DS7 Meeting the Housing Requirement

Object

Representation ID: 65113

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Nurton Developments & the Forrester Family

Agent: Chave Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The housing provision should be increased to allow for flexibility in the event that some sites fail to come forward or are delivered with reduced capacities than that allowed for in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 65173

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Sundial Group Ltd

Agent: Mr Marcus Bates

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is a need to indentify additional sites for development.

Object

Representation ID: 65233

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Deeley Group Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Deeley Group objects to Policy DS7 and the associated table as the period used for housing provision should extend to 2031.

Deeley Group objects to the Table in Policy DS7 as it is considered that it makes an over estimate of the likely delivery from windfalls during the plan period.

The amount of housing to be allocated on new sites within the plan should be increased from 6,238 to at least 8,000 both in order to meet the shortfall from the missing 2 year period to 2031 and also to allow for a lower delivery from windfalls.

Object

Representation ID: 65278

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A C Lloyd Homes objects to Policy DS7 and the associated table as the period used for housing provision should extend to 2031.A C Lloyd Homes consider that there is an over estimate of the likely delivery from windfalls during the plan period. The amount of housing to be allocated on new sites within the plan should be increased from 6,238 to at least 8,000 both in order to meet the shortfall from the missing 2 year period to 2031 and also to allow for a lower delivery from windfalls.

Object

Representation ID: 65422

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Nurton Developments

Agent: Chave Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The housing provision should be increased to allow for flexibility in the event that some sites fail to come forward or are delivered with reduced capacities than that allowed for in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 65516

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes Group

Agent: PJPlanning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is no explanation as to how the figure from the SHMA has been translated from an objectively assessed need ('Policy Off' figure) for Warwick to an overall housing requirement ('Policy On' figure).

A two stage process should be carried out: 1) use of SHMA toi identify OAN. 2) take account of other considerations to arrive at a final housing figure (e.g DTC, SHLAA). This can then give a sound figure for the Plan.

The Plan has only looked at stage one and is therefore a "policy off" figure and is unsound.

The plan proposes a high level of windfall housing (19.3% or 138 dpa). Whilst a degree of windfalls are allowed, this should only be if there is compelling evidence.

The 2014 report on 5 year supply has not been published and the 2013 report makes no allowance for non-implementation.

There is therefore not enogh evidence to demonstrate how this approach can be achieved, and the reliance on windfall sites in this way risks a serious undersupply of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 65875

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Centaur Homes

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Centaur Homes object to the excessive number of units within the windfall allowance and the separate inclusion of SHLAA sites. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that any allowance for windfall sites should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery and any future trends. The production of the Local Plan is the opportune time to proactively plan for new development rather than leaving it to windfall and
speculative sites being brought forward

Object

Representation ID: 65977

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Swindells and Star Pubs and Bars Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy DS7 establishes that the housing need identified by Policy DS6 will be met through the provision of 12,964 homes.
It is considered that the total number of dwellings should be increased to ensure the Council meets its full Objective Assessed Housing Need.
The Burrow Hill site will deliver only 60 dwellings, below the requirement established in the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundary document. Other Secondary Service Villages which are equally sustainable, such as Barford and Hatton Park, are still expected to deliver 80 dwellings each, within the range identified in the VHOSB document.
Therefore the Local Plan Publication Draft is not considered to be positively prepared, nor effective in respect of paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 65984

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As new allocations have been provided to deliver the needs of the Borough, the Council cannot assume that the historic rate of windfall development will continue. In addition to this Barwood suggests that a nonimplementation allowance is included to allow for any slippage in planning permissions not being built out.

The Employment Land Review identified a number of sites which have employment suitability issues and where future redevelopment for alternative uses many be appropriate. However the identified employment sites may not come forward for residential development exclusively, which will have an impact on the number of dwellings that can be delivered on these sites.

Object

Representation ID: 66050

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

RPS is of the opinion that the Housing Trajectory is unsound.

The Housing Trajectory contains substantial over estimations of housing delivery, particularly in the early period of the plan. The rate of development in the early period is insufficient from the sites identified and an over reliance is being placed on a small number of sites delivering high rates of dwellings. This is not going to be experienced as proposed and the only way to maintain high levels of delivery is from a broader range of sites.

RPS also objects to the identification of confidential sites in the Housing Trajectory amounting to 207 dwellings. It is not appropriate to identify confidential sites and withhold information on the location of such sites from a public examination of the evidence. If the Council cannot identify those sites publically, if cannot rely on them during scrutiny of the public examination as it does not permit transparency in the evidence. The 207 dwellings should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 66118

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Martin

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Council should clarify the method for dealing with shortfalls in housing delivery illustrated by the housing trajectory against an annualised housing requirement. The Council should also confirm that 5 years housing land supply is available on adoption of the plan in accordance with para 49 of the NPPF. If the land supply is not demonstrated the Local Plan will be found to be neither effective or consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 66166

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

William Davis and Hallam Land Management have a number of concerns about the various components of the supply and how the overall level of provision is to be met.

The allowance for windfall sites is expressed in the policy as being "over the plan period". It should be more accurately described as relating to the period beyond April 2013. Furthermore it is considered that the contribution from windfall sites has been overstated.

On the basis of the advice set out in paragraph 48 the NPPF and the subsequent "on-line" Planning Practice Guidance, it is accepted that, in principle, an allowance for windfall sites could be included within any assessment of the supply of housing land over the plan period.However such a significant reliance on windfall sites is contrary to that expectation and gives rise to a level of uncertainty as to the delivery of the housing requirement over the plan period. The issue is the scale of such an allowance. As proposed, it is not considered that this is justified and hence the Plan is not sound.

Object

Representation ID: 66188

Received: 14/07/2014

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Holroyde

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Has WDC consulted and agreed strategies to deal with massive population expansion south of the river;
Hospital, Railway, WCC, car parking, bus companies, retail and other service providers, post 16 colleges, statutory undertakers, entertainment and sporting facility providers, employers.
WDC and WCC could have opportunity to provde creative proposal;
e.g.
Wide boulevards including pedestrian and cycle ways and green space
abundant safe car parking
parks and recreation spaces
theatre, concert and meeting hall, cinema, hospital, church, school and shopping mall
Variety of houses with basement parking and tree planted spaces
Third community would be welcomed if it added facilities/beauty to the area.
Must not let cost dictate as developers will pay for the space. Council tax revenue will be hugely increased

Object

Representation ID: 66193

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS is of the opinion that the Housing Trajectory is unsound in respect of windfall allowances. The allowance is clearly overestimated and unrealistic. It makes allowance for student accommodation which is unsound.

The NPPG states that student accommodation can be included in the housing requirement "based upon the accommodation it releases from the housing market. Notwithstanding, local authorities should take steps to avoid double-counting". The authority has clearly not understood the nature of the guidance.

More fundamentally the authority can only include student accommodation "based upon the accommodation it releases from the housing market". To release a dwelling unit form the housing market it requires the dwelling unit to be firstly occupied by Students, that will then move back to the new student accommodation and thus release the dwelling unit. No evidence is provided that this is the case. In fact, the converse is true in that university accommodation is typically for overseas and first year students, which will not exist in the housing market already. Therefore no release of dwelling units occurs. In fact, the university (para 10.78 of the SHMA) is seeking to expand its use of private rented properties in Warwick, Coventry and Leamington, not reduce it.

Object

Representation ID: 66231

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: d2planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The objections to this policy should be read in conjunction with our objection to Policy DS6 'Level of Housing Growth'. The objection to Policy DS6 was on the basis that insufficient housing provision had been made to meet the housing needs of the District including adjoining districts. It must therefore follow that objections are made to this policy on the basis that the overall housing provision is too low. Furthermore, in meeting the housing requirement calculation it is important that the advice both in the NPPF and NPPG in respect of identifying the availability and deliverability of sites is followed. Whilst we reserve the right to comment on the detail of the calculation it is apparent that:

1. No allowance for the shortfall in housing provision pre 2011 is made;
2. The windfall allowance is excessive and not justified;
3. Potential double counting exists between windfall sites and small urban sites; and
4. Ensure that allocated sites are available and deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 66243

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The overall forecast of housing need of 12900 is considered to be exaggerated. The ONS estimates have been revised downwards and suggest only 8,100 houses are needed to meet natural increase and inward migration to Warwick District. The SHMA suggests that occupancy rates of houses will fall significantly from 2.2. Such a decrease is unrealistic and the plan is therefore seeking to justify the provision of more houses than will actually be needed to house the target population.
There is already more than a five year supply of land ready for development. As ONS estimates have dropped less houses will be needed to meet the requirement for 5 years supply. Campaign groups have claimed that there is already a five year supply; the revised ONS estimates would appear to reinforce this position.
Population projections underpin the plan and are fundamental to it being properly justified/sound. The GL Hearn projections used in the SHMA for Coventry and Warwickshire are used as the basis for the Plan but are now discredited by the may ONS population figures issued in May 2014.
The recent ONS figures are much lower than those used in the SHMA 15,313 rather 21,472, a fall of 6,159 persons or a 28.7% reduction. This is very significant in that it changes the numbers of dwellings that will be necessary; the amount of infrastructure needed to support the housing / population and reduces the amount of Greenfield needed to be taken for new allocations.
The reduction in population and required housing will also improve the 5 year housing supply position.
It is considered that the SHMA underestimates the future housing occupancy rate in the district (see statistics in full submission). This alongside the potential for minor density adjustments can also have an impact on the amount of housing required in Warwick District and could lower the numbers significantly.
Research undertaken by local campaign groups (supported by respected University of Warwick economists), shows conclusively that maintaining a housing target of 12900 by 2028 cannot be justified on the basis of the latest figures ( see power point slides in full submission).
A decision to continue to work to the Council's current housing target can only be based on the Leadership of Warwick District Council being determined to " go for growth" in the face of the communities wish for a plan that would do no more than meet the needs of natural growth with a modest allowance for inward migration.
To conclude / summarise
*Warwick's population projection is now 28.7% less than the figures used to formulate the consultation draft local plan. The Plan is therefore unsound based on incorrect/ inadequate data.
*All the other authorities in the Housing Market area are also showing similar reductions in their population projections, including Coventry.
*The method by which population is converted into the numbers of dwellings required needs better determination by calculation, using the known housing type and size to be included in the plan.
*The lower housing target will require the list of sites to be included in the plan to be reduced. In sustainability terms this will imply brownfield sites being put first and only including Greenfield where essential.
*To delay a revision of the 5 year housing supply calculation / requirement in light of the new evidence of a much lower need for housing would be neglectful.
*Dependent matters such as infrastructure needs and costs will then need to be matched to the new lower target.

Object

Representation ID: 66264

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy DS7 sets out the means of achieving the housing requirement from past completions, existing planning permissions, windfall sites, SHLAA sites, use of employment land, canal-side regeneration and Local Plan site allocations.
Tthe Council should clarify the method for dealing with shortfalls in housing delivery illustrated by the housing trajectory against an annualised housing requirement and if a 5% or 20% buffer is applicable. The Council should also confirm that 5 years housing land supply is available on adoption of the plan.

Under Paragraph 49 of the NPPF "relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites". Therefore if the Local Plan is to be found sound and consistent with National Policy it is critical that the land supply requirement is achieved.

Object

Representation ID: 66283

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Welcome increase in housing numbers from the Revised Development Strategy. we object to the proposed spread of numbers between different sources of housing delivery, and we object to the limited overall housing numbers proposed. Half of overall housing delivery is identified as being from existing committed sites. This is risky as there are many reasons why windfall sites do not come forward for development. There appears to be a vast over-reliance on assumed delivery from these sources (over 50%). This is unsound as it is not justified or effective: it can be reasonably foreseen that there will be insufficient housing delivery. A buffer should be included for non-delivery and additional allocations should therefore be identified in order to make this policy sound. Within the site allocations currently identified, there is too much reliance on two large sites (HO1 and HO2) which puts successful housing delivery at further risk.

Object

Representation ID: 66307

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Patricia Hollis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The overall forecast of housing need of 12900 is considered to be exaggerated. The ONS estimates have been revised downwards and suggest only 8,100 houses are needed to meet natural increase and inward migration to Warwick District. The SHMA suggests that occupancy rates of houses will fall significantly from 2.2. Such a decrease is unrealistic and the plan is therefore seeking to justify the provision of more houses than will actually be needed to house the target population.
There is already more than a five year supply of land ready for development. As ONS estimates have dropped less houses will be needed to meet the requirement for 5 years supply. Campaign groups have claimed that there is already a five year supply; the revised ONS estimates would appear to reinforce this position.
Population projections underpin the plan and are fundamental to it being properly justified/sound. The GL Hearn projections used in the SHMA for Coventry and Warwickshire are used as the basis for the Plan but are now discredited by the may ONS population figures issued in May 2014.
The recent ONS figures are much lower than those used in the SHMA 15,313 rather 21,472, a fall of 6,159 persons or a 28.7% reduction. This is very significant in that it changes the numbers of dwellings that will be necessary; the amount of infrastructure needed to support the housing / population and reduces the amount of Greenfield needed to be taken for new allocations.
The reduction in population and required housing will also improve the 5 year housing supply position.
It is considered that the SHMA underestimates the future housing occupancy rate in the district (see statistics in full submission). This alongside the potential for minor density adjustments can also have an impact on the amount of housing required in Warwick District and could lower the numbers significantly.
Research undertaken by local campaign groups (supported by respected University of Warwick economists), shows conclusively that maintaining a housing target of 12900 by 2028 cannot be justified on the basis of the latest figures ( see power point slides in full submission).
A decision to continue to work to the Council's current housing target can only be based on the Leadership of Warwick District Council being determined to " go for growth" in the face of the communities wish for a plan that would do no more than meet the needs of natural growth with a modest allowance for inward migration.
To conclude / summarise
*Warwick's population projection is now 28.7% less than the figures used to formulate the consultation draft local plan. The Plan is therefore unsound based on incorrect/ inadequate data.
*All the other authorities in the Housing Market area are also showing similar reductions in their population projections, including Coventry.
*The method by which population is converted into the numbers of dwellings required needs better determination by calculation, using the known housing type and size to be included in the plan.
*The lower housing target will require the list of sites to be included in the plan to be reduced. In sustainability terms this will imply brownfield sites being put first and only including Greenfield where essential.
*To delay a revision of the 5 year housing supply calculation / requirement in light of the new evidence of a much lower need for housing would be neglectful.
*Dependent matters such as infrastructure needs and costs will then need to be matched to the new lower target.

Object

Representation ID: 66314

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is considered that the windfall allowance is excessive and unjustified, and in the absence of a clear and robust evidence base from the Council the proposed windfall allowance is rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 66324

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is considered that the windfall allowance is excessive and unjustified, and in the absence of a clear and robust evidence base from the Council the proposed windfall allowance is rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 66465

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Alongside dwellings already completed and comitted 393 dwellings are expected to come forward from small urban sites and 269 homes from the consolidation of existing employment areas. Significant proportion of future housing needs are proposed to be met through sites allocated through the LP, whilst a windfall allowance of 2,485 dwellings for Plan period is also identified.
Submit that there is need to identify further housing sites in Warwick, over and above those already identified through LP, consistent with need to meet a higher housing requirement to meet the authority's full objectively assessed needs. If Council cannot demonstrate sufficient supply of deliverable/developable housing sites to meet authority's housing needs over the Plan period, the LP cannot be considered effective.
Council cannot currently demonstrate five year housing land supply. As shown in the Council's most recent Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment report published in July 2013, the Council could only demonstrate a 2.8 year supply against previous emerging LP target of 683 dpa. Whilst LP Housing Trajectory paper shows that more commitments have since come forward, based on making up the delivery that has already occurred since the start of the LP period over the next five years and factoring in a 20% buffer for persistent under-delivery,question whether Council will not be able to demonstrate a five-year supply against its proposed requirement going forward. If sites proposed to be allocated through the LP are taken into consideration, this is still likely to be the case.
Council's strategy heavily reliant on delivery of three large SUEs on Land West of Europa Way, Land South of Harbury Lane and East of Kenilworth. Collectively these are anticipated to deliver 3,395 dwellings, representing 54% of the sites to be allocated through the LP. Whilst supporting general principle of SUEs and their sustainability benefits, submit that sites can often be slow coming forward, delivering housing at slower rate than anticipated and failing to deliver level of home envisaged. Council should ensure that it has allowed for sufficient contingency in LP housing supply, providing flexibility for sites that do not come forward as planned.
Whilst recognising ability for local authorities to make allowance for windfall sites in their housing land supply, we remind the Council that it must ensure that its windfall assumptions are appropriately justified and based on a robust understanding of how windfall sites are likely to continue to come forward, alongside other identified commitments and housing allocations.
Conclusions on Soundness
Submit that in its current form the LP is not effective, as it fails to identify sufficient deliverable/developable housing sites that can come forward over the Plan period to meet the authority's full objectively assessed needs. Council cannot currently demonstrate five-year housing land supply. Whilst recognising that further commitments have come forward since publication of latest Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment report and envisaged supply of housing provided through the LP, submit that this is likely to continue to be the case. Whilst recognising that the LP already provides an element of flexibility in its proposed housing supply, submit that this will not be sufficient to meet the authority's housing needs.
To be found sound at Examination submit that there is need to identify further deliverable/developable sites, in particular that can come forward in the short term in sustainable locations. Remind Council that if it is not able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply at the time of the LPs adoption, its policies for the supply of housing will be out-of-date as soon as they are intended to come into effect.

Object

Representation ID: 66575

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given past rates of completions, even when the hoiusing market was at its highest, the proposed rates of completion are highly ambitious and between 2014/15 to 2019/20 these are implausible. In practice, completion rates are likely to be held back by a combination of lack of demand, rising interest rates, limited capacity within the building industry and shortage of public sector resources.

In our view, the 'front-loading' of the house building figures in the trajectory is misguided and will prove unachievable. It would be far more realistic to plan for a steady increase in provision over the next few years, as compared with the very low levels of recent years.

Object

Representation ID: 66587

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Catesby Property Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Quer, whether any discount has been applied to this figure or whether there is an assumption that all of the sites with planning permission will be delivered in full within the plan period . It would be normal practice to apply a 10% reduction to committed sites for non-implementation and to ensure robustness.

We note that there is a substantial allowance for deliveries from windfalls, small urban sites assessed in the SHLAA and a consolidation of existing employment areas. We would query whether there is any 'double-counting' of sites and how robust including a windfall allowance is if allowances are being included for small SHLAA sites and the consolidation of existing employment sites, given that these categories are likely to make up a large proportion of what would normally be regarded as windfall sites.

In this respect, we are concerned that the Plan may not be effective in that it does not ensure the delivery of the full housing requirement within the Plan period .

Object

Representation ID: 66603

Received: 04/06/2014

Respondent: The Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL Settlement

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Since the Revised Development Strategy the number of dwellings proposed on brownfield land has increased by 950. Despite this presumably being taken from the SHLAA the capacity of small urban sites as suitable for residential development has also risen from 300 to 393 in the Publication Draft. There is concern that the SHLAA sites are not necessarily deliverable given that they do not have planning permission. Also concern that many of the proposed allocated sites have not been subject to earlier consultation which is not in the spirit of a front loaded plan, particularly as representations at this stage must be confined to soundness and legal compliance. Do not dispute that the number of dwellings allocated to within the Growth villages may need to be decreased since the January 14 consultation. However strongly objects to distribution of these allocations between the settlements, the lack of safeguarded sites for longer term development and the site selection in Kingswood.It would be appropriate and in accordance with national planning policy that the largest proportion of development be directed towards the larger, most sustainable settlements. Kingswood (Lapworth) settlement was classified in the 'Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report' as one of five largest villages referred to as Primary Service Villages and only 4 points short of the most sustainable village but has been allocated the least amount of housing. Given the sustainability of Kingswood it is unsound that it is allocated fewer dwellings when there are suitable sustainble options available, such as land at Station Lane. The scale of development and growth should broadly reflect the sustainability of the statement. Objects to the division of housing between the growth villages because it does not fully accord with the NPPF's requirement to direct development towards the most sustainable settlements. The evidence produced in respect of Kingswood in so far as it relates to their site is unsound. It would be unreasonable to rely on this as justification for deviating from the sustainability hierachy. Outstanding housing need is an exceptional circumstance to justify review of a green belt boundary at Kingswood and the authority should safeguard land to meet longer term development requirements including: the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment, cross boundary requirement under duty to cooperate.
It is unclear whether the required 5 - 20% buffer has been allowed when calculating the 5 year housing supply. Given the importance of an evidenced deliverable 5 year housing land supply to any Local Plan, it is unsound for the Council not to have calculated and provided as part of the background evidence, updated information on the five year housing land supply.Warwick District had a significant annual housing shortfall in delivery, following cessation of the housing moratorium at the end of 2009. This we believe is a 'persistent' annual under delivery when measured against the annual housing requirement. Once a 'persistent under delivery' has been proven, which we contend it has, the 5 year housing land requirement would rise by a 20% buffer rather than a 5% buffer. Recent advice by the Inspector at the Independent Examination of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy indicated it is reasonable to suggest that 'persistent' means at least two accounting years before the current one and 'under delivery' would be where fewer than the projected annual housing unit requirement are completed. The Plan is unsound because it fails to address this and there is a shortfall in the deliverable housing land supply.

There is a strong case that the Plan is not sound because it fails to: provide sound, factually correct evidence on which to base decisions; satisfy the requirements of the Framework in plan making; provide guidance and certainty over the long term; identify sufficient developable, deliverable land which has been subject to public scrutiny and consultation to meet the housing requirement over the plan period; include a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply; ensure all land included in the housing land supply calculation is deliverable; offer developers housing land allocation choices to ensure a rolling 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries to meet the latest identified growth requirement, including to meet any cross-boundary housing land shortfall under the Duty to Cooperate; ensure that Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period through the identification of 'safeguarded land'; identify a quantum of housing land allocations appropriate to the scale and sustainability of settlements; and remove our client's land, and other similarly 'deliverable' sites, from the Green Belt and allocate them for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 66608

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Richborough Estates Ltd

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As a consequence of the proposed change to Policy DS6 referred to above, the reference in Policy DS7 to a housing requirement of 12,860 needs to be amended to read as a minimum 12,960 new homes between 2011 and 2029 accordingly.

Whilst we agree with much of the strategy for the delivery of housing across Warwick District, it is considered that the WDLP does not provide sufficient flexibility for the delivery of the proposed housing, to the extent that this part of the plan is not justified and its effectiveness would be compromised as a result. As noted above, paragraph 14 of the Framework requires the WDLP to have sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. It must therefore be able to robustly demonstrate that it is capable of delivering its housing strategy. The successful delivery of housing is fundamental to the effective implementation of the Plan. Failure to maintain a supply of land to deliver new homes throughout the life of the WDLP compromises its compliance with the national planning policy.

The Framework and supporting online Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that Local Plan housing requirements should be informed by a full objective assessment of overall housing need of the housing market area which is to be set out in an up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment ("SHMA"). Recent case law2 also confirms that the full objectively assessed need should leave aside policy considerations, placing an emphasis on LPAs to ensure that overall housing need is not constrained by development plan policies.

The Coventry and Warwickshire SHMA was published November 2013 and its primary purpose was to guide, inform and support the development of planning and housing policies. Its preparation sought to respond to the requirements of the Framework and the Statutory duty to cooperate in progressing strategic planning issues across local authority boundaries (paragraph 1.3). Section 7 considers the future housing needs for the Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region with reference to a number of scenarios. Section 11 of the SHMA concludes that the overall housing requirement for the subregion equates to 3,750 dwellings per annum ("dpa") for the period 2011 to 2029.

We are aware that Richborough is part of a consortium of housebuilders and strategic land promoters who commissioned Barton Willmore to carry out an independent objective assessment of housing need across the Coventry Sub-Region. The primary purpose of the study is to determine whether the WDLP is planning for a sufficient quantum of new housing going forward. In summary, the Study concludes that for the Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region a minimum housing requirement of at least 5,100 dpa is required over the course of the Plan period (2011-2029). In respect of Warwick District, the Study demonstrates a requirement for 900 dpa - 18,000 dwellings between 2011-2031. It is submitted that the level of housing advocated by the Barton Willmore Study is significantly above that identified within the Coventry and Warwickshire SHMA.

According to the LPAs evidence base3, it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. The supply as at February 2014 - calculated using the previous WDLP housing figure of 12,300 - was 2.8 years. Adjusting this figure accordingly to reflect the assessed need at 720 dwellings per annum (12,960 dwellings) now being planned for reveals a District housing land supply equivalent to 2.6 years. In the context of being able to demonstrate a five year rolling housing land supply from the point of the Plan's adoption, it is considered that the WDLP is not presently sound. It is considered that an added complication to this existing position is that the strategic allocations in the WDLP are dependent upon major infrastructure. Equally, as explained below, the delivery of the strategic allocation at Thickthorn is not entirely certain. As such, the WDLP must address the consequences of a possible shortfall in housing land supply, including possible contingency arrangements in order to be found sound. This was a strategy that was followed by Rugby Borough Council in its now adopted Core Strategy and given that that Council can no longer demonstrate a five year housing land supply principally due to the delay in bringing forward a major strategic allocation, then similarly the WDLP should incorporate flexibility into the strategy to bring forward additional housing sites if the need arises.

The WDLP's current response is for a review or partial review of the Plan if the monitoring evidence indicates that the plan is out of date. It is submitted that critical to any flexible policy to deal with rapid change is the matter of a trigger for when such remedial action would have to be started. The consultation draft Plan makes no such provisions. Moreover, there is no provision within the Plan for a quick and less complex method of dealing with these deliverability problems that may arise. Delays to or even the failure to deliver any of the strategic urban allocations would mean that alternative housing land needs to be provided elsewhere in the District. Given that much of the District is subject to Green Belt policy it is submitted that the WDLP needs to clearly provide for a mechanism to release development sites as and when they are required.

Specifically, in the context of Kenilworth a delay in finding a satisfactory new home for Kenilworth Rugby Club ("KRC") will prevent Thickthorn from being planned and developed comprehensively. It is submitted that no prudent developer or strategic land promoter would be willing to progress the site, even to outline application stage, without certainty surrounding vacant possession for the land controlled by KRC.

It is clear that the LPA has done a considerable amount of work analysing windfall and has placed a heavy reliance upon it. As such, there is some flexibility in the Plan for additional housing development if slippage were to occur to the anticipated delivery rates for the strategic sites. However, it is submitted that as currently drafted the Plan accounts for 12,964 homes to meet the identified housing requirement of 12,960 homes. An overprovision of housing - 4 homes - suggests that the LPA is not planning positively. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Plan requires further flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 66728

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The housing requirement and the figure for sites allocated in the plan are too low and will not ensure that the objectively assessed housing needs for the plan period are adequately met. The flexibility referred to in para 2.20 is insufficient to overcome the shortfall.

Object

Representation ID: 66741

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown

Agent: Brown and Co

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The number is insufficient. The allocation and distribution is inappropriate. Windfall sites should not be part of the 12,860, they should be in addition and the plan should properly provide policies and allocate sites which will deliver. What has happened in the past is immaterial as it reflects that the plan did not adequately cater for housing growth.

Object

Representation ID: 66767

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Burman Brothers

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Not sufficient allocated units as set out in representation to DS6 and would argue that the table is incorrect and should meet the proper objectively assessed need for the Plan period to 2031

Object

Representation ID: 66777

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Trustees of the Haseley Settlement

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS is of the opinion that the Housing Trajectory is unsound
The Housing Trajectory contains substantial over estimations of housing delivery, particularly in the early
period of the plan. The rate of development in the early period is insufficient from the sites identified and an over reliance is being placed on a small number of sites delivering high rates of dwellings. This is not going to be experienced as proposed and the only way to maintain high levels of delivery is from a broader range of sites.
RPS also objects to the identification of confidential sites in the Housing Trajectory amounting to 207
dwellíngs. lt is not appropriate to identify confidential sites and withhold information on the location of such
sites from a public examination of the evidence. lf the Council cannot identify those sites publically, if
cannot rely on them during scrutiny of the public examination as it does not permit transparency in the
evidence. The 207 dwellings should be removed.