3 Updated Evidence

Object

Representation ID: 67180

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: A.C. Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Authority have not based their housing requirement on the most up to date evidence base, in particular with regard to the SHMA update and its requirement to consider detailed local evidence regarding economic growth prospects.

Object

Representation ID: 67182

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Deeley Group Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Authority have not based their housing requirement on the most up to date evidence base, in particular with regard to the SHMA update and its requirement to consider detailed local evidence regarding economic growth prospects.

Object

Representation ID: 67187

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Atkins report commissioned November 2013 doesn't provide a robust evidence base and associated policy recommendations to assist the preparation of CWLEP's Strategic Economic Plan.
If a need for more employment site(s) were identified, it should assess suitability of potential sites and provide appropriate recommendations. Too wide a range of assumptions and techniques has been used to estimate future employment land requirements to make this Report reliable. Gateway should be removed from the emerging Local Plan. A regional employment study has been commissioned on behalf of W Mids. LEPs. Findings should be considered alongside regional sites study when available.

Object

Representation ID: 67239

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Baginton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Employment Land Study -

General.
We note that this report has been issued as "final" three times. This gives Councillors the impression that others are unduly influencing its content and conclusions.

Section 3.
This section invalidates the report in our view as the list referred to in Appendix A comprises organisations with vested interests in the development, rather than taking the considered views of Parish Councils, local residents and local enterprises.

Section 4.
This section is based on a number of assumptions which in our view are questionable and lead to inappropriate conclusions. In particular, the job forecast is wholly unreasonable as it grossly overestimates job creation compared with other documents and representations previously made.

Section 6.
This section is fundamentally flawed for many reasons, such as, but not limited to the following:-

A. The SELS claims that the Gateway sites satisfy strategic sites criteria despite the fact that the sites are all in the Green Belt,
B. The site by site analysis ignores the fact that planning policy such as Green Belt may influence the provision of employment sites, despite the fact that this was acknowledged in section 5 point 5.2.2

C. There is no rail link,
D. There is poor amenity provision,
E. It has proven negative environmental impact,
F. Access requires extensive highway improvements,
G. There are plans for improvements to railway network to the North of the city and it is the North of the City of Coventry and North Warwickshire where there is most socio-economic need. This is not even recognised in the report's conclusions

Section 7.

This section fails to recognise key strategic sites in the periphery of the CWLEP area such as Blythe Valley

Business Park and the development site at Gaydon. The report overstates claimed demand and understates supply.


Sustainability Appraisal

The assessment demonstrates that the vast majority of criteria for this site are negative impacts. This is not acceptable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the new information is in the view of Councillors fundamentally flawed in a number of key areas, so should not be given any weight in argument for the Gateway. Indeed the errors and omissions and flawed conclusions in the report serve to further reinforce our view that the Gateway is inappropriate development of the Green Belt, with no very special circumstances. The Local Plan therefore remains fundamentally flawed in this respect and the Gateway development must be removed.

Support

Representation ID: 67242

Received: 11/12/2014

Respondent: Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership

Agent: Oxalis Planning

We have seen the Publication Draft Local Plan: Focused Consultation and have no specific comments on the contents of the document.
No doubt these amendments are being proposed in the context of the Atkins Report which concluded that the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway is the most important strategic employment site to deal with Coventry and Warwickshire's needs over the Plan period.
We represent the Coventry and Warwickshire Development Partnership which is the vehicle that will deliver the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway scheme. We trust that, notwithstanding these proposed changes, the Council remains committed to the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway project in line with its Local Plan policies.

Object

Representation ID: 67250

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

1 These representations relate to paragraph 3.1 of the Focused Consultation document.
2. The focused changes fail to take account of an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment September 2014 (SHMA update) produced by G L Hearn on behalf of the Joint Coventry and Warwickshire Authorities. This is an addendum to the 2013 SHMA. Failure to take account of this evidence results in the Local Plan being unsound and demonstrates a failure to comply with the Duty to Co-operate.

3. The Framework advises LPAs to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing (OAN) in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework. They should also prepare a SHMA to assess their full housing needs , working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The scale and mix of housing should meet household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change, addressing the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing, and catering for housing demand. The starting point for establishing the OAN is the latest demographic projections, but adjustments may have to be made to take account of economic and housing factors, including market signals and affordability.

4. The Local Plan in its present form is unsound in that, contrary to the stated intent of the document, the housing requirement fails to meet the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing: a serious and fundamental flaw in the soundness of the Local Plan, which, if the Plan is submitted on this basis, cannot be remedied through modification. The Council should review its evidence as to the full, objective assessment of housing need in order to inform the preparation of the Local Plan. The Council contends that it will meet in full its own objectively assessed housing needs. We submit that, on the evidence, this is not the case.

5. The Framework/PPG set out clearly the govt. priority that housing needs are met in full. The imperative to meet objectively assessed need has been considered in the High Court (Gallagher Estates Limited & Lioncourt Homes Ltd v Solihull MBC [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin)). In his Judgment, Mr J Hickinbottom was clear that the Framework: "requires plan makers to focus on full objectively assessed need for housing, and to meet that need unless (and only to the extent that) other policy factors within the NPPF dictate otherwise" (paragraph 97). The High Court found that the plan in question could not be considered sound because: "it is not based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development requirements nor is it consistent with the NPPF" (paragraph 101). At paragraph 91, Mr J Hickinbottom confirmed that: "in plan making, full objectively assessed housing needs are not only a material consideration, but a consideration of particular standing with a particular role to play".

6. As the legal cases make clear OAN is the full requirement for housing before taking account of any policy aspects which may constrain that figure.

7. The figure needs to take into account household projections, unmet need, vacancies, second home requirements, the housing generated by the economic requirements of the District, market signals, and also the housing to be provided to meet requirements of other authorities that cannot be met in their areas.

8. The OAN seeks to ensure that all aspects of future housing are taken into account. Once the OAN is determined, it is then appropriate to determine if the Authority can accommodate that figure. Are there constraints such as Green Belt, AONB etc? The extent of constraints, which would also include views about journeys to work etc, and how that impacts on the OAN, is an aspect that is fully considered through the Examination of the Local Plan as part of the consideration of soundness of the plan in respect of both the economic and housing aspects.

9. This approach to the assessment of OAN has been recently endorsed at the Cheshire East Local Plan Examination where the Inspector in his interim views on the compliance/soundness of the submitted local plan strategy confirms the need to take account of 3 levels of assessment i.e. demographic projections with adjustments made for economic and housing factors, including market signals and affordability

10. The approach to be adopted should be consistent with the Framework/PPG. The PPG is not policy but guidance to assist in explaining further elements set out in the Framework.

11. It is appropriate in the context of future housing requirements to look at economic considerations and some other aspects including market signals. The PPG notes that it is correct to take economic forecasts into account is a regular part of consideration of housing figures as noted most recently at the Cheshire East Local Plan Examination.

12. In Warwick District the emerging Local Plan housing requirement figure of 12,860 dwellings 2011 - 2029 cannot be considered as being the 'correct' figure to use - in terms of it being based on the most up to date evidence in the context of paragraph 159 of the Framework and guidance in the PPG.

13. Paragraph 2.20 of the WDLP states:
2.20 The Joint Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2013) objectively assessed the future housing needs of the Housing Market Area and the six local authority areas within it. Warwick District aims to meet its Objectively Assessed Need for housing by providing 12,860 new homes between 2011 and 2029.

14. The Joint SHMA was produced in 2013. It is not up to date. Moreover, in September 2014, the SHMA update was published as noted above.

15. As a starting point, the SHMA update states at paragraph 5.13 that:

The core demographic projection set out in this report thus indicates a need for around 4,000 homes per annum across the HMA between 2011-31. This is based on the 2012 SNPP and models household formation rates using a 'part return to trend' methodology (as shown in Figure 6). This can be compared to the Joint SHMA which indicated a need for 3,750 homes per annum. We would consider that provision of 4,000 homes per annum represents a minimum assessment of full housing need across the HMA over the 2011-31 period.

16. In essence it is an update to the 2013 SHMA which takes account of new population projections and the latest economic forecasts. It notes that based purely on the 2012 population projections the need for housing goes down in Warwick District They are based on migration figures purely relating to the recession.

17. The document however, goes on to take account of the latest economic projections and notes that utilising these and taking account of market signals would indicate a need for 825 to 886 dwellings per annum in Warwick (16,500 to 17,720 dwellings 2011 to 2031- Figure 12). As the document notes, this is based on higher net migration than anticipated in the 2012 population projections. This is a reasonable assumption because of the problems with the migration rates utilised by the 2012 population projections

18. The addendum gives consideration to household projections and overlays economic forecasts; and considers the interplay between demographic projections and affordability. In summary, the report concludes that 4,000 dwellings pa across the HMA is a minimum figure. When considering the impact of economic forecasts the report states:

5.24 Two economic forecasts have been considered in this report. The Experian econometric forecasts result in a modelled need for 3636 - 4066 homes per annum to 2031. This is below the level of need identified based on the 2012 SNPP. A higher level of housing need is generated in the scenario based on the Cambridge Econometrics' forecasts. The modelling indicates that in this scenario, 4546 - 5084 homes per year would be needed in the HMA. The lower end of the ranges shown is based on the 'Part Return to Trend' approach to modelling household formation and a continuation of existing commuting patterns. The higher end assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between growth in jobs and residents in employment at a local authority level and that household formation rates for younger households aged 24-34 return by 2031 to the levels shown in the 2008-based Household Projections (as set out in Figure 14).
5.25 We would consider that the higher end of this range is unlikely, as given the functional links between areas and the demographic dynamics of the HMA (in particular with a young population structure and projected population growth in Coventry) it is reasonable to assume that there will continue to be a level of commuting between the different authorities in the HMA; and as we have set out it seems unlikely that we would see a full recovery in household formation rates, particularly in the City of Coventry, to the levels shown in the 2008-based household projections.

19. At present, WDC have not provided any consideration of the implications of the SHMA update as part of the current focused consultation exercise. This is very surprising as in addition to the Focused Consultation, the Council has published two further pieces of evidence which were used to formulate the Publication Draft Local Plan, but which were unavailable for publication at the time. These are:
* Coventry & Warwickshire Strategic Employment Study October 2014
* Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Amendments July 2014

20. The Council is inviting representations to the Publication Draft Local Plan in light of these more recently published documents. No representations are invited in respect of the SHMA update.

21. It is noted that paragraph 2.66 of the Strategic Employment Study October 2014 (SES) states, incorrectly in our view:
2.66. An update to the Joint SHMA has been undertaken to take account of the most recent ONS projections. Whilst this could affect distribution of housing need across the sub region (subject to Duty to Cooperate discussions), the impact in terms of the total housing requirement across the housing market area is relatively small and therefore we do not consider that it affects the findings of this study'

22. It is also noted that the SES utilises the Cambridge Econometrics Employment forecasts as a basis for its assessment.

23. At present therefore, the WDLP is not consistent with paragraph 158 of the Framework and the PPG. There is no evidence in terms of housing that demonstrates that the Council's approach is consistent with the Framework or PPG in terms of calculating OAN. Indeed this point is highlighted in paragraph 5.27 of the SHMA Addendum which states:

5.27 In developing local plans, we would advise local authorities to consider how the housing evidence matches their evidence regarding economic prospects, and to adjust as appropriate their conclusions regarding assessed housing need to take account of their detailed local evidence regarding economic growth prospects. The alignment of housing provision with evidence regarding future economic growth potential within plans is required by Paragraph 158 in the NPPF.

24. Having regard to the evidence available, commissioned jointly by Warwick DC, it is essential that consideration should be given to a revision of the OAN for the district. On the evidence available, this should be based on the SHMA Update Figure 12: Housing Need per Annum based on Cambridge Econometrics Forecasts, 2011-31. This relates to the 4546 p.a. figure for the HMA referred to above in paragraph 2.8. For Warwick District this would result in an OAN figure of 825 p.a. or 14,850. It should be noted that separate and duly made and unresolved representations have been made to previous stages of the Local Plan regarding the inappropriateness of the plan period i.e. it should be 2011 - 2031.

25. It should be noted that the assessment above takes no account of need that may arise in Warwick District to accommodate the unmet OAN from Birmingham.

26. Additionally the WDLP in its current form fails to provide an adequate explanation of the extent to which it has complied with the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities, in particular in terms of the Housing Market Area. This point is highlighted at paragraph 5.31 of the SHMA update which states:

5.31 In line with Paragraph 158 within the NPPF, Councils will need to ensure that their strategies for housing and economic growth align with one another. The authorities working together could, taking account of economic evidence, housing land availability and potential investment in infrastructure, consider an alternative distribution strategy for housing to encourage sustainable travel patterns. The Planning Practice Guidance supports this.

27. Accordingly, it is considered that WDC has not provided an objective assessment of the housing needs of the housing market area as required by paragraph 47 of the Framework and the PPG. The emerging WDLP is fundamentally flawed in this respect. In the absence of evidence that WDC has taken account of the SHMA update, it is evident that the current proposed level of growth is unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 67255

Received: 11/12/2014

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Coventry & Warwickshire Strategic Employment Land Study Final Report (October 2014) does not justify the designation of land near Coventry Airport as an employment site.
In the first place it ignores the site's status as green belt land, even though paragraph 5.22 of the report states that "The most obvious constraint is the Green Belt, which the Government has made clear remains a priority to protect against from built development. This affects a large part of the sub region and places as a premium on those areas or sites that are not protected."
The Report gives excessive weight to the demands of the Coventry and Warwickshire Enterprise Partnership. The CWEP does not have the authority to determine the allocation of employment sites in Warwick District. It is merely one body, along with county and neighbouring authorities, with whom the local planning authority has to work regarding business needs. (NPPF Paragraph 160.) It should be noted that certain members of the CWEP, e.g. Coventry City Council and the previous Chairman, are also owners of the Gateway site.
The Strategic Employment Land Study Final Report says that the Gateway "demonstrates a high degree of strategic policy fit". This ignores national and local restrictions on developments in the green belt. The first Warwick District Draft Local Plan, i.e. the Draft that went out to public consultation, specifically stated that the Gateway site retain its green belt status. Without proper consultation the 2014 Revised Draft Local Plan removed the site from the green belt. The only reason for this breach of due process is the local planning authority's wish to justify an application that is currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate. In a circular argument the Report also uses the existence of a planning application as a reason for supporting the Gateway as a strategic employment site, as when it says that "Extensive work has already taken place in terms of the planning for the development of the site".
The logic of the Report, and of this section of the Revised Draft Local Plan, is that planning policies are being shaped to meet the needs of the Gateway site and its owner. It ought to be the other way round.