that a single Levy should be applied to the entire South Warwickshire Authority as this will enable to Councils to deliver their joint strategy in an effective way. The charge should additionally be zoned to enable it to react to varying markets and viability conditions. Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability As detailed above, Land to the East of Junction 12, M40 as identified at Figure 1 is available and suitable for development. If the Council do wish to allocate sites for new settlements, a strategy which was adopted previously by Stratford-on-Avon, the Councils should be clear on the expectations of supporting infrastructure (including education, health, transport, Green Infrastructure) and affordable housing provision. This will feed into viability assessments for the delivery of the New Settlements, so these provisions need to be identified as early as possible.
Issue I2 Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery Q12a: This option, to set out infrastructure for all scales, types and location of development within Part 1 of the Local Plan is preferred. This would allow the requirements to be applied equally across the District and provide developers with more certainty when coming to consider implications for proposed development/proposed sites across both Stratford and Warwick. Issue I3 CIL Q-13a: This option for CIL is preferred, which would set a single levy for the whole of South Warwickshire and would allow the requirements to be applied consistently across both Districts. This would give developers greater certainty regarding likely development costs. Issue I4 Infrastructure Safeguarding Q-I4.1 Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? Yes, in part. We consider that it is appropriate for a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP, where those infrastructure schemes have been evidenced through the plan making process. Where infrastructure schemes have not been evidenced, it would be inappropriate for the plan to specify and safeguard such schemes, since these would not be justified having regard to the tests of soundness embedded in the NPPF. Where specific infrastructure schemes are safeguarded, the policy must be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to changing circumstances. For example, one such infrastructure scheme which may be safeguarded is the improvement of the A46 at Bishopton and Wildmoor junctions. We are aware that scheme proposals for junction improvements are evolving, and the land take required may change over time. Where a plan showing the extent of safeguarding is embedded in the SWLP it should be made clear that the precise extent of safeguarding may change (either extending or shrinking) due to changing circumstances.
ssue I5 Green and Blue Corridors Q-S1 – Option S1a We consider that the SWLP should identify Strategic Green and Blue Corridors in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy being produced. However, this should be based upon proportionate evidence, which must be up to date. The SWLP refers to the Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull Sub regional green infrastructure study being used to inform policies, however this study dates back to 2013, and is therefore some 10 years old. This should be updated if it is to be used for the purposes of policy making, and included in the forthcoming suite of additional evidence base documents which can be commented upon as part of the plan making process in Stratford and Warwick.
Q-I2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 3.7. It will be necessary for the South Warwickshire Local Plan to consider infrastructure requirements across the plan area, both strategic and non-strategic. It is suggested that the adoption of a consistent approach to infrastructure across the plan area would be beneficial, would provide certainty for those involved in the planning process and would simplify the viability study of the Local Plan which is now a national requirement. 3.8. It is recognised that elements of the growth strategy may require specific strategic infrastructure in order to ensure deliverability and the Plan will need to clearly identify these requirements, along with the delivery mechanisms to secure this. For non-strategic infrastructure, a less detailed approach is likely to be sufficient which considers different areas and types/scales of development. However, it will be necessary for both to inform the plan-making process going forward. Q-I3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 3.9. It is acknowledged that both Districts currently have CIL and that the charging schedules have been developed independently. It is also noted that the Plan acknowledges that it is possible to charge different rates of CIL in different zones within a single levy. If it is the Council’s intention to review CIL then it would be logical to review this jointly alongside the Local Plan process. This allows for infrastructure costs to be properly understood and suitable delivery mechanisms identified, including potentially CIL or developer obligations. This should inform the viability study of the Plan to ensure that obligations do not undermine delivery of the Plan. Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability 3.10. The NPPF para 34 requires Local Plans to set out the contributions expected from development including affordable housing requirements, plus other infrastructure such as education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure. The NPPF states that such contributions should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. 3.11. In developing policies that will set out development contributions expected from developments detail viability work must support the Local Plan process. Such viability work should be based on a detailed, site-specific evidence base that will ensure planning applications which comply with development plan policies will be viable, without the need for further viability work to be undertaken at the application stage as intimated at NPPF para 58.
ISSUE 13: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY 2.8 Neither option 13a or 13b are appropriate for a Development Plan. All planning obligations must satisfy the statutory requirement of the CIL Regulations 2010 as amended (Regulation 122). A statement in a Development Plan cannot make lawful a demand for obligations which fail to meet its statutory tests. A Development Plan can include a general policy as to the formal Council seeking planning obligations to offset the impacts of new development where such a requirement meets the statutory tests. Q-I4.1: Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? 2.9 To ensure that the viability of delivery of strategic allocation sites, it is essential that specific infrastructure schemes which may affect this are addressed within the Local Plan. A policy to safeguard this should be included in the Local Plan.
Q-I2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 3.7. It will be necessary for the South Warwickshire Local Plan to consider infrastructure requirements across the plan area, both strategic and non-strategic. It is suggested that the adoption of a consistent approach to infrastructure across the plan area would be beneficial, would provide certainty for those involved in the planning process and would simplify the viability study of the Local Plan which is now a national requirement. 3.8. It is recognised that elements of the growth strategy may require specific strategic infrastructure in order to ensure deliverability and the Plan will need to clearly identify these requirements, along with the delivery mechanisms to secure this. For non-strategic infrastructure, a less detailed approach is likely to be sufficient which considers different areas and types/scales of development. However, it will be necessary for both to inform the plan-making process going forward. Q-I3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 3.9. It is acknowledged that both Districts currently have CIL and that the charging schedules have been developed independently. It is also noted that the Plan acknowledges that it is possible to charge different rates of CIL in different zones within a single levy. If it is the Council’s intention to review CIL then it would be logical to review this jointly alongside the Local Plan process. This allows for infrastructure costs to be properly understood and suitable delivery mechanisms identified, including potentially CIL or developer obligations. This should inform the viability study of the Plan to ensure that obligations do not undermine delivery of the Plan. Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability 3.10. The NPPF para 34 requires Local Plans to set out the contributions expected from development including affordable housing requirements, plus other infrastructure such as education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure. The NPPF states that such contributions should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. 3.11. In developing policies that will set out development contributions expected from developments detail viability work must support the Local Plan process. Such viability work should be based on a detailed, site-specific evidence base that will ensure planning applications which comply with development plan policies will be viable, without the need for further viability work to be undertaken at the application stage as intimated at NPPF para 58.
Infrastructure Requirements and delivery We agree that connectivity needs to be improved and development proposals do need to provide for appropriate transport infrastructure. We also agree that an advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Our view is that airfields represent a significant contribution to those aims and objectives. Wellesbourne Airfield represents a piece of existing transport infrastructure that will provide great opportunities in many policy areas. Connectivity is a good example, as a runway in one place connects directly to every other runway in every other place. With regard to addressing climate change, the rapidly developing electric aircraft sector will require a significant number of hard runways from which to operate. A lack of national runway infrastructure will severely hamper the timely introduction of electric aircraft which will be to the detriment of the Government’s climate change and net-zero objectives. The desire to redevelop the aviation infrastructure at Wellesbourne airfield brings with it the opportunity to create a well-designed and beautiful place comprising of signature buildings in sympathetically landscaped surroundings. In the light of any non-aviation related developments at Wellesbourne Airfield, it is appropriate for the developers to accept a contribution to a negatively worded S106 Planning Obligation with the constraint of a bank-guaranteed bond. We would also support the use of public sector funding through the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) and the government’s Shared Prosperity fund.
The development options of focusing new development on railway, and other transport corridors is supported as it reflects the development strategy in the emerging SWDPR as set out in the 2022 Regulation 19 SWDP Review Publication document. Encouragement is given though to considering how both housing, along with economic development can be woven into this approach from the options set in the consultation. Of direct interest to Wychavon District Council, as previously referred to in the June 2021 consultation is the proposal under the new settlement/rail corridor option titled New Settlement Option E1, Long Marston Airfield. This includes a possible uplift in the number of homes in the locality with a further 3,500 dwellings, in addition to the 3,500 homes planned at the Long Marston Airfield Garden Village. Concern is expressed regarding the impact of this on the Vale of Evesham in terms of traffic, existing road networks and highway capacity, other infrastructure requirements, the environment generally and the heritage assets in particular in Pebworth village. With respect to the latter point these routes through the village are identified as important and valued visual assets in the Pebworth Neighbourhood Plan (2019). Therefore, strong support would be given to any mitigation approaches that include the provision of high-quality public transport links, preferably rail, to/from Long Marston, with a railway station at Long Marston itself. In addition, that the aim to reinstate the railway line from Honeybourne to Stratford continues to form part of the strategic public transport strategy for this plan, including the safeguarding of routes etc. reflecting the position in 2022 SWDPR 06 Publication (Regulation 19) document.
Q I.2 Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire. Claverdon would support option 12b provided infrastructure funding is adequate. There is no support for any proposal without a meaningful infrastructure investment plan. It makes no reference about funding commitments from statutory providers and the key private-sector agencies involved in public infrastructure/services guaranteeing the investment necessary. We question whether the private sector will fill this gap as assumed throughout the entirety of the plan. Q1.3 Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Based on the principle of subsidiarity, Claverdon supports Option 13b.
Q-I2: The infrastructure requirements for the development strategy are critical in ensuring that development is deliverable and truly sustainable. One of the critical considerations in the site selection process should be the presence of onsite infrastructure at the site or the ability for development to provide it. Q-I3: The CIL requirements must be considered as part of the plans viability assessment to ensure that the proposed allocations are viable and consequently deliverable. Q-I5: The development strategy needs to be deliverable and viable and there needs to be confidence that the sites and locations that are allocated for development will come forward as expected. The allocation should be ‘deliverable’ as defined in the Glossary of the NPPF. It is appropriate that development proposals will be assessed through the South Warwickshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy that are being prepared alongside a Viability Assessment to ensure that the proposals that are put forward are viable. BTL’s land interest at Salford Priors has previously been identified as a Reserve Housing Site by the Preferred Options Stratford on Avon Site Allocations Plan demonstrating that it has been considered to be a sustainable and deliverable housing site. It should be a priority location for an allocation.
We desperately need effective and affordable joined up transport solutions across the whole area.
2.1.5 Given the need for the vision and spatial objectives to provide a comprehensive vision for the whole of the plan area (not just the main settlements) it follows that the Local Plan should identify the infrastructure requirements for all scales, types and location of development (Option I2a). This approach is also consistent with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF. 2.1.6 In terms of the relationship between infrastructure delivery and development, with SWLP should accord with Paragraphs 68 of the NPPF and in so doing: “identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability”. 2.1.7 Too much emphasis on larger site allocations could also negatively impact on housing delivery due to some common problems associated with bringing such sites forward. For example, it of common for large sites to be in multiple ownerships requiring complicated legal arrangements to be in place before development can be progressed. There are also often lengthy lead in times due to enabling infrastructure being required first to ‘open up’ a site. Mindful of such issues, the NPPF at Paragraph 69 further states that: “small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area, and are often built out relatively quickly.”
Q-I.2: The JPC strongly supports option 12b.However without a significant change to the approach to funding infrastructure none of the options will be adequate. The JPC has carried out as much public consultation as practicable in the very limited time available. The local community in Henley and Beaudesert has expressed extreme concern about the inadequate infrastructure of the town. The community will oppose any growth option unless there is a realistic infrastructure investment plan The document correctly identifies that provision of the appropriate new infrastructure must underpin this plan in particular identifying the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken. There is also no reference to obtaining funding commitments from statutory providers and the key private-sector agencies involved in public infrastructure/services guaranteeing the investment necessary. This is critical to areas like Henley in Arden/Beaudesert and the surrounding villages, which feature heavily in the growth priorities. It is incumbent on SWLP to make a statement as to how these facilities will be provided well in advance of site allocation and development commencing. It is disingenuous to maintain that the private sector will be able to fill this gap entirely, yet this seems to be the assumption throughout the plan. Q-I.3: The JPC supports 13b on the subsidiarity principle Q-I.5: The JPC has received views from 2-300 residents in the short time available. The community have made it clear that the infrastructure of Henley Beaudesert is seriously inadequate. There is anger about the quality of the road, rail and bus situation which has been wrongly identified as strengths of the town. There are several other serious concerns relating particularly to antiquated drainage and sewage systems and flood hazards. Unless the chosen option presents concrete proposals to deal with these issues in the early years of the plan none of the growth options will be acceptable. Other comments: The document correctly identifies that provision of the correct infrastructure must underpin this plan. The plan identifies the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken. There is no indication that the authorities will be approaching the statutory providers and the private sector involved in public services to ensure that they will guarantee the investment necessary. This is obviously fundamental to historic places like Henley in Arden/Beaudesert and the surrounding villages, which might feature heavily in the growth priorities. It is essential that SWLP makes a statement as to how these facilities will be provided. Infrastructure needs to be delivered in advance of the development. It is ludicrous to pretend that the private sector will be able to fill this gap entirely, yet this seems to be the assumption behind the plan. There are many local and national examples that this is simply unrealistic. Recent battles in Alcester, Southam, Studley, and Wellesbourne are the tip of the iceberg of this problem. Without a significant change to the approach to funding infrastructure none of the options will be adequate
Q-I2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: A: Set out infrastructure requirements for all scales, types and location of development B: Focus on strategic infrastructure relating specifically to the growth strategy 3.8. It will be necessary for the South Warwickshire Local Plan to consider infrastructure requirements across the plan area, both strategic and non-strategic. It is suggested that the adoption of a consistent approach to infrastructure across the plan area would be beneficial, would provide certainty for those involved in the planning process and would simplify the viability study of the Local Plan which is now a national requirement. 3.9. It is recognised that elements of the growth strategy may require specific strategic infrastructure in order to ensure deliverability and the Plan will need to clearly identify these requirements, along with the delivery mechanisms to secure this. For non-strategic infrastructure, a less detailed approach is likely to be sufficient which considers different areas and types/scales of development. However, it will be necessary for both to inform the plan-making process going forward. Q-I3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: A: Establish a South Warwickshire CIL (or emerging Infrastructure Levy) to support the delivery of the Plan B: Each District to produce its own Levy 3.10. It is acknowledged that both Districts currently have CIL and that the charging schedules have been developed independently. It is also noted that the Plan acknowledges that it is possible to charge different rates of CIL in different zones within a single levy. If it is the Council’s intention to review CIL then it would be logical to review this jointly alongside the Local Plan process. This allows for infrastructure costs to be properly understood and suitable delivery mechanisms identified, including potentially CIL or developer obligations. This should inform the viability study of the Plan to ensure that obligations do not undermine delivery of the Plan. Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability 3.11. The NPPF para 34 requires Local Plans to set out the contributions expected from development including affordable housing requirements, plus other infrastructure such as education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure. The NPPF states that such contributions should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. 3.12. In developing policies that will set out development contributions expected from developments detail viability work must support the Local Plan process. Such viability work should be based on a detailed, site specific evidence base that will ensure planning applications which comply with development plan policies will be viable, without the need for further viability work to be undertaken at the application stage. As intimated at NPPF para 58.
11. Viability is a critical issue and should not be underestimated, especially for new settlement proposals where the infrastructure required is both significant in scale and cost. However, it is not just infrastructure costs which affect viability but the increasing cost of construction whether caused by inflationary pressure or regulations. There are also costs associated with, for example, providing on-site Biodiversity Net Gain, not just monetary but also reducing the extent of built development which affects the value of the overall site. Further, there may be additional cost burdens for all development associated with policies which will be included in the Local Plan or there is an unreasonable expectation about the proportion of affordable homes provided as part of allocated housing schemes. 12. In addition, there is an increasing desire at national and local level to push the infrastructure cost burden onto the landowner to mitigate all impacts and for a proposal to make an ever greater contribution, in whatever form, to the wider community. Alongside any Planning Obligations (assuming this regime remains in its current form), there also is the payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. All these costs, combined with capital gains tax being paid on land transactions (which may well increase), is increasingly raising a question with landowners about whether it is worthwhile for their land to be developed for much needed housing or employment rather than retain a long term income for the current use? 13. For clarity, through this response Richborough Estates recognises that a fair and reasonable contribution should be paid towards appropriate infrastructure, but the Councils equally need to recognise that there are increasingly significant cost burdens associated with the development of land, whether inside or outside the control of the Councils.
13. Viability is a critical issue and should not be underestimated, especially for new settlement proposals where the infrastructure required is both significant in scale and cost. However, it is not just infrastructure costs which affect viability but the increasing cost of construction whether caused by inflationary pressure or regulations. There are also costs associated with, for example, providing on-site Biodiversity Net Gain, not just monetary but also reducing the extent of built development which affects the value of the overall site. Further, there may be additional cost burdens for all development associated with policies which will be included in the Local Plan or there is an unreasonable expectation about the proportion of affordable homes provided as part of allocated housing schemes. 14. In addition, there is an increasing desire at national and local level to push the infrastructure cost burden onto the landowner to mitigate all impacts and for a proposal to make an ever greater contribution, in whatever form, to the wider community. Alongside any Planning Obligations (assuming this regime remains in its current form), there also is the payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. All these costs, combined with capital gains tax being paid on land transactions (which may well increase), is increasingly raising a question with landowners about whether it is worthwhile for their land to be developed for much needed housing or employment rather than retain a long term income for the current use? 15. For clarity, through this response Richborough Estates recognises that a fair and reasonable contribution should be paid towards appropriate infrastructure, but the Councils equally need to recognise that there are increasingly significant cost burdens associated with the development of land, whether inside or outside the control of the Councils.
13. Viability is a critical issue and should not be underestimated, especially for new settlement proposals where the infrastructure required is both significant in scale and cost. However, it is not just infrastructure costs which affect viability but the increasing cost of construction whether caused by inflationary pressure or regulations. There are also costs associated with, for example, providing on-site Biodiversity Net Gain, not just monetary but also reducing the extent of built development which affects the value of the overall site. Further, there may be additional cost burdens for all development associated with policies which will be included in the Local Plan or there is an unreasonable expectation about the proportion of affordable homes provided as part of allocated housing schemes. 14. In addition, there is an increasing desire at national and local level to push the infrastructure cost burden onto the landowner to mitigate all impacts and for a proposal to make an ever greater contribution, in whatever form, to the wider community. Alongside any Planning Obligations (assuming this regime remains in its current form), there also is the payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. All these costs, combined with capital gains tax being paid on land transactions (which may well increase), is increasingly raising a question with landowners about whether it is worthwhile for their land to be developed for much needed housing or employment rather than retain a long term income for the current use? 15. For clarity, through this response Richborough Estates recognises that a fair and reasonable contribution should be paid towards appropriate infrastructure, but the Councils equally need to recognise that there are increasingly significant cost burdens associated with the development of land, whether inside or outside the control of the Councils.
11. Viability is a critical issue and should not be underestimated, especially for new settlement proposals where the infrastructure required is both significant in scale and cost. However, it is not just infrastructure costs which affect viability but the increasing cost of construction whether caused by inflationary pressure or regulations. There are also costs associated with, for example, providing on-site Biodiversity Net Gain, not just monetary but also reducing the extent of built development which affects the value of the overall site. Further, there may be additional cost burdens for all development associated with policies which will be included in the Local Plan or there is an unreasonable expectation about the proportion of affordable homes provided as part of allocated housing schemes. 12. In addition, there is an increasing desire at national and local level to push the infrastructure cost burden onto the landowner to mitigate all impacts and for a proposal to make an ever greater contribution, in whatever form, to the wider community. Alongside any Planning Obligations (assuming this regime remains in its current form), there also is the payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. All these costs, combined with capital gains tax being paid on land transactions (which may well increase), is increasingly raising a question with landowners about whether it is worthwhile for their land to be developed for much needed housing or employment rather than retain a long term income for the current use? 13. For clarity, through this response Richborough Estates recognises that a fair and reasonable contribution should be paid towards appropriate infrastructure, but the Councils equally need to recognise that there are increasingly significant cost burdens associated with the development of land, whether inside or outside the control of the Councils.
11. Viability is a critical issue and should not be underestimated, especially for new settlement proposals where the infrastructure required is both significant in scale and cost. However, it is not just infrastructure costs which affect viability but the increasing cost of construction whether caused by inflationary pressure or regulations. There are also costs associated with, for example, providing on-site Biodiversity Net Gain, not just monetary but also reducing the extent of built development which affects the value of the overall site. Further, there may be additional cost burdens for all development associated with policies which will be included in the Local Plan or there is an unreasonable expectation about the proportion of affordable homes provided as part of allocated housing schemes. 12. In addition, there is an increasing desire at national and local level to push the infrastructure cost burden onto the landowner to mitigate all impacts and for a proposal to make an ever greater contribution, in whatever form, to the wider community. Alongside any Planning Obligations (assuming this regime remains in its current form), there also is the payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. All these costs, combined with capital gains tax being paid on land transactions (which may well increase), is increasingly raising a question with landowners about whether it is worthwhile for their land to be developed for much needed housing or employment rather than retain a long term income for the current use? 13. For clarity, through this response Richborough Estates recognises that a fair and reasonable contribution should be paid towards appropriate infrastructure, but the Councils equally need to recognise that there are increasingly significant cost burdens associated with the development of land, whether inside or outside the control of the Councils.
Issue 12. Infrastructure. Q-12a&b). It goes without saying that the provision of appropriate infrastructure of all types at the right time is vital to the creation of a successful economy and indeed to the survival and continued growth of Chamber members and their businesses. During the current plan periods to 2031 the Chamber has been disappointed that infrastructure provision has not always kept pace with development or indeed provided to enable the growth of particular land uses .For example, there remain a number of employment allocations which are not coming forward due to a lack of necessary infrastructure, for example the employment allocations at Kenilworth and Stratford Road, Warwick. Experience suggests that more involvement by the public sector in bringing forward key infrastructure to encourage and facilitate growth in such instances could have created more economic growth. Energy infrastructure provides a good example of another current deficiency in key infrastructure provision. In recent years we have been aware of specific examples where the lack of power/energy infrastructure has prevented new business relocating to key sites across the sub region, including examples in both Stratford and Warwick districts. This represents in part, a failure of the land use planning process to provide the correct framework. The understanding of energy supply and capacity issues to facilitate expansion and development of businesses and has been limited .It suggests that there is a poor understanding of the mechanisms and processes that underpin energy provision and a proper appreciation of the complexity of the processes involved in this provision. It seems likely that energy is only one of a range of infrastructure issues where a greater understanding of how infrastructure mechanisms actually operate is required. This points to a need to better understand the situation across the local plan area and to understand precisely how individual proposals will be serviced and facilitated. At the moment there is no evidence base to support the view that this assumption is incorrect. Issue 13 .CIL Q13a&b. Currently we would favour retention of the existing system of Section 106 and CIL as operated locally. We note that reforms of the whole framework of developer contributions are promised by central government and it seems wise to wait to see the scope and extent of national reform before adopting a new position for South Warwickshire. Issue 15: Viability and Deliverability. Q-15 The Chamber welcomes the commitment to ensure that new proposals and allocations are fully “tested “ in terms of viability and deliverability. In the current economic climate there are a number of commercial land uses that may not be viable and a good understanding of different markets and sectors will be important when considering the deliverability of proposals generated in the plan framework. It should be acknowledged that based on the current adopted plans this has not always been successfully achieved. Lessons based on past experiences and outcomes need to be taken. As noted below the Chamber wishes to see all current employment allocations re-tested and reviewed in terms of likely deliverability.
the development strategy of South Warwickshire should be both deliverable and viable
Issue I2 Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery Q12a: This option, to set out infrastructure for all scales, types and location of development within Part 1 of the Local Plan is considered is preferred. This would allow the requirements to be applied equally across the District and provide developers with more certainty when coming to consider implications for proposed development/proposed sites across both Stratford and Warwick. Issue I3 CIL Q-13a: This option for CIL is preferred, which would set a single levy for the whole of South Warwickshire. This would give developers greater certainty regarding likely development costs.
This is an acceptable method of assessment.
I am writing in relation to the current local plan consultation process and the overlap that this may have with the development of the Thames Valley rail corridor, and specifically the requirement to double-track the line between Coventry and Leamington Spa in order to deliver improvements. As you may be aware, Midlands Connect is the Subnational Transport Body for the Midlands. Established in 2014 our voluntary partnership stretches from Lincolnshire in the East to Shropshire in the West. As such, we have a clear mandate from government to plan for and advise on the strategic connectivity needs of the people living, working in and visiting the Midlands. We have reviewed the South Warwickshire Local Plan with great interest and in particular we wanted to highlight our work on the rail corridor between Coventry and Leamington Spa and the potential requirement for the development of land along this line to allow for double-tracking which would facilitate an increased service. Thames Valley corridor and implications for South Warwickshire Local Plan In April 2022 we published our Strategic Transport Plan which sets out our priority rail corridors for the region. Our Midlands Engine Rail (MER) programme includes the rail growth corridor which stretches from the Thames Valley to Birmingham. This corridor plays a key role in supporting transport connectivity within the Midlands Connect geography, providing access to the hubs of Coventry / Leicester and Birmingham / Solihull / Black Country. This corridor runs through South Warwickshire, and particularly for the purposes of this local plan through Coventry and Leamington Spa. A summary is available on our website. This rail corridor also features prominently in Network Rail’s West Midlands Strategic Advice, published in 2022. There are currently three trains every hour (per direction) between Leamington Spa and Coventry (one long distance, one local and one freight). Network Rail, on behalf of Midlands Connect, produced an Outline Business Case (OBC) which sets out the economics of introducing one additional train service each hour between Leamington Spa and Coventry, this which would form a diversion of the Cross Country service from Reading to Newcastle. The document also outlined a more expansive option to deliver up to three additional trains per hour, giving a total of six trains per hour (per direction). The line between Leamington Spa and Coventry is currently single track between Milverton Junction (north of Leamington Spa) and Gibbet Hill Junction (south of Coventry), with a loop at Kenilworth. To facilitate the operation of a 4 trains per hour (TPH) service double tracking would be required between Milverton Junction and Kenilworth. To deliver more than 4 trains per hour will require full double tracking between Leamington Spa and Coventry. The latter option will require some temporary and permanent land take on the section between Kenilworth and Gibbet Hill Junction. Unfortunately, until there is further funding committed (the scheme has been submitted to Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline but no date for funding announcements is known) the specifics of the land requirement are not known. However, broadly, it requires a small widening of the rail corridor so that there is space for a two-track railway. As such, Midlands Connect would advocate that any future decisions around land use in the corridor avoid a scenario whereby new development is permitted immediately adjacent to the single track railway, and that this potential development is kept under consideration as the local plan is developed. Midlands Connect, working with its partners, including West Midlands Rail Executive, Warwickshire County Council and Coventry City Council, is currently undertaking further feasibility work to examine the benefits of full double tracking, including associated capacity requirements in the Coventry area. Importance of this corridor for the region The development of this line which will increase the direct links between key centres on this line is important for the South Warwickshire region for a range of reasons. It will support: - growth of the area to the north of Kenilworth and south of Coventry where we understand a master planning process is already in progress. - the aspirational development of a station near to Warwick University as per the West Midlands Rail Investment Strategy. - frequent access to Birmingham and the Birmingham Airport area and connectivity into HS2. As well as supporting economic growth in these areas it provides local populations with access to employment, education and leisure opportunities and supports sustainable methods of travel throughout the region. I am happy to discuss this scheme with you if further information is required to ensure this land is available for future development. I will certainly keep you up to date with any significant progress. The Outline Business Case was finalised in early 2020, ahead of the Covid Pandemic, and hence some of the train service specification assumptions now require re-visiting. I have shared copies of this letter with Warwickshire County Council who support this scheme, and also Network Rail who have developed the proposals with us. The letter has also been shared with West Midlands Rail Executive who share our aspiration for this scheme to come to fruition as soon as possible. 1 https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1708/birmingham-airport-connectivity-report.pdf 2 The Outline Business Case was finalised in early 2020, ahead of the Covid Pandemic, and hence some of the train service specification assumptions now require re-visiting.
Gladman support the delivery of infrastructure on through development but do not consider it appropriate to determine the exact mechanism prior to the spatial strategy being determined. A dispersed spatial strategy may not require site specific infrastructure delivery to be determined at this stage, whereas a strategy that focuses on large scale sites will need to ensure that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered on side and remain viable. Regardless of the option chosen to proceed with, any policy should be suitably worded with clear trigger points for substantial infrastructure on large sites and a suitable degree of flexibility to ensure continued viability. All infrastructure requirements should be clearly evidenced in terms of need and viability.
Q-I3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option I3b: Each District Council to produce its own Levy Option I3b for ‘Each District Council to produce its own ‘Levy Separate Levies’ is our preferred approach. This will allow each Local Authority area to better respond to the markets and conditions within their own District. It is also considered that this would simplify the process for each Authority in preparing their Levy and undertaking any future reviews.
Q-I3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option I3b: Each District Council to produce its own Levy Option I3b for ‘Each District Council to produce its own ‘Levy Separate Levies’ is our preferred approach. This will allow each Local Authority area to better respond to the markets and conditions within their own District. It is also considered that this would simplify the process for each Authority in preparing their Levy and undertaking any future reviews.