TABLE 7.2 Distribution of Housing

There is not enough development planned for villages.

Why try to re-invent the wheel with so-called "garden" suburbs and "garden"villages, when we already have plenty of existing village settlements capable of sustainable growth, cumulatively able to address a significant proportion of the future housing requirement. Many of the existing services such as schools and shops would benefit from future growth, as would the local micro-economies, responsible for a significant proportion of local rural employment and also many SME start-ups.

More effort needs to go into Brownfield Sites and Larger villages. We know there are issues with affordable homes in rural communities and this is an opportunity to address this.
Warwick and Leamington are already conurbated and extra development around its edges will only make this feeling of isolation from the countryside worse for many people.

I fully support the flexibilty this approach makes to the decision process. I hope that this excess of 1370 dwellings is used to reduce the size and eradicate some sites from the plan during consultation.

My support is conditional on the appropriate level of infrastucture development to match the housing distribution. The broad distribution seem right to me. Adding more housing to villages where there is no employment will just add to travel and environmental problems.

Unless villages have surplus infrastructure capacity (few do!) AND can provide additional employment without the need for commuting, they should not feature in the development plan.

The total housing development is 1400 greater than is indicated as required by Table 7.1. Given the implication of this is concentrated development in the Leamington Spa locality and in particular concentrated development of Green Belt to the North of Leamington Spa there needs to be strong evidence provided by WDC to justify this excess development given its impact on Green Belt. There is no such evidence in the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation nor the accompanying Evidence Base.

Developers will want to build on Greenfield sites first as they are more lucrative with less risks.

Limited growth in villages will help support, sustain and, perhaps, enable the provision of new village amenities. It would also give choice to those people and families who would much prefer to live in a rural environment with the welcome addition of a good community existence, open countryside and footpaths at their door, rather than having to settle for yet another large urban development.

Building on the edge of Warwick in particular will increase the commuter car traffic between Coventry and Warwick as the distance is too short to make travelling to and from public transport worthwhile. Extra train stations or park and ride or cycleways will have no impact on these commuter journeys.

CORRECTION

The individual elements presented in Table 7.2 sum to 8,330 dwellings, not 8,360 as presented.

Table 7.2 should be revised as its TOTAL sets up an over allocation of 1370 homes. This additional amount creates unnecessary pressure on rural land and great uncertainty. My representation against table 7.1 arrives at a net allocation figure of 4836 dwellings. This the figure for which new sites need to be found, assuming the 10,800 figure is correct (which in the light of the 2011 census must be revisited seperately).

Whereas I am sure we are all aware it is wise to have a District plan I am disturbed about the way the District council has gone about it and more particularly the conclusions that have been reached.
I do not have an issue with local authorities taking responsibility for local planning, but the local authority must take into account the views of local people and not impose upon the electorate the Councils "Preferred options". I, as a Parish Councillor, am unaware of any previous discussions.
Having read the proposals and attended meetings about the preferred options I am left with the distinct feeling that the assumptions upon which the decisions have been made are flawed. Most important, the National Planning Policy Framework concerning Green Belt has been ignored despite the fact that the Council have ditched the Core Strategy options which were proposed in 2009.
The flimsy excuse that gas pipelines would impede development South of Leamington did not exclude development proposed there in 2009.
The assumption that we need to put employment in with housing is questionable, and the suggestion that travelling to and from work will have a significant effect on the environment pails into insignificant when we think of a Northern relief road running across a large area of Green Belt and Flood plane destroying for ever an area full of natural beauty and diversity.
The council do not appear to have considered Warwick and Leamington's history. Leamington is a Spa town, largely residential. Warwick is an historic County town. What is meant by "employment", does this include industry? The Ford Foundry has recently been demolished and now we are getting another super market. How does this fit into the preservation of the old town centres?
The Council has not discussed the needs and spare capacity of neighbouring Councils. We cannot plan in isolation.
To say we have to accept these options or accept a free for all is scare mongering, and to say "It is a waste of time" sending a copy of this letter to our M.P. is disingenuous.
We all recognise the need for a District plan, but we must be more aware of the value of our green belt and not just consider the financial benefits to the District, land owners and developers.
What about the Great- Crested Newt?

I have not had the time to study closely the proposed details, but from the information that I have managed to obtain, I would make the following comments.

1. The original proposals made under the RSS showed the majority of development to the south of Leamington Spa. This was done on what I believe or understand was an even handed basis on what was best for the area. Due to opposition by people locally affected, the proposals have now been changed such that there will be an intrusion of the green belt area between Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick. How can the changes be based on sound planning principles?

2. Access to towns and road networks are important and the proposals do take this into account. However, why not develop the whole area around Hill Wootton for example and have a separate viable, sustainable village? Far fewer residents would be adversely affected and the gaps between Leamington and Hill Wootton would remain for the Leamington residents. It is true that the occupiers of property in Hill Wootton would be adversely affected. However, there would be compensatory factors, but most of which would not be appreciated by the residents!!

3. The present transport proposals would put dual carriageways around the triangle of which Hill Wootton is at the centre. The traffic noise and nuisance will increase and access from Hill Wootton to Leamington may be completely unsatisfactory as it is likely that the turn from the Hill Wootton Road to Leamington Spa will be closed, thus creating a great nuisance for current residents of Hill Wootton if wishing to proceed to Leamington Spa. It will increase the distance of going to Leamington Spa by at least one mile and there will be huge delays when having to travel towards Kenilworth and turn around at the first island.

So the question I ask is - how can the planning office have come up with their current proposals when these are totally contradicting the proposals made under the RSS?

Although I am in favour of proper development as is shown necessary, I am hugely concerned that these proposals have been ill-considered. There will be a significant increase in traffic along the A46 and at the junction onto the M40, not only due to developments in Leamington Spa, but also from Kenilworth and south Coventry.

Although I have no substantial objections to the proposal, it will adversely affect many people and one of the benefits of the original proposals was the affinity of the M40. Access from north Leamington through Leamington itself is desperately needed to be improved - little consideration appears to have been given to this.

See attachments

"Very special circumstances" are required by The Government's National Planning Policy Framework for there to be development in the Green Belt and for the harm created to be outweighed by the benefit. That there is nowhere else for the homes to be built is cited as the special circumstances. The previous plan adopted by Warwick District Council (the "2009 Core Strategy") identified land South of Leamington for development. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support it. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington. The reasons for not considering this now are stated that there is not as higher profit expected for the developers.

I'm afraid the era of the quick building buck has gone. A sustainable approach to land use needs to be taken in general in the UK due to the limitation of space as we are a small densely populated island. Other, much bigger countries such as France and the US seem to value their space more and come up with more innovative solutions: Sinking multi storey car parks below ground to use the space above for open space and mixed used accommodation, this would free up several acres of land in Leamington centre alone allowing houses to be built where existing infrastructure can be used or improved benefitting many. Higher density solutions need to be used. There are in the UK an appalling number of "empties" which are vacant properties that are not lived in as highlighted by Architect George Clarke in his recent TV series. We cannot continue with such short sightedness as to continue to eat up swathes of this beautiful countryside with more building and more rail (HS2) "solutions" these do not address the cause or provide a viable long term solution as there is no going back once the land has gone. Yes, these are more expensive solutions but what price do we put on our countryside and it's future, it is so much of what England is, that the opening ceremony of the Olympics is depicting it! The era of a quick buck has gone and developers need to know that we will not continue to develop and expand town boundaries.

Our towns of Leamington, Warwick & Kenilworth have suffered in the recession and as a result there are disused shops, disused pubs, disused business premises, disused garages, disused schools and many "out of town" poor quality shopping complexes with little footfall. A more innovative approach needs to be taken here - turning some of these premises into residential use, they already have a lot of the required infrastructure, if this is inappropriate turn them back in to green fields, woodlands and parks. We should protect the remaining greenbelt at all cost, it is a finite and incredibly valuable resource, we should not just delay proposals to build on it but simply never allow any development of it, it is not a sustainable solution and what legacy do that leave to our children and grandchildren.
A "buffer" of 1400 homes has been included in the number of houses Warwick District Council believes will be necessary between now and 2026. There is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals if this "buffer" is removed from the assumptions.

I write to register my views on Warwick District Council's Preferred Options for its Local Plan published for public consultation on 1 June 2012. In particular I wish to record my objection to the proposal to redraw the green belt north of Leamington to permit the construction of:
 1980 dwellings,
 out of town shopping facilities,
 light industrial units,
 schools
 park and ride facilities
 changes to the road network to cope with the increased traffic resulting from this development including the proposal for a "Northern Relief Road"
in the parishes of Old Milverton and Blackdown.
I have no doubt that there is a shortage of housing in the Country and that Warwick District will continue to expand, creating further need for housing and employment. However the current proposals are ill conceived and have no regard for the Council's previous planning policy. This policy was to direct expansion to the south of Leamington and Warwick where it has already invested in the necessary infrastructure and employment opportunities to support growth.
The elected Tory party majority has stated that its political ambition is to "spread the pain" of growth around our Towns. Such an ambition cannot be supported by sound planning policies and contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework which requires there to be "very special circumstances" to permit the development in the Green Belt proposed in the Preferred Option for the Local Plan.
National Planning Policy Framework requires "Very Special Circumstances"
 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as set out in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
 As well as "very special circumstances" The Government's National Planning Policy Framework requires the harm caused to the Green Belt by the development to be outweighed by the benefit of the development.
Holly Cottage
Old Milverton
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 6SA
Email Jmlander@aol.com
Telephone 01926339112
 From the various public meetings that I have attended, Warwick District Council's argument appears to be that the "very special circumstances" are that there is nowhere else for the homes to be built.
 However, in the "2009 Core Strategy" Warwick District Council identified land south of Leamington (not in the Green Belt), as being suitable for development. This land is still available. The assessment performed by Warwick District Council shows that this land is easier to develop and already has a substantial amount of infrastructure to support the development, and the new residents who will live there. It is close to the M40 and there are existing employment opportunities South of Leamington as well as existing out of town shopping facilities and good access to the Town centres.
 The 2009 Core Strategy is direct evidence that there are alternative areas for development other than the Green Belt and that the "very special circumstances" put forward by Warwick District Council are invalid.
 Warwick District Council argues that if the development is concentrated in a few geographical areas (for example to the south of Leamington) that lack of choice will depress demand for the houses. No evidence is offered for this statement. I have spoken to developers who do not support this argument. They point out that similar sized developments have been delivered in the past. They also state that in practice the development will be phased over 15 years, it will not be delivered by a single construction company (land will be on sold to different developers) and that competition, choice and demand will be created by different areas of the sites having different characteristics.
 Warwick District Council's argument about very special circumstances also ignores a fundamental economic fact that need for houses and demand for houses can be equalised by price. If the new houses are priced correctly demand will satisfy the need for houses. In taking the decision to create demand for house by building in the Green Belt north of Leamington, Warwick District Council is helping to maintain land owners' and developers' profits. Consideration of the land owners' and developers' financial gain is not a "very special circumstance" to permit unnecessary development in the Green Belt.
 The Preferred Options quite correctly makes much of the need to provide affordable housing and sets the requirement for 40% of the homes on new developments to meet the need for affordable housing. The Preferred Option is to build 45% of the new homes in the Green Belt. This land will probably be more expensive to acquire and together with the probable higher demand for houses in the Green Belt will result in these homes costing more. The Preferred Option to build in the Green Belt does not therefore support the preferred option for 40% of the new homes to meet the need for affordable housing.
The Green Belt
 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out five purposes for Green Belt land. In summary these are, to prevent urban sprawl of built up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, to protect the country side from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of urban land.
 The proposal to develop in the Green Belt in Blackdown and Old Milverton contravenes each of these five purposes:
o It encourages urban sprawl
o It reduces the "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth to less than 11/2 miles encouraging the merging of these two towns
o It encourages encroachment the countryside
o It will destroy the setting and the special characteristics of Kenilworth and Leamington each of which has great historic interest
 The Preferred Options ignore Warwick District Council's Joint Green Belt Study of the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown. The Study concluded that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for development and that the land at Old Milverton was only worthy of further study because "there were no other towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment [and] there were other physical barriers to the wider open countryside." This conclusion on the land at Old Milverton has ignored the resulting coalescence with Leek Wooton and Kenilworth.
Recreation Value of Old Milverton and Blackdown
 The land at Old Milverton and Blackdown is enjoyed by many walkers, runners, riders, and cyclists. It provides a countryside environment close to the centres of Leamington and Warwick. Both the proposed building development and the "Northern Relief Road" would substantially reduce the amount of land that is available to be enjoyed and have a detrimental impact on the ambience and hence the amenity value of the land. Turning some of it into a maintained park land would detract from, rather than enhance its value.
 Old Milverton is one of the last surviving villages close to Leamington that has not been absorbed into the greater conurbation. If the proposals go ahead it is only a matter of time before it is also absorbed by Leamington.
Proposed New Roads
 Turning the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth into dual carriage way will not help traffic flows. At peak times the delays on the A452 result from commuters wanting access to the Town centres.
 Building nearly 3000 houses north of Leamington will simply increase the congestion.
 The dual carriage way will have a detrimental effect on the picturesque northern gateway to Leamington and southern gateway to Kenilworth.
 A "Northern Relief Road" (budgeted cost £28m) is not required. Traffic flows tend to be north to south rather than east to west. The road will serve no purpose other than to take new home owners quickly on to the A46 and to jobs and shopping opportunities away from our Towns. If the development does not go ahead the road will not be required.
 A "Northern Relief Road" will form a natural barrier and encourage further development in the Green Belt up to this new road. It will need to be built across the flood plain (at considerable cost) and will violate an important nature corridor along the River Avon.
 The A46 already effectively provides a Northern Relief Road.
 If the proposed development is concentrated in the South of Leamington there is an existing road network that could be upgraded at considerably lower cost than the £28m allocated to construct a "Northern Relief Road". The resultant savings could be used to enhance other services such as improvements to Warwick Hospital.
New Out of Town Stores
 Warwick District Council's vision is to make "Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit". A key element which already makes Warwick District a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit is the number of independent retailers and the pleasant and unique "feel" that this gives to our High Streets.
 The proposed "out of town" retail operations will be another blow to independent retailers in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick as further "out of town" shopping will take trade away from the Towns.
 More out of town shopping and the A452 dual carriage way between Leamington and Kenilworth will detract from the uniqueness of our Towns making them like any other in the UK and deter visitors.
Loss of Agricultural Land
 There will be a loss of a significant amount of high quality agricultural land in Blackdown and Old Milverton.
Number of Homes included in the Forecasts
 Warwick District Council has added nearly 1400 homes to the number that it anticipates will be required so as to include a "buffer" in the forecasts. If this "buffer" is removed from the forecast there is no need to include the land at Old Milverton and Blackdown in the proposals.
 Insufficient account has been taken of potential windfall sites in the forecasts. The model used to calculate the number of houses required appears flawed by using average data over recent years for demand rather than projecting on the basis of the current downward trends.
Alternative sites
 If the requirement is to "spread the pain" of development around Warwick and Leamington why is the preferred plan to concentrate development on a north, south axis rather than east, west? There are two sites west of Warwick that have been identified which are not in the Green Belt but are not included in the Preferred Options.
 In the 2009 Core Strategy land was identified to the west and east of Radford Semele outside the Green Belt. I understand that the land east of Radford Semele has been rejected in the current Preferred Options because of gas pipe lines. Why do the gas pipe lines rule out the entire site for development when the building constraints only prevent construction within 100 metres of the pipelines? Surely these resulting corridors could be used imaginatively to encourage wild life or as cycle routes.
 The area around Grove Farm to the south of Leamington (not Green Belt land) was included in the 2009 Core Strategy. I understand that this has been excluded from the Preferred Options because there are concerns that it would lead to coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook (also not in the Green Belt). The 2009 Core Strategy proposed an area of restraint to prevent coalescence with Bishops Tachbrook which could still be introduced. If preventing coalescence is so important why is Warwick District Council encouraging development in the Green Belt north of Leamington when one of the main purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent towns merging? It just does not make any sense.
Conclusions
The areas identified for development in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan issued by Warwick District Council simply fulfil the political aspirations of the majority of the Council's members to "spread the pain of the development". The Preferred Options are not based on sound planning principals. Very Special Circumstances to permit 45% of the development in the Green Belt and in particular in Old Milverton and Blackdown cannot be demonstrated. There are other suitable sites for development which are not in the Green Belt. The building of a new "Northern relief Road" and turning the A452 into dual carriageway will not address any of the existing traffic congestion. Developing the Green Belt in Old Milverton and Blackdown will deprive the community of an area of countryside close to Leamington and Warwick that is used by many for recreational purposes. The area of Green Belt between Leamington and Kenilworth is particularly important because it provides a narrow "green lung"between the two towns, preventing their coalescence and preserving their identities. It should continue to be protected. I therefore urge Warwick District Council to reconsider its Preferred Options to develop this area.

See attached

On behalf of Barwood Strategic Land LLP and the landowners we write in support of their
respective interests at land 'south of Gallows Hill/ west of Europa Way, Warwick'. This site is
identified in the Local Plan Preferred Options as a location for growth delivering 1,600 dwellings
in phases 2 and 3 of the plan period along with employment land, open space and community
facilities.
Land interests within the proposed allocation are also held by William Davies and Hallam Land;
it is intended that all developers and landowners will work together to secure a comprehensive
masterplanning approach to the development of this site.
We respond to the respective policy areas and chapters below:
1. Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary
- In setting the strategy, it should be made clear the time period that the plan is proposed
to cover. For example, at 1.2, there is reference to the next 15 years and only later in
the document is confirmed that that the plan period covers 2011 to 2029.
- It is noted that paragraph 4.2 makes reference to the fact that the District could grow by
as much as 15% over the next 15 years (from a current population of 138,800) - this
represents an increase of some 20,820 residents. We highlight that the 2008 based
household projections shows growth from 62,938 households in 2011 to 77,955
households in 2029. This represents an increase of 15,557 households. The 2006
based projections showed 17,110 households over the same period. The 2010 based
population projections show very similar population growth to the 2008 based projections
and although the latter remain the most up to date, it is expected that the 2010 based
CLG household projections will be very similar.
- Paragraph 4.10 should be revised to make reference to the need to ensure that Local
Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as
required by the NPPF.
2. Delivering Growth - Housing / PO1: Preferred Level of Growth
- The preferred level of housing growth is proposed to be 600 dwellings per annum
(totalling 10,800 dwellings) over the plan period, which when deducting commitments,
small SHLAA sites and windfalls results in a need to identify and allocate land for 6,986
dwellings. The Council have disregarded Option 2 (employment led growth and 700
dwellings per annum) seemingly solely on the basis that there is a lack of certainty that a
sufficient number of homes on strategic sites could be delivered within the plan period.
Using the Council's own calculations, delivering 700 dwellings per annum would result in
the need for an additional 1,800 dwellings to be found on allocated sites. Part of the
justification relates to the perceived lead in times for the delivery of the larger sites;
however the Council's own phasing programme is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard.
Phasing the larger allocations in Phases 2 and 3 (i.e. post 2019) could result in a
significant number of dwellings coming to the market at the same time and making it
difficult to therefore deliver an additional 1,800 dwellings in full within the plan period.
3 of 6
We would suggest that the Council allows the market and the development industry to
regulate itself in respect of the phasing and the timing of the delivery of development.
To allow the larger allocations to make a start earlier in the plan period will ensure
steady delivery of housing over the life of the plan. It is not in a developer's own interest
to saturate the market however steady delivery on a number of sites over a number of
years will promote healthy competition and ensure sufficient time to allow such sites to
be built out in full. Furthermore, in doing this, there would exist the opportunity to
allocate land for the 'missing' 1,800 dwellings which would make a bigger step towards
meeting the Council's housing need.
- In addition, we highlight that the NPPF makes reference to development which is
sustainable going ahead without delay. It follows that in order for a site to have secured
an allocation in what will be an adopted Local Plan, that site must be sustainable and
therefore in accordance with the NPPF, there is no need for that site to be held back by
an arbitrary phasing policy.
- The Localism Act enshrines a Duty to Cooperate on Local Authorities when preparing
plans. In the event that Warwick District does not meet its own housing need in full, we
see no evidence of adjoining LPA's being prepared to take on and meet that need. The
District is bounded by the following LPA's:
- Stratford District: Latest draft Core Strategy did not propose to accommodate sufficient
growth to meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Coventry: Latest draft Local Plan does not propose to accommodate sufficient growth to
meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Rugby Borough: Adopted Core Strategy does not include any proposals to accommodate
unmet need from Warwick District.
- It is not therefore clear the way in which the Duty to Cooperate has been carried forward
or the way in which the District's housing need will be met in full, particularly given that
the household increase is projected to be closer to 15,557 households rather than the
10,800 households currently being planned for.
- Further justification for using lower housing targets is provided in paragraph 5.22 where
it is stated that using Option 2 would meet the projected change in employment between
2011 and 2031 as identified in the West Midlands Integrated Policy Model. However the
Council consider this to now be optimistic as it was carried out in 2010 and forecast an
increase in employment growth from 2011. We highlight however that throughout the
NPPF there is reference to the need to 'plan positively' and the need to stimulate and
secure economic growth. It would appear that the Council are revising their growth for
the period to 2029 (i.e. the long term) because short term growth has failed to
materialise. This cannot be said to be planning positively or assisting in securing
economic growth.
4 of 6
3. PO3: Location of Growth
- The components of growth are reviewed below:
- Committed Housing Sites (1,224 dwellings): whilst clearly committed sites, we question
whether it is appropriate to include all of these sites and not include any allowance for
non-implementation. A 10% non-implementation rate is the industry 'norm' which we
consider should be applied here, thus reducing the commitments to 1,102 dwellings.
- Small Urban SHLAA sites (290): We seek clarification as to where these sites fall within
Table 7.2 of the Draft Local Plan (DLP).
- Other Windfall Housing Sites (2,300): Paragraph 7.25 of the DLP confirms that the
Council consider there to be a limited supply of land within the existing built up areas of
the towns. Windfalls can be included if the Council can demonstrate that such sites have
consistently become available in the local area and will continue to form a reliable source
of supply having regard to the SHLAA. The Council's SHLAA methodology confirms that
a minimum site size of 5 dwellings was used and that Officer's did not rely solely on sites
which supplied to them by developers or landowners but also conducted their own
research including reviewing areas currently in non residential use and looking at small
scale developments such as change of use of existing buildings. It would therefore
appear that the Council have had every opportunity to identify suitable residential sites
and include them in the SHLAA. With the removal of rear garden land from the definition
of previously developed land, we consider that the scope for new windfall development is
much reduced and that windfalls will no longer continue to make up a significant element
of future supply. Furthermore, under the banner of the NPPF and the requirement to
plan positively, windfalls should be seen as a 'bonus' rather than forming approximately
20% of the overall supply.
Land South of Gallows Hill
- The distribution of housing growth across the District is supported with particular
reference to Land South of Gallows Hill. It is noted that within the Council's Landscape
Character Assessment (February 2009), it is concluded that the study area is not suitable
and the rural character should be safeguarded from development. It is however clear
that this study has considered landscape character in isolation and this study should be
considered 'in the round' as is only one part of the evidence base underpinning the Local
Plan. The NPPF is clear that economic growth is a priority and that economic, social and
environmental factors have to be balanced against each other.
- The developers of this site will be commissioning technical and environmental work to
underpin the draft allocations; this will include detailed landscape and visual work to
demonstrate ways in which the site can be developed without adverse landscape impact.
- Whilst the developers will be working together to ensure a comprehensive approach to
the delivery of the site, we consider it important to recognise that within this should exist
the flexibility to ensure that each developer can bring parts of the site forward at their
own pace within an overall masterplanned approach. The delivery of large sites is often
5 of 6
hampered by requirements to submit a single planning application which can cause
significant delays and is often to the detriment of the site itself.
4. PO5: Affordable Housing
- Whilst we do not object to the provision of affordable housing in principle, we do not see
any up to date evidence of the way in which the appropriateness of the target as been
assessed in terms of the financial viability of development in accordance with paragraphs
173 and 174 of the NPPF. Paragraph 7.43 of the DLP makes reference to a November
2011 document and an Addendum dated May 2012. The May 2012 document does not
feature in the Evidence Base on the Council's web-site and therefore we reserve the
right to make further representations in this respect upon publication of this document.
5. PO6: Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Housing
- We consider that sufficient flexibility should be included within any policy to ensure that
account is taken of up to date market demand in addition to the SHMA's. The latter can
become obsolete very quickly and clearly, if developers feel there is no demand for a
particular type of property then they will not build it, which can result in stalled sites and
lower rates of housing delivery.
- Lifetime Homes: there is no national policy which requires the provision of Lifetime
Homes and we see no justification which supports 25% provision.
- Homes for Older People: whilst the provision of extra care housing is supported, these
have very site specific criteria with operators having specific requirements in respect of
site location and suitability. A site which is suitable for market housing may not be
suitable for extra care housing and it is important to ensure that this policy is not applied
so rigidly so as to sterilise areas of land or stall sites.
6. PO8: Economy
- It is noted that the Council propose to consider allocating a 'proportion' of the site south
of Gallows Hill for employment. The provision of mixed use development is supported
although clearly further clarification is required on the definition of 'a proportion'.
7. PO10: Built Environment
- The Council's Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages prospectus is supported.
8. PO12: Climate Change
- We have reviewed the Council's evidence base and do not see any case for the
introduction of a 20% climate change policy. We are also disappointed to see a
continued emphasis on renewable energy provision within new developments (when the
Council themselves acknowledge the disadvantages with some renewable technologies)
as opposed to the emphasis being placed on energy efficiency. If the overall aim is seek
a reduction in carbon emissions, we fail to see why this should be achieved through
renewable energy rather than energy efficiency measures.
6 of 6
9. PO18: Flooding and Water
- Whilst the policy as a whole is supported it is noted that much of this replicates national
guidance and is therefore superfluous. Furthermore, the requirement that all new
developments include SUDS is unfeasible. There are some instances where SUDS
schemes are not feasible or viable and this should be recognised within the policy.
10. Draft Infrastructure Planning
- Whilst the provision of a draft Infrastructure Plan is supported to assist in providing
certainty to developers when bringing forward new sites, particularly in respect of the
larger strategic sites. We consider that further refinement of this plan may be needed.
For example, within Warwick and Leamington Spa, 6 new primary schools are currently
being considered at the same time as capacity in a number of existing schools is also
identified. It is noted that the NPPF advocates a CIL charging schedule being prepared
in tandem with a Local Plan if possible and we consider this may be appropriate in this
case to assist in determining the total cost of items identified in the Draft Infrastructure
Plan. This is of particular importance when reviewing the Strategic Transport
Assessment Overview Report which identifies a requirement of up to circa £5,000 per
property for transport infrastructure without taking into account any other infrastructure
requirements or planning obligations.

Please read below objections I wish to raise as part of the consultation period concerning the proposed development in old Milverton and Blackdown as detailed in Warwick District Council's 'Preferred Options' for the New Local plan.

a) Amount of new homes proposed:

Whereas I understand the need for the district council to have a plan in place for future growth and development in the warwick and leamington district, I have concerns about the number of new homes proposed in the 'preferred options' plan.

It seems that the plan accounts for nearly 1400 extra homes above the number estimated to be necessary to meet towns population growth.

This over-calculation may be a 'safety net' on behalf of WDC but seems over cautious and would cause more building works, expense, disruption and needless use of land.

In particular, without the extra 1400 homes there would be no need to even contemplate building on presently designated Green Belt land north of Leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown areas.

I also object to the term and title of 'preferred options' - this makes members of the general public feel that the only options for development open to them 9and WDC) are those shown in the 'preferred options' plan and maps - there are other options not detailed fully although there seem to be other options mentioned briefly in the main report. there were also other areas of non-Green Belt land identified as suitable for development in the WDC's 2009 Core Strategy plan. these non-Green belt areas are still available for development - and even if not in the WDC's final plan, the non- Green Belt areas could still be ear marked for planning consent. The public need to clearly know ALL options and areas available for development.

Change to plan: Remove the extra 'safety net' of nearly 1400 homes from the plan.
Omit designated Green Belt sites from development plan.
Make all options more clear - highlighting ALL areas suitable for development to the public


b) Save our Green Belt land:

Although it is clear that WDC need to plan for housing developments for the future, I strongly object to proposed sites in the 'preferred options' in the areas of Old Milverton and Blackdown, north to and on the edge of the existing boundaries of Leamington Spa which is clearly presently designated Green Belt land. the Green belt areas north of Leamington have been identified by WDC in previous study as areas of high Green Belt value.

The National Planning policy framework (NPPF) identifies the Government's commitment to preserving our country's Green Belt areas. It states that the NPPF aims to protect communities and Green Belt and to help local people 'to protect local countryside and green space they value'. It is the responsibility of WDC to follow the guidelines set out by the NPPF; the 'preferred options' proposals do not do this.

As WDC must be fully aware, the main aims of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping designated areas open and clear from development.

The NPPF lists five purposes of Green Belt land and the Old Milverton and Blackdown Green Belt fits the purposes of at least four, if not all five, of these:
* To prevent unrestricted sprawl of Leamington to the north
* By preventing the merging of the towns of Leamington and Kenilworth; and keeping Old Milverton as a separate village community
* Safegurading the countryside from encroachment
* Preserving the historic and picturesque setting and character of Leamington and Kenilworth amongst scenic, protected countryside
* Helping urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land (this last bullet point would definitely be better addressed by WDC if the Green Belt is NOT built upon and other 'White land' is used and renovation of empty buildings in town)
If the Green Belt land north of Leamington is developed then it is likely that eventually the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington would meet and emerge; both losing their separate and individual characters.

My objection is valid as there are other sites for development available which are not green Belt land which would fulfil the needs of the planning proposals in regards to numbers of houses needed - these White land areas should all be utilised before development of Green belt land is ever considered. Non- Green Belt sites, many being south of Leamington, were clearly identified by WDC in their '2009 Core Strategy'.

As made clear by the NPPF, development of Green Belt land should only be proposed by a council under 'very special circumstances'. As WDC have already identified other non-Green Belt sites (although not all clearly publicised in this 'Preferred Option' plan) that are suitable for development, WDC do NOT have not given sufficient reasons or detailed 'exceptional circumstances' to validate their proposal to develop Green Belt land. WDC do not provide evidence that shows any superior benefit to the existing community of north Leamington should the Green Belt be developed. Therefore, WDC have not fulfilled the NPPF guidelines.

It is a matter of principle that WDC develops White land and preserves our Green Belt.

Change to plan: WDC to clearly identify ALL White land (non- green Belt) sites suitable for development (as in 2009 Core Strategy)
Development of south Leamington areas that are NOT Green Belt land and are suitable for development
Remove all proposals and suggestions to develop Green Belt land north of Leamington (Old Milverton and Blackdown areas)

c) Use of green Belt land:

The Green Belt land north of leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown areas provide Leamington and Warwick residents with easy access to the countryside environment.

The Green Belt land is highly valued by local residents and visitors to the area who regularly use the pathways on the Green Belt land for recreational purposes; such as, walking, running, dog walking, bird watching, general relaxation. As a north Leamington resident for many years, i have often enjoyed using this land and strongly object to it being developed and destroyed.

The land is used regularly by many groups of the community of all ages. It is important to the health and well-being of residents, visitors and their dogs who are exercised there. It is a social place where people greet and talk to each other. To develop and destroy such areas would be a catastrophe.

The walks across the Green belt land are well known and well used by locals and visitors. If this land is destroyed then Leamington would lose an attractive asset which must only serve to encourage residents to stay living in the area, and new people to move to it. There is a lack of established open green space as it is - we should not destroy what we have.

Change to plan: Do NOT develop the Green belt land north of Leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown areas as they are valued areas for recreation
WDC to protect our designated Green Belt land; ensuring provision for recreation on established Green Belt land

d) Conservation:

Linked to the above point, I strongly object to propsals in the 'Preferred options' plan to build on the Green Belt land north of Leamington as it is home to a wealth of wildlife and should therefore continue to be protected.

Development of green belt land would cause distruction of habitats and the environment for an abundance of wildlife and a wide variety of trees, wild flowers and plants. Development of this land would ruin this established natural environment. Even if green areas are left amongst new homes much of the wildlife (such as, bats, newts, herons and foxes) will leave the area because of noise and light pollution, lack of established habitat, dangers of changes in water availability, etc. Reduced Green Belt area will affect the movement of species across the land as they travel from place to place.

WDC is accountable for protecting the environment and habitats within the Green Belt land north of Leamington.

Change to plan: Omit proposals to develop Green belt land north of Leamington from the plan
WDC to protect and conserve Green Belt land as it is for future generations

e) Other available areas for development:

There are areas of land that are not Green belt which WDC has already identified as suitable for development - many sites are south of Leamington Spa as identified in the 2009 core strategy, and some (but not all) seen in plans in the current 'preferred proposals'

I object to proposals to build on green belt land in the old Milverton and Blackdown areas as I strongly feel that areas south of Leamington would be more suitable for development because:
* the areas south of Leamington are NOT Green Belt land
* they already have easy access to main roads and routes (such as, the M40 and A46) - infrastructure links that are capable of taking more traffic and space to develop further if needs be
* SHLAA identified that there is enough land in the south of town to devlop and suit the requirements for growth without having to develop Green belt areas north of the town
* there is a lot of existing employment areas and opportunities south of Leamington (business park, large shops, etc)
* there are large shops and supermarkets in that area which, if development was made north of Leamington, people would travel through town to get to causing lots of congestion - plans for growth in the retail area seem to be south of leamington - there is already a large shopping area south of Leamington which would not need as much development as building a new shopping area north of Leamington. if another out of town shopping area is built then more local and independent retailers within the town centre may suffer; shops close; leaving empty shop premises as an eye sore and so stop residents and visitors from wanting to shop in town or move to live in Leamington.
* developing key areas south of Leamington would reduce the need to spend millions of pounds developing infrastructure (roads, public transport, etc) north of town
* there are already established routes and public transport access south of Leamington which would be more easily revised and developed rather than creating brand new transport systems north of the town - development of the A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth would be costly and cause major disruption; traffic would still try to get through Leamington town centre in order for people to access the shops and amenities south of town.
* there are large open spaces in south area that are suitable for development of housing areas; land which is not Green belt
Although WDC has suggested that land south of Leamington may not be as attractive to developers as they might feel they'd make less profit - i strongly feel that this is an invalid reason to make proposals to build on green belt land because the profit made by developers should NOT be WDC's priority.

Change to plan: Concentrate on developing non- Green belt land south of Leamington and other non- green belt areas
WDC to stick to plans and areas identified in 2009 plan
Remove plans to develop Green Belt land north of Leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown
WDC to include plans to enhance public transport south of Leamington

f) Affordable housing:

I am aware and agree that the WDC has to provide for the building of some homes that are 'affordable'. However, it is unclear in the documents why exactly WDC have proposed a 40% affordable housing plan. There needs to be consultation with the public about the need for 'affordable' housing.

Change to plan: consult with public in more detail about affordable housing needs.

Please accept the above points and opinions as my valid and firm objection to the proposal to develop the Green belt areas in Old Milverton and Blackdown, north of Leamington Spa; particularly as WDC has not produced sufficient evidence for 'very special circumstances' to develop and so erase those Green Belt sites. The WDC also needs to reconsider the planned numbers of houses and reduce their proposals by the extra nearly 1400 homes that have been added as a 'safety net' in their 'preferred option' plan.

We are writing to object to the proposal for 3,330 new houses in Warwick. In objecting we refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 10,800 new homes (up to 25,000 more people) been proposed which is the same number as proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place. The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. We do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done.

We believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Gypsy Site

We suggest the land adjacent to Junction 15 of the M40 might be a suitable site. There is little nearby existing housing, but a public bus service and good road access

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and we are objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. We would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including badger setts and also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on!

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Milverton and Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound if only on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

 
Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102) You have not carried out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment before allocating these sites for housing.

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. This is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. The Portobello development, built on a flood plain, is a prime example where many of the apartments are still unsold. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.

Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Why are we allocating housing for the Coventry Gateway project? It should be up to Coventry Council to provide for this. They should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries and evening clinics to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. We do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital.

 
Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 10,800 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road and Europa Way are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe (NPPF 32).

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities....." In our opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. We believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

I look forward to your response to the comments contained in this letter.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Pegasus Planning Group is instructed by Bluemark Projects to submit representations in respect of the Warwick District Council Local Plan - Preferred Options consultation document dated May 2012. Bluemark Projects controls an area of land north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, outside the Green Belt, which they believe is eminently suitable for allocation as a site for sustainable residential development. Making our representations we are mindful of prevailing Government policy, especially the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act 2011. We also believe that the Ministerial Statement by Mr Greg Clark, called Planning for Growth, dated 23 March 2011 is of significance and should be take into account.

1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development. The Government has included in the NPPF a set of core land use planning principles at Paragraph 17, which should underpin both plan making and decision taking. Among these principles it is set out that planning should:

"Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities."

1.3 In respect of housing development, Section 6 of the NPPF is entitled "Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes" and sets out the following at Paragraph 47:

"To boost significantly the supply of housing, the Local Planning Authorities should:

* Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the Plan Period"

1.4 In particular the NPPF at Paragraph 179 states:

"Joint working should enable Local Planning Authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own areas - for instance, because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework"

1.5 We have been mindful in making our representations of the need for the Local Plan to be judged against the tests of soundness in set out in the NPPF. In addition at Paragraph 182 a fourth test of the soundness of the Local Plan has been introduced, namely that it is:

" ▪ Positively Prepared - the Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring Authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development"

1.6 Following the budget in March 2011, which set out The Plan for Growth, a written ministerial statement was published by the Minister for Planning, Mr Greg Clark, entitled "Planning for Growth". This statement is not one of the policy documents that has been superseded or revoked by the NPPF. The statement makes clear that the planning system should do everything it can to help secure a swift return to economic growth. In particular he states:

"Local Planning Authorities should therefore press ahead without delay in preparing up to date Development Plans, and should use that opportunity to be proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs. They should make every effort to identify and meet the housing business and other development needs of their areas, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth taking full account of relevant economic signals such as land prices"

1.7 In addition, the NPPF at Paragraph 173 deals with ensuring the viability and deliverability of Local Plans. It states:

Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

We consider this to be an important test which should be applied to the policies in an emerging local plan. The cumulative effects of policies that place additional costs on developers need to be justified, and the potential to adversely affect viability and therefore deliverability must be addressed in evidence.

2. SECTION 2

Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary

2.1 We have noted in our Introduction what we consider to be the key issues of national planning policy and legislation which should underpin plan making including the preparation of the Local Plan for Warwick. In particular, we think there should be much greater reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and the Ministerial Statement, Planning for Growth, March 2011 included in the document.

2.2 We of course recognise that Government policy and legislation cannot alone be the key drivers of the Local Plan, and recognise that other strategies and the Council's Vision will necessarily underpin the process in Warwick. However, the omission of reference to national planning policy and legislation is we believe unfortunate and should be rectified. We note references under the heading of "Our Vision for the District" to facilitating and providing for growth both in respect of the local economy and housing needs. We support this forward looking stance on the District's part, however, we question the identification of a specific housing requirement, later contradicted in the Preferred Options document, of 550 new homes per annum on new allocated sites. It is inappropriate to include as part of the Vision which drives the Local Plan, a precise figure for one of the key components of the plan itself thereby raising concerns of a prejudicial approach to the process.

2.3 We also note under the heading of "Environment" that one of the Council's key principles is to avoid coalescence, presumably between settlements within the District, and this is a principle we would support and expect to see carry forward in terms of decisions on the spatial distribution of development. We also note the reference to new development being based on the principles of Sustainable Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages. We consider this approach to be a bold and interesting proposition, but one which cannot at this stage be held up as a prescriptive means of determining future forms of development. There is much of interest in the accompanying prospectus, dated May 2012 and entitled "Garden Towns, Villages and Suburbs". However, we feel this document can be no more at this stage than a starting point for discussion on interesting ideas around urban design.

2.4 Under the section of the plan entitled "The Local Plan Process" we again would suggest that greater reference should be made to the NPPF, and in particular at this juncture to the Localism Act 2011 and the introduction of a duty to co-operate. The Local Plan would benefit from an explanation of the two elements of the duty to co-operate, firstly the issue of legal compliance with provisions in the Localism Act 2011 itself, and secondly matters of soundness as set out in the NPPF.

2.5 The obligations regarding the duty to co-operate placed on Councils are intended to ensure that with the impending abolition of the Regional Strategy tier of planning, some semblance of co-ordination and strategic planning is maintained. Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by the Localism Act 2011, therefore requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of development plan documents. It is also clear that compliance with this legal requirement cannot be undertaken retrospectively, and must be embedded in the process of plan making during the course of preparation of the Local Plan. We note a solitary reference at the end of Paragraph 5.12 to the fact that Warwick District Council will be consulting neighbouring authorities on its proposals, but do not consider this satisfies the legal requirements or the tests of soundness placed on the Council.

2.6 This is an especially pertinent issue in relation to Warwick District Council as it is clear now that Coventry City Council is intending to plan for a level of new housing development which is very significantly lower than the needs arising in the City. Indeed, the response of Coventry City Council in respect of consultation on the Preferred Options document suggest that homes being provided in Warwick District will meet some of the needs arising in Coventry. We are not aware that this is a formal agreement between the districts, as we have seen no evidence of proper co-operation in terms of strategic planning in the sub-region. It is also the case that Birmingham has openly acknowledged that it cannot accommodate all of the needs arising within its boundaries, and will be relying on new housing development to meet the needs of the City being provided in adjoining districts. The clearly established patterns of out-commuting from Warwick into Birmingham suggest that a proportion of the housing needs of Birmingham itself which cannot be met within its boundaries will need to be met within Warwick District. Whilst it is laudable that Warwick District Council is making timely progress on preparing a Local Plan, the duty to co-operate placed upon it in terms of the Localism Act 2011 and indeed Paragraphs 178 to 181 of the NPPF mean that due attention must be given to these matters in order to avoid any problems with the progression of the Local Plan through its Examination in Public.

2.7 We note that at Paragraph 4.8 the Council identifies opportunities and issues that the District faces and the importance of the Local Plan addressing these. We agree with many of the issues identified, but consider that opportunities are not properly represented and greater reference should be made to the excellent locational benefits, strong demand for housing and robust local economy which can support growth of benefit not just to the area but to the sub-region and wider region. Under the heading 'Objectives' at Paragraph 4.9, we consider that amendment in particular to take account of the NPPF has not gone far enough. In particular, we consider that the overarching objective of the planning system should be recognised, namely helping to secure sustainable development. The Objectives section would also benefit therefore from a clear reference to the Government's view of the three dimensions to sustainable development set out at Paragraph 7 of the NPPF, namely that the planning system should perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. We believe these complementary roles are expressed in the objectives set out in the Plan, but they should be referenced more clearly to the NPPF and the achievement of sustainable development.

2.8 Under the sub-section Preferred Level of Growth, at Paragraph 5.1, we agree entirely that the Council should "plan for a level of growth that is founded on the best evidence". Again there should be reference to the NPPF and in particular the requirements of Paragraph 159 with regard to planning for an appropriate level of housing growth.

2.9 In this regard, the reference repeated at Paragraph 5.2 to an objective to support growth in the region of 550 new homes per annum is inappropriate as an issue or objective, as such a figure can only be derived once a clear understanding of the objectively assessed housing needs of the area has been explicitly set out. The need first to establish, based on robust evidence, what the objectively assessed housing needs of the area are is set out clearly in the recently published Inspector's Preliminary Conclusions with regard to the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy Examination. The Inspector, Mr Simon Emerson was clear that an objective assessment of housing needs and demands in the manner required by Paragraph 1.59 of the NPPF is an essential pre-requisite to considerations of how those needs should be met. He went on to say at Paragraph 1.11 of the annex to his Preliminary Conclusions that:

"The NPPF makes clear (e.g [Paragraph]47) that Local Plans should meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. Even if it cannot do so because the exceptions in NPPF14 are met, needs must be objectively assessed so as to identify any unmet need that should be sought in adjoining areas."

2.10 In our view, the starting point for understanding the objectively assessed needs of the District should be the most up-to-date household projections available from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). At this moment in time these are the 2008-based household projections. Analysis of this data shows that over the plan period 2011 - 2029, the projected increase in the number of households in Warwick District is 15,500. It would then be reasonable to include allowances for un-met need, vacancies and second homes in order to derive a dwelling requirement which the District should plan for through the Local Plan process. It is clear from this analysis that the figure of 10,800 dwelling which the Council proposes as its housing requirement falls far short of objectively assessed needs.

2.11 We note references in Section 5 at 5.21 that the SHLAA demonstrates the levels of growth up to 700 dwellings per annum can be accommodated within the District in strategically sustainable locations. We are not persuaded, however, by the dismissal of this option on the basis of the cursory explanation that is contained in the final sentence of that paragraph. The onus is now clearly on Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate why sustainable development, including on greenfield locations, cannot be delivered in accordance with the NPPF, to meet objectively assessed needs. In that context, the land my client controls north of Common Lane, Kenilworth would be entirely appropriate as a location for sustainable residential development, outside the Green Belt, to help meet these needs.



3 Part 2: Delivering Growth

7. Housing

3.1 Whilst we support the identification as a key issue at paragraph 7.4, 'the need to provide more housing to ensure that the needs of current and future residents are addressed', we disagree fundamentally with the preferred level of housing growth that Warwick has chosen to provide for, namely 10,800 new homes between 2011 and 2029, 600 new homes per annum. We have commented previously that we consider this figure is very significantly below the objectively assessed needs of the District. In that context therefore the proposal to provide for 10,800 new homes over the period 2011-2029 fails to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly at Paragraph 47, to use an evidence base to ensure that the Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

3.2 The Council has chosen to produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment solely for the District, and it would appear that the Council's assumptions are that this represents the housing market area within which it must meet objectively assessed needs. The alternative would be for Warwick District Council and other adjoining authorities to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment which covers a wider area taking in a number of authorities and representing a sub-region approach to the distribution of housing growth. There is no evidence that this is taking place as required in the NPPF, particularly Paragraphs 178 to 181.

3.3 The preferred option, PO3: Broad Location of Growth should, we submit, be clearer about the focus for most growth being directed within and on the edge of the existing urban areas and the preference in the first instance for the location of development in areas outside the Green Belt. We support the identification of the importance of the need to avoid coalescence of settlements, and this is especially the case with regard to Green Belt land in accordance with Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

3.4 We therefore think the identification of the broad location for growth as a preferred option would benefit from clearer prioritisation of the need: firstly to concentrate growth within and on the edge of existing urban areas in locations outside the Green Belt; the importance of avoiding development within the Green Belt which closes the gap between existing settlements, and could potentially therefore lead to their coalescence; and, in accordance with these principles, the distribution of growth across the district. We acknowledge the importance of a proportionate amount of growth in the rural areas, based on a hierarchical approach to the suitability of rural settlements.

3.5 In setting out in Table 7.1 what it believes to be the extent of existing housing land supply in the District, the Council has made an allowance for windfall development. Whilst the NPPF clearly indicates that local planning authorities can make an allowance for windfalls, it also states that they can only do so if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. In the absence of any evidence from the Council, it will not be justified in terms of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF to include a windfall allowance. We therefore expect that the Council will need produce the compelling evidence required in order to justify any windfall allowance, which must only apply to sites below the threshold for the SHLAA, and exclude garden land. We therefore have concerns that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a supply of land for 3,814 dwellings. In addition, given that we disagree that the figure of 10,800 dwellings is an appropriate housing requirement over the Plan Period, we therefore believe that the balance of land to be allocated through the Plan is significantly in excess of the 6,986 dwellings indicated at Table 7.1.

3.6 In addition, we find the reference at the end of Paragraph 7.22 to the need to provide housing to support a "Regional Investment Site" in the vicinity of the A45/A46 junction near Coventry Airport inexplicable and inappropriate. It is indicated in Paragraph 7.22 that the over-provision which the Council believes it has made in respect of new housing will enable additional housing to be provided near Coventry Airport. We fail to see how this is the case, as the total of 8,360 is accounted for by other developments identified in Warwick District. Further housing release near Coventry Airport would therefore add to this total. We have seen no proposals with regard to the Coventry Gateway Proposal at Coventry Airport for new housing to be built in the Green Belt, either in Coventry or Warwick. If such a move is to be proposed through the Warwick Local Plan, this will clearly be to meet housing needs arising in Coventry, and we would expect to see it justified fully by evidence of joint working between the respective Authorities in order to meet unmet need arising in Coventry within the Green Belt in Warwick.

3.7 PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing, proposes allocations for housing or mixed use development in order to deliver housing growth. We propose the allocation of land north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, as described in the Background Document we have prepared to support these representations, as suitable for housing development. The Background Document provides an illustrative layout which demonstrates that it is reasonable to assume a capacity of c.65 dwellings on the land outside the Green Belt north of Common Lane. We understand that the Council may not have previously had information to demonstrate that access to the site could be satisfactorily achieved, but the Background Document clearly demonstrates an access solution which will also have the benefit of improving traffic flows and safety on Common Lane.

3.8 The identification of land in the Green Belt for residential development through the plan making process can only be justified in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with Paragraph 83 in the NPPF. We do not believe that the Council can sustain the view that such exceptional circumstances exist where it has not first considered all other options for sustainable development on land outside the Green Belt. In the case of the land my client controls, north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, this site should be identified as an allocation for residential development for c.65 dwellings, in policy PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing.

3.9 Affordable Housing
The Preferred Options document acknowledges that it is not possible for the overall level of housing growth proposed to meet the arising requirements for affordable housing, as the annual arising need for affordable housing is 698,which is in excess of the proposed annual requirement of 600 dwellings per annum. In addition, as the windfall element is likely to consist of smaller sites they are unlikely to contribute towards affordable housing delivery exacerbating the shortfall. The housing requirement is therefore not addressing the need for all types of housing as required by paragraph 159 of the NPPF. In addition, the title to this subsection is incorrect as the Local Plan does not meet the need for affordable housing.

3.10 As identified in the accompanying Housing Evidence Review Paper, it is advised that a higher housing requirement is appropriate taking into consideration relevant factors. Such a requirement, in the order of 17,500, is in excess of the total arising affordable housing need (12,564 dwellings based on an average of 698 dwellings per annum over 18 years) and would assist to deliver a greater amount of affordable housing.

3.11 There is concern that if the overall arising housing needs (for both market and affordable) are not catered for, the poorest in society will be further marginalised (i.e. remaining as concealed/ shared households, when accommodation within the private rented market is potentially beyond their means) and could result in such groups moving out of the District to locations where dwellings that are affordable are available. Such an outcome would have a detrimental effect on society both socially and economically. For example, family/ social networks are broken, which potentially places a greater burden on local services and it could lead to a mismatch between available local labour and jobs, which could result in increased commuting.

3.12 In terms of the proposed policy approach, which requires 40% affordable housing on developments of 10 or more dwellings in the urban area and 5 or more dwellings in the rural area, it is important that the policy approach remains flexible as this blanket level of affordable housing will not be achievable on all development sites.

3.13 It is acknowledged that an Affordable Housing Viability Assessment has been prepared in order to test varying percentages for the affordable housing policy. Such assessments are based upon key variables to test the impact of different levels of affordable housing provision. The key variables set out within the report are: market position, location, value area, density, tenure split and developer profit. There are a number of other factors which have not been taken into account such as site remediation and provision of infrastructure. These can have a huge bearing over whether a scheme is viable or not.

3.14 Assumptions in relation to each of the key variables are used to determine viability. There is concern that given no two sites are the same general assumptions in respect of the cost and revenues of development may be inaccurate. It is therefore essential that the Council allows a flexible approach to delivering affordable housing in order to ensure that development is not prevented from coming forward as a consequence of a rigid policy approach. Similar sentiments are echoed in the Ministerial Statement of March 2012 and NPPF, both of which seek to facilitate housing delivery and ensure that Local Plans do not impose unnecessary burdens that could threaten the viability of development.

3.15 Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
It is welcomed that the PO6: Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes does not include a prescriptive approach to house sizes and types to meet the needs of communities. There is a reference to such information being set out within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. There is concern, however, that this document may not be updated regularly and therefore the information in relation to housing mix and type may become out of date. Indeed the information contained within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is already out of date to some extent as it relies on data from 2011. Further, although information is set out at a sub district level, there may be a justification for a specific mix and type of housing on a specific site or in a particular locality and therefore the Council should ensure the policy is sufficiently flexible to deal with such circumstances. We believe that housing developers have a good understanding of the markets within which they operate, as ultimately they will only build what there is demand for in the area.

3.16 The Preferred Option also requires at least 25% of homes, across all tenures, on sites of 50 or more dwellings to be built to Lifetime Home standards. This is a discretionary standard and whilst a number of house builders do achieve lifetime homes standards voluntarily. It should not be compulsory through planning policy. As with any policy which imposes an additional financial burden on developments, the requirements of Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF are especially relevant. In particular, Paragraph 174 states:

Local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan, including requirements for affordable housing. They should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence.

3.17 We have seen no assessment of the cumulative impact of all of the requirements and local standards set out in the Preferred Options document, and unless evidence is produced which supports the imposition of these, the Local Plan cannot be justified.



12. Climate Change

3.18 The Preferred Options document sets out a requirement that seeks a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from development to include a contribution from renewable and low carbon technologies, which is to be applied to residential development of one dwelling or over and to require new residential development to meet standards set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes. There is concern that this policy approach lacks flexibility and is not the most appropriate strategy. In particular, it is not in accordance with Paragraph 95 of the NPPF which requires local planning authorities:

when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards.

3.19 Reducing energy use through a 'fabric first' approach is something that many developers are currently looking at and is therefore a realistic and deliverable way forward for reducing carbon emissions. For example the AimC4 consortium is seeking ways to achieve the 25% CO2 reduction required between the future Part L 2013 building regulations and the current Part L 2010 building regulations at no additional cost. This would effectively move, in relation to Part L, from Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 to Level 4 without increasing build costs.

3.20 Any future policy on CO2 reduction should begin with energy conservation and efficiency before looking at on-site or off-site renewables / low carbon solutions. The way in which new residential development will meet the carbon reductions required in building regulations is not prescribed and therefore could comprise of a range of solutions but it appears that 'fabric first' is generally the route being pursued by house builders, and as such is a realistic cost effect way of delivering reductions. In view of the fact that carbon reduction is enshrined in current and future building regulations legislation there is no basis for adding a further layer of policy through in the Local Plan. In addition, all development must be planned for its lifetime. Reliance on technologies which may well stop working or become obsolete before the end of the life of the development should therefore be avoided. It is, for example, questionable whether solar PV panels imported from the Far East and added to developments represent a sustainable, long term solution to reducing carbon emissions.

3.21 The reference to on-site energy efficiency measures and low or zero carbon energy generation to meet a carbon reduction equivalent to 20% of predicted energy requirements is not considered to be justified. As noted above the 2013 Part L building regulations will already see a 25% improvement in CO2 emissions over current Part L building regulations (and a 44% improvement over the 2006 version). By aligning Category 1 (Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions) of the Code for Sustainable Homes with Part L of the building regulations the Government are maintaining a realistic timetable to reducing carbon emissions. The emerging Local Plan is taking a contrary approach whereby it is seeking to force measures onto new development prior to the national timetable without exploring the consequences.

3.22 In reality, in respect of house building it is the market that will really dictate the level of energy efficiency and carbon reduction in new homes over and above legal requirements. If buyers are prepared to pay the additional premium for zero carbon homes then the development industry will build them. However at the moment evidence suggests that reducing carbon emissions is not top of the list when purchasing a property, particularly when peoples' incomes are under pressure from other sources.

3.23 There is no objection to reducing the impact development has on climate change but, in respect of new housing, the policy takes no account of the cost implications that will arise from the measures, a burden that will ultimately fall on the house buyers. As previously noted, Paragraph 174 from the NPPF requires local planning authorities to assess the cumulative impact on the implementation of the Local Plan of all local standards, in order for the plan to be justified.

3.24 The Government has not made achieving a particular level against the Code for Sustainable Homes mandatory i.e. the rating can be zero. Whilst the legal requirement to reduce CO2 emissions is currently the equivalent of Code 3, and next year it will be Code 4, there is no legal requirement to meet the CO2 emission equivalent of either Code 5 (100% improvement) or Code 6 (zero net). Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability local planning authorities should do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards. The emerging Local Plan is seeking to go beyond these without justification.


15. Green Infrastructure

3.25 We object to the proposal to replace 'Areas of Restraint' with Green Wedges. There is no basis in the NPPF for adding a layer of protection or restriction over development in addition to the Green Belt, or above such areas which local communities may seek to identify as Local Green Space.

3.26 The NPPF contains, as one of its core principles in Paragraph 17, reference to recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Large parts of the District are covered by Green Belt designation, with its well established levels of control over development, and the NPPF at Paragraphs 76 and 77 allows local communities, in defined circumstances, to designate land as Local Green Space. Areas of particular nature conservation or habitat value can be afforded protection through the hierarchy of designated sites. There is no justification, therefore, for adding a further layer of 'Green Wedges' and all references to this approach should be deleted.


4 Conclusion

4.1 These representations to the Warwick Local Plan - Preferred Options consultation document have been prepared on behalf of our client, Bluemark Projects. They are supported by a Background Document which identifies a site north of Common Lane, Kenilworth which we contend should be identified as an allocation in the submission version of the Local Plan when it is published.

4.2 Our representations have set out what we consider to be flaws in the consultation document which could render the Local Plan unsound, and we therefore commend the points we have raised to you for further consideration. In particular, we have concluded that the plan should refer more explicitly to the requirements both of the NPPF and the Localism Act 2011. In should also remove references to what could reasonable be concluded is a pre-ordained approach to the overall level of new dwelling provision the Plan should provide for.

4.3 We do not believe the consultation document has properly identified objectively assessed housing needs in accordance with the NPPF, nor is there any evidence of compliance with either the legal obligations or the requirements of the NPPF with regard to the duty to co-operate. These, we contend, are serious flaws in the approach the Council is adopting.

4.4 The Council's approach to the spatial distribution of development should be clarified along the lines we have suggested, and we contend that the land outside the Green Belt north of Common Lane, Kenilworth should be allocated as a housing site in policy PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing.

4.5 We object to elements of the Council's approach to local standards generally and consider the requirements to justify this in accordance with the NPPF have not been met. In particular we have concerns with the policy suggested for affordable housing and to the approach proposed in relation to lifetime homes. We also object local standards in the manner envisaged in relation to climate change. We further find no basis for the suggestion of a policy to identify green wedges, which should be removed from the Plan.