PO5: Affordable Housing

RESPONSE TO WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PREFERRED OPTIONS

PO1: Preferred level of growth
I support the preferred option based on an average 600 new homes per annum, as being realistic against current demographic trends and economic growth projections. However, should economic growth trends change in future years the council should seek to respond flexibly as required.

PO2: Community Infrastructure Levy
This new system of raising funding from new developments to support infrastructure developments offers important new opportunities but also presents major challenges. It requires a new set of relationships between district council, county council and other local partners, to not only draw up and agree CIL-funded infrastructure development plans for the district but to create a long-term stable framework for them to be implemented over many years.

PO3: Broad location of growth
I support the preferred option, and in particular that Kenilworth should have its fair share of new housing development (770 homes per Table 7.2) within the total district target. I disagree with the stated view of Kenilworth Town Council that there should be no further development in the town. A vibrant, sustainable community requires some headroom to expand and develop. There is a clear need for a better housing mix in Kenilworth, especially for more starter homes for young people and opportunities for older residents wanting to downsize to smaller properties.

PO4: Distribution of sites for housing
I support the preferred option that Kenilworth new housing development should be concentrated on the Thickthorn site. Kenilworth Town Council has stated a preference for 700/800 houses to be distributed across the town, but has admitted that this cannot be done while meeting their own criteria. These mixed messages only serve to confuse local residents.
Concentrating new housing development in one Kenilworth location provides the opportunity for the right level of infrastructure development to support this - roads, walking and cycling routes, school and other community facilities. Piecemeal small-scale developments across the town, even if there were suitable sites, would be difficult to support through improved infrastructure, so putting further pressure on existing facilities and resources.
I support strongly the proposed designation of the Thickthorn site for employment use as well as for housing. There has been a long-standing shortage of suitable employment land in Kenilworth. I would not support just an office park however. What is needed is a good mix of employment opportunities, to include for example research and development organisations and light industrial units.
I support the proposed designation of Burton Green as a 'Category 2' village, provided that the Parish Council is fully consulted and involved in decisions about target numbers, types and locations of new housing.

PO5: Affordable housing
I support the proposed option. The proposed policies seem to be soundly based.
It is interesting to note that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) estimates the requirement for 115 affordable houses per annum for Kenilworth alone. This reinforces my earlier statement under PO3 that there is a clear need for a better housing mix in the town. The SHMA estimated need is greater than the total new housing allocation for Kenilworth over the 15 year period of the plan. Consideration should therefore be given to achieving a much higher figure than the minimum 40% affordable housing on the Thickthorn site, and also seeking every opportunity for more affordable housing in any 'windfall' sites that come forward for development within the town.

PO6: Mixed communities and wide choice of housing
I support the proposed option.
Regarding the Thickthorn site, for the reasons stated previously I see the priority within the housing mix being for starter homes for young people, and smaller units for older residents wanting to downsize but to stay living within the town. There could also be an opportunity to cement further the links between Kenilworth and the University of Warwick by the building of new student accommodation - something completely missing at the moment.

PO9: Retailing and town centres
I support the proposed option, in particular promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, and strongly resisting further out-of-centre retail developments.

PO12: Climate change
I support the proposed option, in particular ensuring flood resistance and resilience in all new developments through sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS). Well-designed SUDS are not only functional, but can enhance the natural environment of open space areas associated with new developments.

PO13: Inclusive, safe and healthy communities
I support the proposed option, in particular the importance of access to high quality open spaces and sport/recreation facilities for all residents.
In para 13.10 (2nd bullet point), I would like to see the words "pedestrian and cycling" substituted for "pedestrian". Policies should do everything possible to encourage the greater use of bicycles by all sections of the local community, both for healthy exercise and as a sustainable/zero carbon means of transport within our district.

PO14: Transport
I support the proposed option, in particular the strong emphasis on promoting sustainable forms of transport.
The importance of the K2L cycling route between Kenilworth and Leamington cannot be overemphasised, together with provision for bus lanes and bus priority schemes on this important route. I see these as the priorities for highway improvements on this route rather than increased provision for private vehicles.
Within the town of Kenilworth, there is a massive task to be done to improve routes and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and this should be the priority for infrastructure investment to support new housing development. I disagree fundamentally with the view of the Town Council that a multi-storey car park is required in the town centre. Policies should be seeking to encourage residents to leave their cars behind for short-distance local trips whenever possible.
Map 5 shows a proposed cycle route through Abbey Fields to link up two elements of the National Cycle Network. This has been the subject of considerable negative comment by some residents, community organisations and the Town Council, which has been reflected in other responses to this consultation I understand.
The council has a duty to balance these strongly-expressed views, i.e. that no cycles should be permitted in or through the Abbey Fields, with the needs of the local community as a whole. I would highlight some of the comments in the Draft Green Space Strategy document, in particular section 4.1.7 on page 19 of that document:
"The value of green spaces can be greatly enhanced by linking them together into corridors and networks giving safe, attractive access for pedestrians and, in some cases, cyclists.
"... enable people living in urban areas to reach the countryside .... provide a green alternative for journeys to work or school."
"By-laws prohibiting cycling and horse-riding in some green spaces may need to be reviewed to achieve this."
Through the development of the Connect2 Kenilworth (C2K) route, the town has gained a valuable green corridor linking it to the countryside, and providing an important new travel alternative for people working at the university, Policies should be focussed on making it more accessible from all points of the town, and there is no doubt that a cycle route through Abbey Fields would become an important link between the west side of the town and C2K. Currently no other options have been proposed which would achieve the same result.
There is also the fact that the Abbey Fields are an important destination in themselves for many local residents, including families with young children wanting to access the playground area, and yet at the moment there is zero provision for any residents wishing to travel there by bicycle. Residents lucky enough to live nearby are able to walk, but others have no alternative but to drive there. With the Abbey Fields car park already at saturation point and due to reduce its capacity shortly, the council must consider how it can encourage more residents to access the Fields by bicycle.
In terms of transport infrastructure to support a new Thickthorn housing and employment development, for the reasons stated earlier a high priority should be given to sustainable transport options - i.e. walking, cycling and public transport. However, this site also offers the opportunity to create an important new link road between the traffic island over the A46 by-pass and the eastern side of Kenilworth (joining Glasshouse Lane at a point near Rocky Lane). As well as serving the new development and ensuring it is fully linked into the rest of the town, it would help to alleviate current traffic congestion around the St John's gyratory - something which piecemeal development of eastern Kenilworth over many years has failed to address.

PO15: Green infrastructure
I support strongly the proposal for the development of a peri-urban park north of Kenilworth. This would build on the success of the C2K Greenway route in opening up this important piece of our local countryside to all sections of the local community.
I do not support the arguments so far put forward for the restoration of the Kenilworth Mere. The outline feasibility study conducted by Warwick Business School MBA students showed that any viable scheme could have a massive impact on a large area of precious countryside adjacent to Kenilworth Castle, almost certainly involving commercial developments such as hotels, apartments etc.

PO16: Green belt
I support the re-drawing of green belt boundaries to the east of Kenilworth and around the village of Burton Green in order to permit the developments proposed in this Local Plan, and for no other reason.

PO18: Flooding and water
As stated previously, I support the requirement for SUDS schemes as part of all new developments.

PO5
I believe that 40% Affordable Housing is too high. A figure of bween 1-20% would be far more acceptable amongst the community.
I also believe that Affordable Housing should be on the basis of shared equity to ensure that the properties are kept in good order. This would be in keeping with the surrounding area.

PO7
I object strongly to the introduction of Gypsies/Travllers sites. On occaisions the Gypsy community visit the Kenilworth Horsefair situated on the Leamington Road close to the junction of the A46. Residents are aware of the high level of policing at this time and a noticeable increase in petty crime.
A gypsy site will increase the burden on hardworking tax payers to support these people.

I believe it very unfair to support these non taxpaying people as I have been a single parent working hard and receiving any type of benefit or help.

See attachments for full text of representations.

Providing sustainable levels of growth :
The levels of growth envisioned are not sustainable- in that the level of infrastructure, its
distribution, housing location and jobs, do not match the population growth forecast.
A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause
immense damage to the the character of the County Town
Level of Population Growth and demand for housing assumptions:
These are flawed because:
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?
* Housing demand growth in England is from a combination of net immigration and
changes in household demographics towards smaller households.
* However the impact of a prolonged recession which the Prime Minister says could last
another decade, will impact on the ability of individuals to afford housing.
* This is manifest in the rapidly rising age of first time buyers and the profound
demographic change since 2008 in more young adults living at home with their parents
for much longer than in the past.
* So why is the plan still assuming a rapid increase in demand for single occupancy
households; when the actual demographic trend is away from this?
* Is the modelling based on current data, or is it simply looking at the demand during the
decade of rapid growth and easy availability of mortgage loans pre the 2008 crash?
* This in turn could mean that in fact far less individual units are required for the District
as a whole, but a greater emphasis should be given for multi generational living , with
semi independent adults?
Distribution of housing within the District
The plan talks about the need to distribute housing across the entire District , but then in fact does
not do this!
A starting point should be that EVERY ward has the same level of housing growth during the plan,
i.e. A 20% across the board increase.
* It appears that most housing will be again concentrated within Warwick and parts of
Leamington Spa, with very little in the large villages or in Kenilworth
* This is curious, as it also points out the lack of affordable rural housing but then basically
ignores any provision for it!
1
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
* The inexplicable lack of housing growth in and around Kenilworth is most odd given that the
job growth is likely to be around the University and Coventry Airport, and the town already
has a lot of facilities.
* 830 houses over 15 years in the villages is clearly inadequate to meet their housing needs
or the lack of affordable housing, this is only 55 houses per year spread across a wide
geographical area.
* I suggest as a minimum 2500 of the 10800 houses in the plan be developed in the
village areas spread evenly across the district.
* This provision WOULD meet the need for affordable rural housing projected, at 55
per year if 33% was "affordable".
I suggest two areas which have been overlooked for large scale housing provision are Radford
Semile and Lapworth.
* Both are ripe for large scale "garden suburbs", supported by business parks. This would
support and make more viable their existing shops and schools.
* I suggest that at least an additional 1000 to 1500 houses are considered for each ward, and
therefore the significant benefits of population growth extolled by this plan are met, coupled
with local affordable housing and retail provision
* I note they both have existing primary schools, and good proximity to public transport and
roads, and Lapworth has a commuter railway station.
* There is also the opportunity in Lapworth to build a business park to tap into the proximity
to Solihull and at Radford Semile to build a business park dedicated to engineering to tap
into the expertise and supply chain associated with Ricardos.
* This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Milverton and Warwick would
therefore by required.
Transport
For the plan to be actually sustainable, there needs to be a lot more vision for integrated public
transport.
Cycle ways:
It would be a good objective to work with the County Council to ensure that EVERY community is
served by a dedicated cycle way, especially within the urban areas, where short lengths of cycle
way often just stop.
This should be funded by developers of the new housing as a priority via the Community
Infrastructure Levy
Commuter Rail and Bus Routes:
The plan envisions much new low cost housing, yet this is concentrated mainly around Warwick,
and the new job provision is in the north of the District.
HOW are those in low paid jobs who will presumably be the beneficiaries of the "low cost" housing,
be able to commute to where the jobs are if they cannot afford their own cars?
For the plan to be sustainable surely it would be better to have more smaller housing
developments within walking/ cycle distance of the new job provision; i.e. small estates near small
business parks?
* IF this is not possible a commitment to provide and subsidise long distance inter nodal
commuter bus routes is essential.
* Low paid workers will need to be able to commute quickly and cheaply to where the jobs
actually are!?
* This can be achieved, by developing inter town express bus routes to link together;
2
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
Warwick, Leamington, Stratford, Coventry, The University, Nuneaton, Rugby, Kenilworth
and the larger villages; integrated with mini bus services which will THEN serve the local
housing areas. Funded by the Community Infrastructure Levy.
* NOT the farcical situation as now when it take between 90 and 120 minutes each way to
get between towns , which IF a direct town centre to town centre route could be achieved in
20 -30 minutes, (existing buses take very circular routes).
* This lack of effective public commuter transport compounds inequality and creates greater
dependency on state subsidies, as those able and willing to work cannot afford the
transport to get to the jobs, and the bus services are simply too slow and too infrequent to
be a viable alternative.
* Similarly regular local new commuter train services linking together ALL the major
Warwickshire Towns and Coventry should be a priority, funded by the Community
Infrastructure Levy,.
* The "virtual" park and ride scheme, seems like a lot of hot air political spin. Does it
effectively mean NO park and ride , but a slightly extended bus route?
Air Pollution
Parts of WDC already do not meet the Nox emissions EU Directive, including large parts of the
centre of Warwick.
This is likely to be tightened up in the near future with harder targets and lower permissible
emissions, possibly wit fines for non compliance.
It therefore seems curious 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?
Historic Distinctiveness
* I believe the plan should do more to promote good design in housing.
* It is should also seek to unambiguously protect the historic buildings in the area and their
settings, as this is one of the major "draw" factors for population growth and economic
vitality
* The plan has some very vague and bland statements, it needs a clearly articulated
"heritage vision", backed up with detailed planning guidance and then an appetite for
rigorous enforcement.
* Our towns are special, BUT only if the key historic and architectural elements and values
are protected, otherwise they risk becoming a sprawling new town reminiscent of Milton
Keynes.
* The existing open spaces, sports fields, allotments and parklands should unambigiously be
protected from development, including their settings.
Definitions of affordable Housing
I suggest that the definition of what is affordable housing needs broadening.
The plan highlights the need for housing for the elderly and the growth of the elderly as a % of the
population.
One solution to their needs and the obvious trends in semi independent adults living much longer
with their parents because they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, would be to classify
"granny flats" or semi separated apartments within houses as going towards the "affordable
housing" targets.
Multigenerational living should be encouraged as it meets housing need, is sustainable and reflects
changing land-use patterns. There is the opportunity to boost this by incorporating it into the plan's
3
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
housing targets and helps meet the need for "mixed" housing.
Gypsy Site:
I suggest the land adjacent to the Junc 15 of the M40 might be a suitable site.
There is little nearby existing housing, but a public bus service and good road access
Employment Land
I support the use of green belt land to expand employment opportunities on well designed business
parks at Stoneleigh and around the University. BUT there must be good public transport links to
allow potential workers to access these jobs from the existing WDC Urban areas.
HS2
HS2 could open up significant advantages for the West Midlands by improving links to London &
Heathrow, but more importantly Northern English cities and direct rail links with northern Europe.
I support HS2 and would suggest that rather than opposing a strategic transport plan which cannot
be blocked by WDC due to existing legislation, the Council concentrates in obtaining maximum
benefit for the District, by getting subsidies for improving the transport links to meet the HS2
stations.
Conservation Areas and Historic Environment
* WDC must commit to protecting the existing listed buildings, open public spaces and
conservation areas, from encroachment by development.
* Particularly as most development needs - as defined by this plan-will be met by building on
greenfield and brown field sites, there is therefore less pressure to damage the existing
historic town buildings?
* I suggest the English Heritage Guidance published in May 2011 in "Seeing History in the
View" should be incorporated into the plan.
Climate Change
Flooding and SUDS. Given the recent patterns of heavy rainfall and the long history of local
flooding, great care should be given to the sitting of all new developments.
Claims of 1000 year flood modelling should be treated with extreme scepticism as reliable data
only exists for the past 90 years.
Especially in existing urban areas a conservative approach should be given to any large new
buildings and their impact on surface water drainage.
Consideration should be given to more local flood defences and helping individuals to flood proof
their homes.
Fear of Crime
* No sex clubs or night clubs should be allowed near housing- they should only be built in
non residential areas.
* No new pubs, bars or hotels should be built or change of use in areas of predominately
residential nature, to protect existing residential amenity.
* There should be the presumption that in residential areas new businesses will not increase
the background ambient noise levels. If this cannot be achieved these businesses should
4
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
be located in designated areas such as retail or business parks.
Good Design:
The plan highlights good design and sustainability, this should be supported but defined
All new housing should be built to Parker Morris standards
http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/index.php
* These standards are based on ergonomics of the minimum space needed to meet "a
functional approach to determining space standards in the home by considering
what furniture was needed in rooms, the space needed to use the furniture and move
around it, and the space needed for normal, household activities."
As these were the minimum set for UK 1961 social housing it is not unreasonable that they should
be the very minimum acceptable in WDC for the next 15 years. OR we run the risk of creating
housing that CANNOT meet the needs of the occupants and risks becoming dysfunctional or
slums, which by definition is hardly "sustainable".
Public Space:
Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should
not be built on !
Any new developments should have additional public space.
Tourism
* Any new visitor accommodation -over a small number of bedrooms- should be examined to
see if it would have a negative impact on the existing providers locally as a material
planning consideration.
* Small independent providers of accommodation tend to support far more local jobs and
have a bigger local economic impact by their use of local suppliers.
* It is desirable to have a diversity in type and location of accommodation providers.
* New budget chain hotels which have a similar impact on existing hotels and guest houses,
to that of supermarkets on independent retail traders. They should only be permitted where
it can be demonstrated there is an unmet demand or capacity need. And there will not be a
detrimental impact on existing buisnesses.
Green Wedges
This seems to be a meaningless concept.

Scanned form

Attached letter

See attached letter

Scanned representation

PO1 Preferred Option: Level of growth
I consider that the proposed level of housing growth of 555 homes per year is not supported by all the evidence available. The mathematics of the calculations are not shown so they cannot be checked easily.
The baseline population on which the future need is apparently calculated is the ONS estimate of 138,670. Since those calculations the 2011 census has measured it at 136,000.
The initial stage of consultation gave a range of growth possibilities and the clear majority of respondents opted for the lower growth levels which would more reasonably reflect the inevitable organic growth in our population due to increased longevity, better health and changes in birth rates along with some inevitable inward migration.
Residents made a clear choice to accept lower infrastructure gains in return for limiting growth and specifically avoiding more growth in excess of local need.
Approximately 250 homes per year would appear to be more than adequate to meet these need if more adventurous use of brownfield urban sites was made..

PO2 Preferred Option: Community Infrastructure Levy
The current market conditions demonstrate that because developers are not confident in the ability of customers to buy, and sites that already have planning approvals are not proceeding.
CIL should be used on a local benefit to relieve effects of or immediately related to development proposal areas.


PO3 Preferred Option: Broad location of Growth
I supports the dispersal of additional housing that cannot be located on urban brownfield sites so there is a small effect on a number of places, rather than a large effect on a few. In general, this will reduce travel and demand for traffic improvements, use existing educational, health and other community facilities where there is available capacity to do so.
The NPPF para 54 requires that in rural areas, local authorities should be responsive to local circumstances, planning housing development to reflect local needs. In para 55, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

PO4 Preferred Option: Distribution of sites for housing
Location 1 Sites within existing towns. This is the best option. If it were possible, all the housing required should be in existing towns and dispersed therein, to make the least demand on support infrastructure and reducing traffic movements.
Location 2 Myton Garden Suburb. No objection.
Location 3 South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way. This development must not take place. It is a criminal intrusion into the rural southern setting of both Warwick and Leamington with important implications for the setting of Warwick Castle and its parkland. It will create a natural infill area for later development until eventually all the area south of Warwick and Leamington id completely filled.
The additional traffic from the proposed 1600 homes plus employment on a road system that is already struggling will impose even greater stacking effects back through the village of Barford which already suffers enormous amounts of rat-running from commuters trying to avoid the daily J15/Banbury Spur commuter
The numbers show that it is not needed and the council needs to bold enough to decide to continue the Green Wedge through to Castle Park.
Location 4 Milverton Gardens. 810houses + community +employment + open space.
and
Location 5 Blackdown. 1170 houses+ employment +open space + community.
These two sites may well be cases where the Greenbelt policy could be relaxed with limited overall damage whilst providing essential housing land. There would be limited damage to the settlement separation intentions of the Greenbelt policy.


Location 6 Whitnash East/ South of Sydenham. 650 houses + open space and community facilities
No specific comment but is this really required?
Location 7 Thickthorn, Kenilworth 770 houses + employment +open space + community
Use of this as part of the policy for dispersal of the housing required is supported.
It is, better to use this site than land of rural, landscape and environmental value elsewhere in the district. It is the only contribution to the preferred option plan located in or near Kenilworth.
Location 8 Red House Farm, Lillington 200 houses + open space.
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 9 Loes Farm, Warwick 180 houses + open space
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 10 Warwick Gates Employment land 200 houses + open space.
No objection.
Location 11 Woodside Farm, Tachbrook Road 250 houses + open space
There seem to be merits in using this site as it extends previously developed land towards a natural boundary (Harbury Lane) and is hence self-limiting.

Location 12 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash 90 houses + open space
No objection.
Locations 13 &14 Category 1 & 2 villages Category 1, 5 villages at 100 and category 2, 7 villages at between 30 to 80 in each plus 8 category 3 villages within the existing village envelopes.
These are very significant increases for many of these villages! Do the category One villages really NEED to take 500 in total or 100 each. In Barford's case this will be an 18% increase in the number of dwellings, and that on top of a recent development of approximately 70 homes. I would suggest that the total Cat One numbers should be significantly reduced and that numbers should then be spread pro-rata over all the Cat one villages according to current house numbers of population number to give a more equitable spread and certainly to keep the increases at or below the district wide increase.
Considerable attention should be paid to the Sustainability Assessments included in the plan where it should be noted that Barford, a Category one village based on its facilities scores the THIRD WORST Sustainability score of all the villages assessed (Cat one, two and three) with only Rowington and Norton Lindsey scoring lower.

Furthermore despite having a very successful school there is considerable doubt about how such numbers could be accommodated and the amount of harm that would be inflicted on currently resident families and pupils of such increases.


PO5 Preferred Option: Affordable housing
I have considerable concerns that the 40% requirement is considerably in excess of the real need for "social housing" and as such will drive up the costs of market homes to such a degree that all homes will become significantly less affordable. It is perhaps appropriate to consider what is trying to be achieved and to review the way in which Affordable Housing need is actually measured - specifically it seems that those in need are counted before their need is actually validated whereafter the real need is actually considerably less and they are re-routed to more conventional housing sources.
PO6 Preferred Option: Mixed communities and a wide choice of homes
Regarding retirement housing of various sorts must be provided as part of a whole-life

PO7 Preferred Option: gypsies and travellers.
The Gypsies and travellers remain and always will be a problem. Most tax-payers are at a loss to understand why they must be treated differently to everyone else when they could acquire land and pursue the planning process just like everyone else.
The proposal to "provide sites" will bring out the worst elements of the NIMBY culture and blight certain areas.
It is my opinion that the problem needs solving by primary legislation not the current soft PC approach. This is a job for central government, no doubt through "Europe".

PO8 Preferred Option: Economy
Employment need only be provided/attracted to match our population. The previous stage of the consultation gave a clear indication that the majority were preferring to accept lower growth rates of housing, employment and infrastructure. That choice must be selected and a focus on consolidation rather than growth should be the watchword. We are a low unemployment area and any extra employment provision will bring with it a proportionate housing demand and inevitably more houses, which is not required.
The Gateway project may still materialise and this will make extra demands as some of the jobs will no doubt be attractive to our residents in addition to bringing in new workers. Provision should be made for housing local to that site and not for such workers to be subsumed into the wider WDC area.

PO9 Preferred options: Retailing and Town Centres
The support retailing and town centres is welcomed and should be vigorously pursued by both planning policy and fiscal incentives. There must be adequate town centre parking provision to support town centre businesses.

PO14 Preferred options: Transport

Access to services and facilities.
Clearly, it is essential to provide sufficient transport infrastructure to give access to services and facilities. The amount of work required is dependent on the level of growth selected. If the low growth scenario is chosen in preference to the current preferred option, then the infrastructure improvements will be much less and probably not much more than is currently necessary to resolve existing problems. This would be less costly and less inconvenient to the public than major infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable forms of transport.
The best way is to keep as much new housing provision as possible in existing urban locations because people are then more likely to walk, bus, bike to work, shops, school etc.


PO15 Preferred options: Green Infrastructure

The policies set out in PO15 are supported


PO16 Preferred options: Green Belt

The NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. I believe that it may be a proper time to review the Green belt to ensure that it is appropriate to the current situation and not merely being carried forward, just because it has always been so. Some relaxation within villages and on the edges of the major settlements would make massive contributions to the housing need whilst doing little harm to the concept of ensuring separation between settlements.

Removing Green Belt status from rural villages would allow currently unavailable infil land to make a significant contribution to housing numbers whilst improving the sustainability of those villages. Barford, not in the Green belt has had considerable infil in the past and as such is relatively sustainable whilst actually scoring poorly on the WDC conventional Sustainability Assessment scoring system.



PO17 Preferred options: Culture & Tourism

The preferred option of medium growth seems to be totally oblivious of the value of the approach road from the south to the Castle. It proposes to materially downgrade the approach past Castle Park by building housing along the length of the road from Greys Mallory to Warwick, a distance of about 2.5 km. The views across the rolling countryside to the east of the approach road are an essential part of the character of the district and county about which books have been written.

The low growth option makes that loss unnecessary.

PO18 Preferred options: Flooding & Water

Flooding: Development should take place where flooding is unlikely to occur. The low growth option would make it easier to select sites for development that do not carry this risk.

scanned form

Scanned representation

See Attachments

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.

Scanned representation

Attached letter

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.

scanned form

Scanned representation

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 RPS Planning and Development (RPS) has been instructed by Lenco Investments (Lenco) to
prepare representations to the Warwick District Council New Local Plan Preferred Options
consultation document, in respect of their land interests at Baginton.
1.2 Warwick District Council (the Council) has proposed their Preferred Options in terms of housing
and economic growth and their vision for the district generally over the plan period to 2029.
These are currently being consulted upon until 27 July 2012.
1.3 RPS has made representations on behalf of Lenco to the previous stages of both the Warwick
Local Development Framework and the Coventry Core Strategy, to ensure a suitable approach is
taken to cross boundary development led growth.
1.4 Lenco's land interests at Baginton relate to a site which lies to the south of Baginton village
situated within the Green Belt, as shown at Appendix 1. It is important to note that Lenco has the
controlling interest in the majority of this land.
1.5 The site Lenco has interests in lies to the south of Baginton village, and. The site extends to
approximately 50ha and is in a sustainable location within easy access to Coventry City Centre,
close to the perimeter edge of the airport, with excellent cycle, pedestrian access to the
surrounding areas, and vehicular access to major transport links such as the A45 and A46.
1.6 Whilst the site falls within the local authority area of Warwick District it remains very close to
Coventry's administrative boundary, as well as the major sub regional employment base centred
on Coventry Airport. RPS is aware of the current proposals to expand Coventry Airport, and a housing development at Baginton would support these expansion plans.
1.7 The representations, therefore, address the need for housing growth within Warwick
administrative boundary and suggest that large-scale growth should be situated within close
proximity of employment development to ensure that people can live and work in close proximity.
Such proposals will support the Government's objectives to encourage economic growth in order
to revive the economy. Furthermore, these representations address the need for cross-boundary
growth and for full and proper cross-boundary working to be established between, Warwick,
Coventry and Nuneaton and Bedworth Boroughs as required by the Localism Act and NPPF.
1.8 The following chapter provides details about the site at Baginton, and our comments in response
to the Preferred Options document are provided in Chapter 3 and are set out in the same format
as the Council's response forms.
1.9 RPS are willing to meet with Planning Officers from Warwick District Council again concerning
Lenco's land interests and the New Local Plan process to discuss the potential of the site in
meeting local housing needs.
2 LAND SOUTH OF BAGINTON
2.1 The site Lenco has interests in extends to approximately 50ha and lies to the south of Bagington
village. The site is in a sustainable location close to Coventry City's boundary and the urban
area, and within easy access to the City Centre, and major transport links such as the A45 and
A46. The site, being close to the perimeter edge of the airport, with excellent cycle, pedestrian
and vehicular access, provides an exceptional opportunity for the provision of balanced housing
growth in the most sustainable manner.
Planning Policy
2.2 The Local Plan Preferred Options promotes 10,800 new dwellings within Warwick District for the
plan period up to 2029, at an annual delivery rate of 600 dwellings a year.
2.3 Evidence advanced by the West Midlands regional assembly for the West Midlands RSS
Examination in July 2009 from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research,
based on 2006 ONS Household Projections and allowing for the economic downturn, concluded
that Warwick District's housing requirement between 2006 and 2026 was 18,200 dwellings at a
rate of 910 dwellings/year. Whilst the RSS is not longer in place, the evidence base is still to be
taken into account by Local Planning Authorities in preparing development plan documents.
2.4 The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment indicates a requirement of 698 dwellings a year
to meet the affordable housing needs of the District in addition to market housing needs, which
is significantly higher than the level of housing currently being proposed by the Council.
2.5 The 2008 ONS Household Projections predicted an increase of 17,000 households between
2008 and 2028, at a rate of 850 dwellings a year. This represents an additional 150 dwellings a
year than is currently proposed through the Local Plan, which clearly will not meet the District's
identified need for new homes.
2.6 RPS is also aware that the 2012 SHLAA indicates that the District has a supply of deliverable
sites to provide 13,385 dwellings between 2014 and 2029, excluding windfalls, which is greater
than the numbers proposed within the Local Plan. Therefore the Council has identified the
ability to deliver housing sites at a higher annual rate than is currently proposed through the
Preferred Option.
2.7 RPS, on behalf of Lenco, therefore believes that the proposed figure of 10,800 new dwellings is
insufficient and that a higher level of growth would better reflect the projected population
increase and ensure that identified housing needs can be met, as suggested within the evidence
base. The Council cannot meet a higher target without locating housing on greenfield of Green
Belt land, and therefore should consider sustainable locations outside of the urban areas to
ensure housing needs can be appropriately met.
Cross-boundary Growth
2.8 The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities have a 'duty to co-operate' on cross-boundary
planning issues, in particular for strategic priorities including housing, to meet development
needs which cannot be met solely within their own administrative boundaries.
6 rpsgroup.com
2.9 It has been recognised in Coventry's SHLAA assessment that the Council cannot meet their
housing targets on land within their administrative boundary alone. It is considered, therefore,
that Green Belt locations on the periphery of the urban area should be recognised as
appropriate locations for accommodating future growth.
2.10 The Green Belt south of Coventry was recognised through the Warwick Core Strategy process as
being an appropriate location for accommodating future growth of the City. Although the site is
within Warwick District it lies close to Coventry's administrative boundary, as well as the major
sub regional employment base centred on Coventry Airport.
Coventry Airport
2.11 Whilst both Coventry Airport's major sub regional employment base and Baginton village are
located outside of Coventry's local authority boundary, they are socially and economically
associated and physically adjoin the Coventry urban area. Residential development in this
location at Baginton could balance the existing significant employment base on the southern
side of Coventry, such as those around the airport at Stonebridge Trading Estate and
Middlemarch Business Park, both of which are within a very short distance of the site, as well as
the air freight and terminal employment opportunities.
2.12 RPS is also aware of the current Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway Scheme proposals
(Appendix 2) to expand Coventry Airport, and a housing development at Baginton would support
these expansion plans. RPS recommends that housing supply is focused in those areas where
there are important benefits to be gained where future economic growth is planned.
Site at Baginton
2.13 A residential-led mixed use development at Baginton could contribute sustainably to crossboundary
growth as required by the NPPF, and to meeting both Warwick District and Coventry
City's housing needs by delivering approximately 1,000 new homes either in isolation or as part
of the wider regeneration proposals for the area. The location of the site in relation to the
Gateway proposals is shown at Appendix 3.
2.14 Development at this location would also allow for new facilities and services to be provided,
making the best use of existing and proposed infrastructure. The site can be appropriately
phased over the Local Plan period to develop an available, suitable and deliverable urban
extension proposal.
2.15 The promotional document 'Land south of Baginton: A Sustainable Urban Extension' prepared in
2008 has previously been submitted to the Council and provides further details of how the site
could be sustainably developed.
2.16 In addition to this, extensive technical surveys in relation to flood risk, noise, ecology,
conservation and heritage, landscape, and highways have been undertaken of the site and
submitted to the Council, to demonstrate the site's suitability for a significant residential-led
development either in isolation or in connection with proposals for the wider area. An Air Quality
Assessment will also be undertaken to demonstrate the site's suitability for development.
2.17 RPS, therefore, considers that to help deliver greater sustainable development opportunities, it is
important that sufficient housing land comes forward in areas of proven market demand, such as on this Green Belt site to the south of Baginton, to contribute towards delivery of additional
dwellings and higher levels of growth to meet the needs of both Councils.
2.18 Responses to individual policies and topics within the Preferred Options consultation document
are included in the following chapter

Attached letter

Attached letter

See attachment.

Whitnash Town Council respond to each of the Preferred Options in turn, and
make comments in respect of the Vision and Objectives.
Vision and Objectives
We broadly support the Vision and Objectives for the Local Plan, but reserve
our position on the level of housing supply, for the reasons set out in our
response to PO1 below.
PO1 - Level of Growth
In principle we agree that sufficient housing should be provided across the
District to meet future housing needs. However, we are unable to comment on
the proposed level of an average provision on 555 per annum on allocated
sites, plus windfalls, as housing numbers are an immensely technical issue.
Notwithstanding this, we are very concerned that Warwick District and
Coventry City Councils are failing to exercise their statutory Duty to Cooperate
under the Localism Act 2011 by not addressing the important matter
of cross-boundary housing need.
We are concerned that, in its current state, the proposed strategy will be
found to be "unsound" by the Inspector at the eventual Examination. This
could well result in additional housing provision having to be made, and this
would have clear implications for non-Green Belt areas, such as those
surrounding Whitnash.
We therefore urge the District Council to effectively exercise the Duty to Cooperate
with Coventry in respect of cross-boundary housing provision at this
WHITNASH TOWN COUNCIL
Franklin Road Town Clerk
Whitnash Mrs J A Mason
Warwickshire Email: jenny.mason@whitnashtowncouncil.gov.uk
CV31 2JH
Telephone and Fax: 01926 470394
2
stage, therefore preventing the danger of the Local Plan being found
"unsound" in the future and the Council having to consequently revise its
strategy and land allocations.
PO2 - Community Infrastructure Levy
We fully support the District Council in seeking to introduce a CIL scheme as
the Town Council considers it vital that full and appropriate infrastructure
provision is made, in advance of development wherever possible. It is
essential, however, that the funds raised are used to develop infrastructure in
the areas where the impacts will be felt, irrespective of Town and Parish
administrative boundaries.
We look forward to seeing and commenting upon the Infrastructure Delivery
Plan in due course.
PO3 - Broad Location of Growth
We support the strategy to make Green Belt releases to the north of
Leamington. For the first time in many years, this will allow a spatial
rebalancing of the urban form and provide for significant development in areas
away from the southern edge of the Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash urban
area.
Apart from relieving some of the development pressure on the south, it also
represents sensible planning practice by creating a more rounded and
balanced urban area, enabling greater accessibility, especially for the town
centres, and should enable more effective transport planning through
maintaining a more compact urban form with Leamington and Warwick Town
Centres as two central hubs.
Past development allocations had resulted in Leamington Town Centre
becoming increasingly less "central" to the urban area as development
extended to the south. The proposed strategy ends this practice and is
therefore welcome.
PO4 - Distribution of Sites for Housing
At this Preferred Option stage, we do not have detailed proposals for any of
the sites covering, for example, access arrangements, amounts of
employment land, types and forms of community facilities to be provided, and
such like.
Therefore, we wholly reserve our position in respect of objection to, or support
for, any of the sites and we will make strong representations in this respect at
the Draft Local Plan stage.
However, we have a number of concerns in respect of several of the sites. We
draw these to the District Council's attention at this stage so they can be
addressed in formulating detailed proposals.
3
Education Provision
A general comment we wish to make is that it is critical that detailed
consideration is given, up front, to the level and location of future school
provision, both Primary and Secondary.
In Whitnash we have suffered from the lack of provision of a Primary School
at Warwick Gates. The draft Development Brief included a school, but this
was subsequently deleted as the County Council, as LEA, took the view that a
better option was the expansion of the existing three schools in Whitnash. As
this was, in planning terms, "policy neutral", the District Council amended the
Development Brief accordingly and deleted the school site.
This has led to problems for the residents of Warwick Gates and we would
seek to ensure that such a situation does not arise again through this Local
Plan process.
Our comments on education more specifically related to individual sites as
follows.
Sites 2 and 3 - if these sites progress, these should be seen as incorporating
a possible location for a Secondary School.
Site 6 (Whitnash East) - we understand that access could only be achieved
through the Campion School site. We are concerned that the school should
remain viable and continue to be located where it is.
Site 10 (Warwick Gates Employment Land) - consideration should be given to
siting a Secondary School on this land, given its advantages in terms of
accessibility from across the south of the urban area. The opportunity should
also be taken to explore the siting of a Primary School on the site, to meet the
needs both of existing Warwick Gates residents and also the needs arising
from any additional housing, on the site itself or in the vicinity.
Site 2 - Myton Garden Suburb
Our concern in respect of this proposed allocation is that its development will
result in the coalescence of the three components of the urban area, Warwick,
Leamington and Whitnash. We consider that this will result in a loss of
individual identity for the three towns.
Site 3 - South of Gallows Hill
We raise the following concerns in relation to this site:
* The land is extremely prominent in the landscape and will be highly
visible when entering the urban area from the south
* The site does not represent a logical extension of the current urban
form. It is in no way "rounding off" and would constitute a "peninsula" of
development extending to the south
4
* It would have a negative impact upon the setting of Warwick Castle
Park
Site 6 - Whitnash East
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We are not convinced that access to the site is feasible. Our
understanding is that the South Sydenham development constituted the
maximum number of dwellings that could be accommodated off a cul-de-sac.
Given that access to the site via Church Lane or Fieldgate Lane is clearly not
feasible, access would have to be achieved via land within Campion School.
As this would involve relocation of school buildings, we are sceptical that the
number of houses proposed could fund the necessary works required to
achieve this solution
* Given the above issue, and our earlier comments on the wider subject
of education provision, we do not wish to see the future location of Campion
School prejudiced by this development
* There are, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, substantial
areas of both historical and nature conservation interest. Any development
must not have an adverse impact on any of these cultural, historic and natural
heritage resources
* In the event that the site is developed, we would wish to ensure that
sufficient community facilities are provided within the development and also
that adequate footpath and cycleway links are provided between the
development and the existing community of Whitnash
Site 10 - Warwick Gates Employment Land
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* The site appears to be proposed for development at an extremely low
density. We make this observation elsewhere in respect of other proposed
allocations. We are concerned that, to accommodate the projected housing
need, land is allocated at appropriately high density, thus reducing the overall
level of new land that is needed
* This site is currently a high quality employment land allocation and we
understand that a reason the land has not been developed is landowner
aspirations, rather than demand for such a site. It is essential that the Local
Plan provides a balanced supply of employment land to meet all sectors of
demand, if economic growth and prosperity is to be fostered. There is
currently no other site in the urban area that offers this amount of land area in
such an accessible location. We are therefore concerned at its proposed
reallocation from employment to housing
5
Site 11 - Woodside Farm
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We fail to see how two access points could effectively be achieved to
this site. We do not consider access from Harbury Lane to be feasible due to
the existing road alignment. We doubt whether access could be achieved
from Tachbrook Road due to the proximity of the Ashford Road and Harbury
Lane junctions to the north and south of the site respectively. Construction of
a roundabout at the Tachbrook Road/Harbury lane junction would offer
potential for one access point, but we are concerned about the impact of such
construction on the important oak trees in the vicinity
* We also doubt whether the development could carry the cost of such
highways works. The option of gaining access via Landor Road is utterly
unacceptable due to the road alignment and lack of vehicle capacity.
Furthermore, it appears that physical access could only be gained through
demolition of existing buildings
* In the event that a single access point was sought, we consider that
this has the potential to isolate the housing from the existing community and
also lead to unnecessary and unsustainable vehicle movements
* The site would be highly prominent in the landscape - there is
therefore a concern about visual impact
* The presence of underground High Voltage electricity cables will limit
the site layout
* There is considerable local opposition to the proposed allocation of the
site. It is our duty as a Town Council to inform you of this high level of
opposition
Site 12 - Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane
The raise the following concerns regarding this site:
* We consider there to be fundamental access problems and have
concerns about the capacity of the Coppice Road/Morris Drive and Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junctions to accommodate the additional movements
generated by the development, especially at peak periods
* We are concerned that, at a proposed level of 90 dwellings, the site
density is too high. This would be a prestigious site and the proposed density
should reflect this. Our argument does not run contrary to that made in
respect of other sites, where we consider the density to be too low, as
provision needs to be made at varying densities to reflect different sectors of
the housing market. This includes provision of sheltered housing and singlestorey
dwellings on appropriate sites. This may or may not be the case at
6
Fieldgate Lane, but should certainly be considered across the portfolio of
proposed housing allocations
PO5 - Affordable Housing
We support the provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing but would
seek this to be distributed across all sites to ensure the development of
socially balanced communities
PO6 - Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
We support the Preferred Option PO6.
PO7 - Gypsies and Travellers
Given that Whitnash has experienced particular problems through unlawful
traveller encampments in recent years, we support the principle of the
Preferred Option of proper site provision
PO8 - Economy
We support the principles of PO8. However, we reiterate our concern that
appropriate levels of employment land should be provided, in the right places,
and this should constitute a balanced portfolio of sites to meet as wide a
variety of needs and demands as possible
PO9 - Retailing and Town Centres
We support the principles set out in PO9
PO10 - Built Environment
We support the principles set out in PO10
PO11 - Historic Environment
We support the principles set out in PO11
PO12 - Climate Change
We support the principles set out in PO12
We will seek to ensure that any future development in Whitnash seeks to
reduce the Town's overall carbon footprint through the application of
sustainable development and design principles
PO13 - Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities
We support the principles set out in PO13
7
PO14 - Transport
We support the principles set out in PO14 with the exception of the section
relating to High Speed 2.
Whitnash Town Council neither objects to nor supports HS2
We urge the District Council to ensure that the final Infrastructure Delivery
Plan takes full account of public transport needs and the principles and
policies set out in Warwickshire County Council's Local Transport Plan 3
PO15 - Green Infrastructure
We support the principles set out in PO15
PO16 - Green Belt
We support the limited release of Green Belt sites as set out in PO16 as this
will create a more balanced and sustainable urban area and urban form
PO17 - Culture and Tourism
We support the principles set out in PO17
PO18 - Flooding and Water
We support the principles set out in PO18

See attached

Scanned representation

See attached

I am writing in response to the above publication issued by the council to object to what seems to be ill thought out scheme. It would appear that the aim is the development to provide a vibrant and thriving town where people want to live, work and relax which at first glance seems to be a good idea but in the current economic climate (which I see extending well into 2015 and beyond) I think this could be misguided when money is tight. We need to extract maximum gain for minimum outlay.
You aim is for 555 home per year but there is little information contained within as to where this figure has come from and what the make of the proposed resident taking up these homes? When I'm out and about in Leamington it seems to me that the population is aging or old judging by the number of care homes in the district, has your proposal considered this and their requirements as it's a well-known fact that we are all living longer? With the on-going lack of finance to purchase these properties is the council proposing some sort of assistance? Or are we going to end up with ghost estates? The old Potterton site has been re-developed and a good proportion of that is still empty and unsold from what I can see.
Following on from this as a landlord I know in certain areas these empty properties are been taken on by housing association to provide affordable housing but depending on the number this could result in a highly desirable estate being tainted and the home owners losing out big time as a result. So again this could deter people from relocating to Leamington
You say that you want 40% of the housing to be affordable but go into no detail on how you intend to achieve this as this is one of the most expensive areas to buy property? And more importantly keep them affordable long term? Will you ensure all such residents have covenants that prevent tenant ownership and if so how would you enforce it?
Is the council intention to ensure that these new developments have been designed to promote a safe environment and reduce any policy costs going forward?
What steps have the council taken to assess the effects that the proposed Milverton development would have on the water levels in the area considering this area is surrounded to the north and west by the river?
Going by the contents of the summary I do not see any exceptional circumstance to warrant the destruction of the green belt, which once gone cannot be replaced and is conytrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. To the north of Leamington these is limited local amenities. And I know from my daily walks with my dog the vast range of wild life that exist in the proposed Milverton area from bats, newt to a vast array of birdsong which lifts my heart every time I hear it regardless of the weather. I also know the vast number of dog walkers, runners, cyclists and ramblers from around the district that make use of and enjoy these limited facilities
Also by the fact that you have identified non Green Belt land that could be used, and that developers probably already have options on, and that you have discounted then I am certain that owners of this land in conjunction with developers will gain planning permission on appeal resulting in a vast over provision of land to the detriment of the town and its residents
You state that you want to ensure that people who work in the district have the opportunity to live here but what has this decision be based on as I suspect judging by the morning jam that the majority of residents actually work in the surrounding district or further afield judging by the station platforms for the rush hour trains to Birmingham and London
You state that you want to reduce through town traffic, this I am sure is of concern to existing traders in the town centre and likely to deter any new venue looking for a location as this is likely to reduce footfall and likely income
What is the situation with empty properties within the district? What percentage are empty? What steps are being taken to get them back in to use, is the council using any incentives?
To my mind from the above points the starting point in developing a local plan would be to look at the logistical issues inherent in the district which I see as
* Leamington is split in half with a band that covers the river, canal and railway line - with only 4 historic crossing points
* The vast majority of the Leamington trading and industrial estates, that will form the majority of the employers locally are south of this divide
* To the west Leamington butt up against Warwick so the scope for doing anything in this area is limited, especially as the division is again reinforced by the river
* The ultimate boundary to the north is fixed by the A46
* The ultimate boundary to the south is fixed by the M40
* The vast majority of the out skirts of the town to the north and east areas are bound by green belt
* There are only two routes between Leamington and Warwick that are divided by the river

Bearing the above points in mind any plan should to my way of thinking:
* Be geared to address the bottle neck in getting around in the district so to this end it should be to improve the means of negotiating the river/canal/railway line with consideration to
o introducing a crossing to the east of the town and a ring road joining Heathcote Whitnash and Cubbington and improving the West Hill Road out to where it joing the A452
o introducing a link across the river to link the two roads between Leamington and Warwick to provide more travel flexibility
o improving the capacity of the fossway to provide an alternative transport path with the introduction of roundabouts at dangerous crossing point
o improving the A452 so that it provides a main transport path as it "A" rating denotes rather than being controlled by feed from minor roads at Shires Park and Chesford Bridge
o improving transport paths in Kenilworth to provide ring road to the west
* improving the local rail infrastructure to provide an alternative means of getting between Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth say the introduction of minor stations at milverton, sydenham, whitnash, emscote, hospital/race course with regular service supporting these stops are peak hours
* Improving bus service by proving circular routes rather than the usual star systems
* Ensuring that it does not exacerbate current transport aspects within the district developing north of the river when industrial and trading estates are south of the river is simply not logical
I my view the proposed introduction of a northern relief road through Old Miverton will not achieve the desired result as it will simply put more loading on the Old Milverton Road (which is not included in your proposal for upgrade).and the A445. Also are residents going to take a 5 mile roundabout route when they only want to go 0.5 mile up the road?. The introduction of this road will also result in the destruction of Old Milverton and be the start of the coalescence of the urban area between Leamington and Kenilworth.
I'm not convinced either that a park and ride scheme is the right way forward and would like to see what basis the council has for this and its cost effectiveness. I know when I pass the one in Stratford (which is a location with far greater attractions and hence visitors) always seems to be empty.
The first time I used the A46 after the M40 junction was modified to improve traffic flow I was elated until I arrived at the roundabout which to my mind will simply backup the congestion to that point . Why this roundabout wasn't situated below the road with slip roads to it I simply can't understand. So let's try and do better going forward.
Finally one area that I see as missing from you plan is an ECO goal, I know that you mention climate change, reducing carbon emissions and the like but I think the council should be championing measures well beyond anything given in national sustainable construction. There are a number of developments around the country when innovative design has been applied providing high density housing whilst still providing tenants with the same levels of outlook on a normal estate. Again I was excited when it was announced that the old Potterton site was to be redeveloped but I am ashamed every time I drive past as it could have be used to provide an indication of a forward thinking council.

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.

See attached.

See attached representations.