Issue and Options 2023

Yes

3.18. Sherbourne is not included in the settlement analysis. It should be included in this assessment as the evidence base evolves to support the Plan.

selected

selected

Q-S3.2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 3.12. It is acknowledged that national policy encourages the reuse and redevelopment of brownfield land. However, as identified by Option 2A, it is important that brownfield development should reflect the identified growth strategy in order to ensure that sustainable development is achieved. 3.13. It should be noted that the Urban Capacity Study (October 2022) established that it is unlikely to be possible to meet current development needs without significant greenfield development. Whilst the reuse of suitable brownfield land, in line with the growth strategy and/or in sustainable locations should be encouraged by planning policy, it will not avoid the need for greenfield development as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? 3.14. Growth at existing settlements across the Joint Plan area should form part of the overall Plan strategy, as this would accord with the differing current pattern of spatial development across the two administrative areas. 3.15. Warwick focuses development around its four main urban areas, whilst Stratford’s identified Local Service Villages accommodate a proportion of development as well as its main towns. 3.16. In order to develop the most sustainable pattern of development, growth at existing settlements should be in sustainable locations. It is important that appropriate levels of growth are apportioned to existing settlements in order to maintain the vitality and viability of settlements, support new and existing infrastructure requirements and provide an appropriate mix of housing for the area. 3.17. Sherbourne is identified within Option 5 however growth at these settlements is important in ensuring the future viability and vitality of such settlements. Sherbourne is located south of Warwick and benefits from good transport connections to the strategic road network (M40, A46 and A429). There are opportunities to connect to public transport provision on these routes, notably the A429. Issues S6: A Review of Green Belt boundaries 3.19. The Issues and Options consultation document does not set out any specific question on Green Belt matters, but these representations support a review of the Green Belt boundary as part of the Plan making process. 3.20. As set out in the NPPF para 136, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation of Local Plans. Moreover, strategic policies should establish the need for changes to Green Belt, and where proposed, the amended boundaries should be able to endure in the long term, i.e. Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. 3.21. NPPF para 137 requires exceptional circumstances to include evidence of the examination of all other reasonable options for meeting an identified need for development. Importantly, in reviewing Green Belt boundaries sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. 3.22. The Green Belt is tightly drawn around, and indeed, washes over, a number of existing settlements across the Plan area. In proposing, assessing and review growth options, where the most sustainable form of development is likely to be around existing settlements, it is therefore imperative that the Local Plan evidence base includes a Green Belt review. The Councils’ recognition of this in relation to a number of the proposed growth options is supported. 3.23. If a Green Belt boundary review is not undertaken, development will need to ‘jump the Green Belt’ which would result in an isolated pattern of development. Q-S7.2 For each growth option, please indicate whether you feel it is an appropriate strategy for South Warwickshire: 3.24. It is noted that the Issues & Options document has reduced the previous seven growth options presented in the Scoping Consultation to five options as outlined above through refining and combining options, including Option 2 sustainable travel (combination of rail and bus corridor) and Option 3 economy (combination of socio-economic and enterprise hub options). In this consultation document, Option 4 sustainable travel and economy effectively combines Options 2 and 3. It is clear from this process that the growth option to be pursued will represent a combination of all five options outlined above. 3.25. The options now presented in the Issues and Options, apart from Option 5: Dispersed, perform broadly similarly to each other in the SA (Table 7.1) suggesting not one option may have significantly more or less impact than any of the others when considered against the SA Framework. At this stage, the SA has not considered any mitigation or site-specific options for growth within settlements identified within the ‘dispersed’ option (5). There could be significant variance in how each settlement and individual sites would perform against the SA objectives. All of the growth options could deliver sustainable development and a combination of all options will be the most appropriate option for the development of the Plan going forward. 3.26. By necessity, the strategy will need to identify areas outside existing settlement boundaries for growth/development. The Urban Capacity Study identifies capacity for 6,145 dwellings within the existing urban boundaries. If the Plan proceeds with the housing figures set out in Table 9 of the Issues and Options consultation at 1,679 dwellings per annum the Urban Capacity Study would only be able to deliver a 3.66 year supply of housing. Land from other sources will therefore be required and it is important that all options are considered in taking the Plan forward. 3.27. Combining sustainable travel (including rail) and economy will naturally direct most growth to the larger, more sustainable settlements. However, it is important that appropriate, proportionate growth is directed to smaller settlements in order to support the continued viability and vitality of these settlements going forward. This would include supporting or enhancing sustainable travel options at these locations. This needs to be positively planned for as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and as such an element of dispersal should form part of the final growth option. This will require a careful consideration of all of the options, including growth at existing main settlements, growth at smaller existing settlements, proximity to services and jobs, availability of infrastructure or opportunities for infrastructure delivery and a Green Belt boundary review to ensure development is not isolated beyond the defined Green Belt boundaries. Q-S8.1: For settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy, do you think a threshold approach is appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward? Q-S8.2 For sites coming forward as part of this threshold approach, what do you think would be an appropriate size limit for individual sites? 3.28. The supporting text for this question confirms that the aim of this approach would be to allow for development within or adjacent to existing settlements. This provides greater scope of these settlements to accommodate growth than the current infill only approach. The proposed approach to allow for suitable development within or adjacent to existing settlements is supported and will allow for suitable growth. 3.29. An across the board threshold limit of 10 dwellings is not supported. The amount of development different settlements can accommodate will vary significantly depending on various factors, such as existing services and facilities, local need for housing and the suitability of the proposed site to accommodate a certain level of development. 3.30. In addition, developments of 10 or fewer dwellings are exempt from affordable housing. Even where a lower threshold is set, developments of this scale generally result in a commuted sum towards affordable housing elsewhere. This is due to a variety of factors, including that registered providers often will not take on a small number of dwellings in one location. It is clearly preferable to have affordable housing delivered on site wherever possible to meet local needs. Setting a more flexible threshold that would allow for a higher level of development where appropriate would support greater on-site affordable housing provision. Q-S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 3.31. The South Warwickshire Local Plan provides the opportunity to review all settlement boundaries and ensure they will be fit for purpose across the plan period. Saving all existing settlement boundaries is unlikely to be effective in positively planning for plan-led growth across the plan period. This should apply all settlements as part of the exercise will be to assess which settlements which would benefit from a defined boundary. 3.32. To be found sound, the Plan must be prepared: Positively, in a way that is aspirational, but deliverable, and it should set out a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities (NPPF paragraphs 15 and 16). To shape the spatial strategy for the Plan and ensure all reasonable alternatives are considered, a review of existing settlement boundaries will be required to identify sufficient land, in sustainable location to meet the development needs of the Plan. 3.33. In addition, settlement boundaries will need to be reviewed and amended to take account of new allocations.

Nothing chosen

4.1. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that strategic policies should as a minimum provide for the objectively assessed need for housing as well as any needs that cannot be met in neighbouring areas. Paragraph 60 sets out the Government’s objective of “significantly boosting” the supply of homes and paragraph 61 provides additional guidance identifying that strategic policies should be informed by the minimum local housing need identified by the standard method as well as any unmet needs from neighbouring areas. 4.2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (paragraph 2a-002) again confirms that the standard method provides only the minimum number of homes expected to be delivered but it does allow authorities to diverge from the Standard Method where this can be justified by exceptional circumstances: where such an alternative reflects current and future demographic trends including migration and market signals. 4.3. The HEDNA supporting the Issues and Options Consultation has assessed matters of housing need and requirements in great detail across the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area in which ‘South Warwickshire’ is located. In coming to the recommendations on proposed housing need (dwellings per annum) across the Housing Market Area the report appears to have followed the relevant Government guidance in demonstrating exceptional circumstances supporting a trend-based approach to housing need for the Joint Plan area. 4.4. The modelling of new demographic projects which take account of Census data releases and specific matters relating to the population in Coventry in particular, as part of the housing market area, but also including an assessment of Age Structures across the Housing Market Area (HMA), migration and demographic interactions is supported in principle. The trend based figures, which equate to an overall housing need across the Joint Plan area of 1,679 dwellings per annum is supported in principle. 4.5. The HEDNA also identifies that Warwick has the highest levels of migration of population from Coventry, and that Stratford-on-Avon forms part of the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area and the authorities should respectively consider planning for unmet need from Coventry and the Greater Birmingham HMA respectively. Whilst the number of homes which may be required in Coventry is likely to reduce based on the overall need being lower in the HEDNA than the 2014 sub-regional based household projections, the unmet need in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA in particular is well evidenced. 4.6. The GBBCHMA Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement (July 2020) identifies the housing shortfall of the GBBCHMA as 67,160 dwellings. The now revoked Draft Black Country Plan 2018-2039 showed a shortfall of circa 28,000 homes in the Black Country alone. Birmingham City Council have recently suggested a potential shortfall of over 78,000 dwellings. Further, the ‘Mind the Gap’ Barton Willmore Paper dated March 2021 and ‘Falling Short – Taking Stock of Unmet Needs across GB&BCHMA’ paper by Turley in August 2021, both commissioned by HBF Members concluded that the significant unmet needs in the GBBCHMA exist now, and will continue to exist in the future. 4.7. The Black Country shortfall identified is considered to remain relevant to the Plan-making process and the recent letter from the Inspectors examining the Shropshire Local Plan confirms that the scale of need and unmet need remains relevant to Plan-making. Para 14 of that letter (see Appendix 2) concluded that "Despite this new plan making context, there is no reason before us to find that the identified unmet needs in the Black Country area will disappear.” 4.8. It is important to stress that these shortfall figures do not take into consideration the 35% uplift applied to Birmingham introduced in December 2020 as the adopted Birmingham Development Plan. The Black Country housing shortfall also does not consider the 35% uplift applied to Wolverhampton City Council in May 2021. Such considerations should also feed into the proposed housing targets that are set in the South Warwickshire Plan going forward and this could increase the requirement even further.

4.9. There is an acute recognition in the Issues and Options consultation documents of an affordability problem across South Warwickshire Plan area, where those on low incomes and young people struggle to access the housing market. 4.10. Warwick District Council’s latest ‘Authority Monitoring Report’ (AMR) (for the period 2020-2021) indicates that against an annual requirement of 280 affordable dwellings since the beginning of the currently adopted Plan period in 2011 (within its own area), the Council have delivered 841 affordable dwellings (out of a total requirement for 2,800), 30% of the target. 4.11. Stratford-on-Avon’s latest AMR for the period 2021-2022 (published December 2022) identifies that in the current Core Strategy plan period of 2011-2031, 3,204 affordable dwellings have been provided out of a total 10,019 dwellings (net) built. This equates to 37% of all dwellings and is just above the Plan’s affordable housing policy requirement of 35% of all dwellings to be affordable. 4.12. Notwithstanding Stratford-on-Avon’s marginal reported over delivery, the HEDNA considered the affordability issue across the District further. It identifies at Table 8.45 that the estimated annual need for affordable housing (rented and affordable home ownership) across Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick is 1,386 dwellings per annum. 4.13. Whilst it is recognised that these are ‘net’ figures and not ‘newly arising need’, PPG paragraph 2a-024 makes provision to encourage local authorities to consider increasing planned housing numbers where this can help to meet the identified affordable need: “The total affordable housing need can then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probably percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the strategic plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.” 4.14. The Issues and Options consultation recognises that the area has an acute affordability problem and it is suggested that to address this, the Plan could consider providing housing above the ‘minimum’ need, to boost supply, and in turn deliver additional affordable housing.

selected

selected

selected

No answer given

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

Q-H3: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire Option H3a: Do not seek to include minimum space standards in a policy in the SWLP. Option H3b: Apply Nationally Described Space Standards to developments across South Warwickshire based on locally derived evidence. 4.15. If the Council are to include a policy requiring new developments to deliver dwellings which comply with Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), it must be fully justified. Such a requirement must not make development unviable and must set out such evidence in a proportionate manner to justify its inclusion, as set out in Footnote 49 of the NPPF which states that “Policies may also make use of the nationally described space standard, where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”. 4.16. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance section on Housing: Optional Technical Standards (paragraph 020) states that: 'Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: • need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. • viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. • timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.' 4.17. If the use of NDSS is subsequently justified and pursued through a policy, that policy should be sufficiently flexible to recognise that well-designed house types, which fall slightly below will be acceptable, particularly on sites where the majority of the dwellings comply. The policy should also make provision for additional flexibility in relation to affordable housing as many registered providers have their own requirements. Option H3c: Include a requirement to meet optional Building Regulations M4(2)/M4(3) as standard. These are focussed upon ensuring appropriate accessibility standards. 4.18. It is unnecessary for the inclusion of an M4(2) and or M4(3) policy. The Building Regulations 2010 'Access to and use of buildings' Approved document Part M already provides specific requirements for M4(2) dwellings in relation to Accessible and Adaptable Homes and M4(3) M4 (3)(2)(a) dwellings in relation to Wheelchair Adaptable Homes housing. As such, it is therefore not necessary for this to repeated in any policy, also because developers are already aware they need to deliver to this standard. Q-H4-2: Please add any comments you wish to make about the scale of the shortfall from the Birmingham and Black Country HMA that South Warwickshire should accommodate within the South Warwickshire Local Plan 4.19. This is discussed in answer to Question H1-1. Q-H5: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire 4.20. As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 57-016-20210208), The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) sets out the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding, and also sets out the requirement for each relevant authority to keep a register and publicise the register. Furthermore, Self-build or custom build will help diversify the housing market, as per PPG paragraph 16a Reference ID: 57-016a-20210208. 4.21. Whilst there is no in-principle objection to the concept of self-build/custom housing, any specific policy requiring the delivery of such plots must be carefully considered, fully justified and flexible. 4.22. Stratford-Upon-Avon District’s Self Build & Custom Housebuilding Register had 278 people on it as of 31st March 2022. Warwick’s Register had 95 people on it in 2019, but that is the latest published position. 4.23. Table 13.1 of the HEDNA identifies that serviced plot demand for self-build dwellings is 63 plots per annum which is 4% of the purported 1,679 dwelling/annum housing requirement set out in the Issues and options consultation. 4.24. The emerging Stratford Site Allocations Plan (SAP) has identified specific sites to deliver selfbuild and custom housing through allocations. It is suggested that the South Warwickshire Local Plan should continue this approach, bring forward the allocations the SAP identified in the most recent Preferred Options document and identify similar suitable sites in Warwick District to ensure a spread across the plan area.

selected

selected

selected

No answer given

Q-C4.1: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire 5.1. If a net zero carbon policy is to be employed by the Council it must be fully evidenced and justified, and included in viability considerations. 5.2. The Building Regulations Part L 2021 Target for Fabric Efficiency would be applicable to all proposed dwellings and sets the Government’s standards for energy efficient. The Council does not need to set local efficiency standards to achieve the shared net zero goal. Q-C6.1: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 5.3. Whilst the value of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon assessments is recognized and there is no in principle objection to the need for some forms of post construction, pre-occupation assessment, if a policy is to be pursued on this matter there are a number of key considerations: • Once sold, properties will be owned by the purchaser and mortgagees. Any policy would need to be carefully worded such that it would not require the sharing of energy use, air quality and overheating risk data with a third party, where the developer no longer owns the dwelling as this could raise GPDR issues. Enforcement of such a policy for future owners and occupiers could also fail the test of conditions on any subsequent planning permission. • The purpose of such information would also need to be clearly set out. It will not be possible to post factum make alterations to the constructed buildings, so what would be the benefit or purpose of such a significant amount of data collation? If the purpose is to inform and advise as to future construction methods, then this could be equally achieved by an informed and targeted research exercise by organisations such as the BRE in advising Governments and through amendments to Building Regulations.

selected

selected

selected

Q-C9.1: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 5.4. Rainier are supportive of the need to address net losses to biodiversity through the provision of enhancement to deliver an overall net gain. The Environment Act will require all development to provide at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) increase and there would be no objection to this being carried through into a local policy. Indeed, it would reflect one of the core principles of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the natural environment. 5.5. Any such policy though, should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The test is whether the 10% BNG is delivered, not the method by which it is delivered. It is important that the way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated is given careful consideration and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms the delivery of biodiversity enhancements where there are clear landscape and habitat improvements, rather than being wholly reliant on the output of a rigid calculator, in particular where this could impede viability and thus the delivery of much needed housing. It should also allow for contributions to be made towards off-site mitigation with suitable receptor sites or projects identified through the Local Plan process to secure the deliverability of development.

Nothing chosen

Q-D2: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire 6.1. In principle, the introduction of design guides and design codes would accord with national policy where NPPF paragraph 129 states that "Design guides and codes can be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale…"(our emphasis). 6.2. The Government also has a National Design Guide and National Model Design Code which are in place to guide the design of development. 6.3. Rainier therefore agree that the principle of Design Codes/Design Guides to guide development is acceptable. 6.4. However, the development of such policies should be justified in terms of the specifics of the development that would justify the introduction of a site-specific design code/guide that goes beyond the detailed guidance in the National Design Code. This is likely only to be necessary for larger strategic sites or those with particular design considerations, rather than being a default requirement for all sites. 6.5. In addition, design codes/guides are not mandatory as set out in the NPPF, and the desire for such a policy tool to be utilised should not hold up development coming forward if such a tool is not in place. Further, even where introduced there needs to be some element of flexibility to allow developments to come forward even if they are not fully strictly in accordance with all criteria. Site specific matters and failure to comply with all criteria, where the alternative would not have detrimental impacts should not be used as a blanket reason to refuse development. Q-D3: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire 6.6. There is no in principle objection to a potential policy on housing densities. However, a blanket approach to density is unlikely to be effective. Rather, a site specific/flexible approach to density should be considered. A minimum density may be set out, but where additional development could assist the delivery of services and facilities, sites could be encouraged to exceed this minimum density where it could be done in a manner consistent with other development plan policies. Q-D4.1: Do you agree that this is an appropriate range of topics for a policy on the design of safe and attractive streets? 6.7. The inclusion of a policy on the design of safe and attractive streets is supported in principle. However, any design elements must be fully evidenced and justified and should take into account Warwickshire County Highways Authority design standard, in particular where departure from those standards could affect the future adoption of development proposals.