Green Wedges

Pious words, but in practice you are destroying hectares of Greenbelt.

Green wedges are a non-statutory designation relating to landscape protection unlike the Green Belt. Green wedges effectively provide no protection as they are not permanent and are subject to review each time a development plan is revised.

Changing the designation of the land around Old Milverton from Green Belt to Green Wedge is effectively the first step to permitting the land to be used for future development.

The building of the North Leamington Relief Road would then be the catalyst to encourage the infilling of the "Green Wedge" by incorporating Old Milverton Village into the urban sprawl.

In principle I agree with these especially to those proposed to the south of Leamington Spa where the land that is not classed as Green Belt needs some protection They should improve access to the countryside and improve biodversity.

This is an excellent proposal which will hopefully preserve some green in what might otherwise progressively become a 'concrete jungle'

The suggestion of improvements to the green infrastructure to the south of Leamington and Whitnash seems a good idea, especially with the recent acquisition by the Council of Oakley Wood. Since the movement of birds and animals is strongly linked to hedgerows, trees and copses, it is desirable to preserve such vegetation in this area so as not to isolate Oakley Wood, thereby helping to preserve its biodiversity.

the principle of Green Wedges is welcomed since it
* provides an appropriate separation of the town from the village essential to maintain the characters of both;
* takes account of the different roles and character of different areas that it includes;
* recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supports thriving rural communities within it;
* ensures that valuable farming land is safeguarded from development.
It should remain natural to maintain its biodiversity providing walkways through it so that the countryside can be enjoyed and the agricultural function be retained. Aim to plant woodland as a carbon sink.

SUPPORT in principle but OBJECT to specific proposed designation.


We acknowledge the Council's intention to identify and protect within the District a number of green wedges which are considered "important for their ecological, landscape and/or access functions in the setting of different urban areas and urban fringes". While we support this initiative, we do not believe that the existing playing fields associated with school's located off Myton Road accord with the stated purpose of designated 'Green Wedges" and instead represent a remnant of the former wider AOR designation in the area. For these reasons we believe that the playing fields should not be taken forward for possible consideration as a 'Green Wedge' in the next version of the Plan. Any proposed Green Wedge designation will, by the time of the examination in to the Plan, need to be justified and supported by an appropriate evidence base.

See attached

Following a presentation of WDC's Local Plan in Bishop's Tachbrook, I have several objections and suggestions regarding the Housing Preferred Option and other matters.

Housing:
With reference to the map P04 Preferred Option sites for expanding housing include sites numbers 2,4,10, 11,12 & 6. These sites will provide land for a proposed 3800 homes. Extrapolating the number of people that will live in these new homes there will be an additional 14 to 15000 more people living South of Leamington and Warwick. These extra people will put a massive burden on the infrastructure such as roads/bridges to gain access to the Town Centres' and emergency services. The Bridge in Warwick and Leamington are already at maximum usage during rush hours and in my opinion would be overwhelmed by this massive increase in population. According to the Preferred option on transport infrastructure there is no provision to build more bridges over the Rivers Leam and Avon. What's more the entrance to Warwick from the south via the Banbury Road will be blighted by such a massive housing estate and will have detrimental effect on tourism.

Furthermore the development (Woodside Farm, Bishop's Tachbrook; area Number 11 on the Preferred Option map) would have a high adverse visual impact as it is prominent ridge and would impair the visual approach to Leamington.

The lack of infra structure provision was also a major objection to the last Preferred Option in the previous spatial framework housing plan. I agree there are now fewer houses envisaged 3800 as against 4500 but the same criticism applies Ie. the excessive strain on existing facilities.

Alongside new housing must be provision for upgraded infrastructure. When previous housing expansion took place, namely Warwick Gates, we in Bishop's Tachbrook, suffered lack of water pressure and problems with sewage because no pumping station was built for a number of years. Road infrastructure too was overlooked causing major problems at the
Tachbrook/Harbury Lane cross roads. Ditto the exit from Gallows Hill onto the Banbury Road. Improvements to these road junctions took many years after the houses and business park were built. Major expansion of the factories at Gaydon has created a huge traffic increase with consequent problems (and fatalities) by vehicles trying to exit Tachbrook on to the Banbury Road. In addition there is also a problem at rush hours caused by vehicles using Bishop's Tachbrook as a rat run.


The decision not to build a new infants school at Warwick Gates caused and still creates major problems with bus access to the school in Kingsley Road (Bishop's Tachbrook) because children have to be bussed here from Warwick Gates.
Infrastructure is either neglected all together or takes many years to implement; meanwhile existing residents have to live with the misery.

The new Preferred Option I believe will cause major problems owing to the bridge bottlenecks in Leamington and Warwick and lack of concrete plans to enhance infrastructure to cater for the increased population.

If more housing is required there must be adequate infrastructure built in parallel with housing construction. The proposed Developer Infrastructure Levy will certainly not pay for new bridges or better health provision etc. And waiting for the increased population tax revenues to pay for it will take far too long, leaving existing residents to suffer severe curtailment to the quality of their lives.

I would also question the need to build 555 houses per years from 2014 -2029. The ONS and economic projections based on historical growth rates do not take into account the envisaged stagnation in economic growth throughout the UK for the foreseeable future plus the negative growth effects of an ageing demographic. Apart from Jaguar Landrover at Gaydon most of the envisaged commercial expansion is planned for the Gateway area around Baginton/Ryton. This would entail commuting again from South of the Rivers to the North, further compounding traffic problems over the aforementioned bridges. Therefore it would be better to build more housing nearer the Gateway Area

Also there is a "Green" imperative that demands fewer commuting miles by car in order to reduce emissions etc.

In addition, building more houses attracts more people i.e. it is a self-fulfilling strategy, not based on projected growth grounds alone. As Leamington/Warwick is an attractive area more people will move here to take advantage of the new housing and the increase in population would in turn diminish the attractiveness that created the initial demand and further increase commuting miles out of the area to other centres of work.

If more housing is required (the number should be far less than the projected 555 per year) it would be best to maximize all available brownfield sites in the suburban areas. It was a great pity that yet another supermarket was granted permission to build a giant shed on the old Ford Foundry site when this entire area could have provided an admirable housing development.
Brownfield sites that would provide excellent housing are:
1. The old telephone exchange in Leamington
2. Garage opposite Covent Garden multi story (Leamington)
3. Quarry Street Dairy Milverton
4. Linen Street car park (Warwick)
5. Police station Warwick
6. Fire station (Leamington)



Housing continued...

Further sites
Land could be released for housing at Bubbenhall and Baddesley Clinton if they were classed as Category 1 or 2 villages


GREEN WEDGE
The proposed Green wedge stretching from Radford Semele, between Harbury Lane & Bishop's Tachbrook to Banbury Road should be extended Southwards to encompass Oakley and surrounding area.

In addition, I would like to reaffirm opposition to any plans to revive development between Harbury Lane and Bishop's Tachbrook as was proposed in the previous Preferred Option

See Attachments

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

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

Population Growth

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

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

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

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

Brownfield Sites

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

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

Gypsy Site

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

Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Sites

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

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

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

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

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

 
Flood Risk

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

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

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

Density

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

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

Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

CIL

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

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

 
Air Quality/Traffic

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

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

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

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

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

Historic Environment

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 In particular the NPPF at Paragraph 179 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. SECTION 2

Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3 Part 2: Delivering Growth

7. Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



12. Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


15. Green Infrastructure

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

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


4 Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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