Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Object

Representation ID: 61362

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

We raise OBJECTION to the 'Warwick Local Plan Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries' DPD on the grounds that it is not 'sound' and it fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) or fully meet the legal Duty to Cooperate.
It is apparent that the approach taken to housing land allocations preferred options within the document is not wholly consistent with the Framework which, amongst other matters, seeks to: provide certainty by planning for the long term; locate development in the most sustainable locations; protect the future viability of settlements; ensure a variety of housing is provided to meet identified needs; ensure a 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances (such as required to meet housing need) to ensure they are capable of enduring beyond the Plan period; and ensure the legal Duty to Cooperate has been satisfied. the DPD is not sound because it fails to - provide certainty over the long term; identify sufficient land within or adjacent to the Villages to meet the housing requirement over the plan period;include sufficient deliverable sites to respond to a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply; fails to fully consider the implications on Warwick District of the potential housing land shortfall in the Housing Market Area as required under the Duty to Cooperate; offer developers sufficient deliverable housing land choices to ensure a rolling 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries to meet the identified growth requirement in line with the findings of the Settlement Hierarchy and the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed policies; ensure that Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period through the identification of 'areas of development restraint' or 'safeguarded land' including in/adjacent to the most sustainable Villages; identify a quantum of housing land allocations appropriate to the scale and sustainability of settlements as evidenced by the Council's own research; provide sound, accurate evidence to justify discounting the site for housing development; and remove part of our client's sustainable and deliverable land from the Green Belt, include it within the Settlement Boundary and allocate it for residential.

Object

Representation ID: 63552

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

We raise OBJECTION to the 'Warwick Local Plan Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries' DPD on the grounds that it is not 'sound' and it fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) or fully meet the legal Duty to Cooperate.
It is apparent that the approach taken to housing land allocations preferred options within the document is not wholly consistent with the Framework which, amongst other matters, seeks to: provide certainty by planning for the long term; locate development in the most sustainable locations; protect the future viability of settlements; ensure a variety of housing is provided to meet identified needs; ensure a 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances (such as required to meet housing need) to ensure they are capable of enduring beyond the Plan period; and ensure the legal Duty to Cooperate has been satisfied. the DPD is not sound because it fails to - provide certainty over the long term; identify sufficient land within or adjacent to the Villages to meet the housing requirement over the plan period;include sufficient deliverable sites to respond to a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply; fails to fully consider the implications on Warwick District of the potential housing land shortfall in the Housing Market Area as required under the Duty to Cooperate; offer developers sufficient deliverable housing land choices to ensure a rolling 5 year housing land supply is maintained; alter Green Belt boundaries to meet the identified growth requirement in line with the findings of the Settlement Hierarchy and the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy proposed policies; ensure that Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period through the identification of 'areas of development restraint' or 'safeguarded land' including in/adjacent to the most sustainable Villages; identify a quantum of housing land allocations appropriate to the scale and sustainability of settlements as evidenced by the Council's own research; provide sound, accurate evidence to justify discounting the site for housing development; and remove part of our client's sustainable and deliverable land from the Green Belt, include it within the Settlement Boundary and allocate it for residential.

Warwick District therefore 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. The 'Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation' DPD is therefore unsound because it does not identify sufficient preferred housing sites to contribute towards meeting the need for a five year annual housing target of between 1040 and 1102 units, which includes a 20% buffer. It fails to address the need to ensure sufficient deliverable sites are identified and available to be developed in the 5 year timeframe. Without additional sustainable sites being identified in the most sustainable villages, there is a risk that the emerging housing policies will not be considered up-to-date.

Object

Representation ID: 63553

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

Kingswood (Lapworth) is identified as a Primary Service Village with a score in the 'Settlement Hierarchy Report', of 53, only 4 points short of the most sustainable village of Hampton Magna. This settlement score is derived from an assessment of a number of factors including: the size of the settlement in terms of usual resident population; the availability of services and facilities within the settlements; and the accessibility of services, facilities and employment opportunities including frequency and availability of public transport. Given the evidenced sustainability of Kingswood (Lapworth) with its railway station, school, shops and local employment, we object strongly to the identification of preferred sites to accommodate only 62 rather than 100 to 150 units proposed in the Revised Development Strategy document. It is unsound for Kingswood (Lapworth) to have fewer proposed new dwellings than not only all the other Primary Service Villages, but also fewer than all except one of the Secondary Service Villages.

Object

Representation ID: 63554

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

We would strongly recommend allocation of part of our client's land as a housing site in the current Local Plan. The site proposed as a housing allocation in this submission is the field parcel fronting Station Lane extending east to approximately the line of the current Settlement Boundary to the south of the site. The site area would include Discounted Option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary, a defensible physical boundary, boundary shown in Appendix A, figure 1 of the 'Landscape and Visual Assessment' which forms part of this submission. The site is in an extremely sustainable location being approximately 2 minutes walk to Lapworth railway station and bus stops, 6 minutes walk to the local primary school, less than 10 minutes walk to the shops in Lapworth and just over ten minutes walk to Lapworth surgery.
Our Client contends that the assessment of their site was distorted by the Council's decision, in the evidence, to ignore the existing access opposite number 145, Station Lane and assume that access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary, opposite 155 Station Lane. In order to secure visibility sight lines, this would necessitate the removal of exiting Tree Preservation Order (TPO) oak trees and an extensive length of road frontage hedging, one of the primary reasons for discounting the site. Our Clients also contend that the Council failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development were confined to the field fronting Station Lane and appropriate mitigation measures taken. Instead their assessments are primarily concerned with the potential adverse impact residential development might have on the landscape if all, or a much larger section of the site promoted in the SHLAA were to be developed. For these reasons we contend that the evidence base is unsound and does not satisfy the requirements of the Framework.