Publication Draft

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: 66680

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Object

Representation ID: 66681

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The transport strategy is ineffective and unsustainable. There is evidence to show that the transport assessment (important evidence for the Plan) is flawed. There are major issues in respect of accommodating traffic through Warwick generated from new estates south of the river.
Adverse impacts on air quality and health have not been satisfactorily assessed or tackled. Background evidence for the Plan is considered to gloss over the importance of Air Quality Monitoring Areas of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth where illegal levels of nitrogen oxide generated from traffic are prevalent. The Plans evidence claims that the problem will be overcome in the future by cleaner motor vehicles. This is disputed by a number of scientists and considered a risk.
The Plan is also considered unsound for the following reasons:-
1)The traffic consequences of the proposals in the Plan would be disastrous for Warwick and the statistics used to predict the impacts of traffic have been manipulated so as to ensure they can fit the plan.
2)In reality measures proposed do not deal with the anticipated transport impacts of the development and the intended development areas are not in the right place (are unsustainable)
3)The traffic consequences of the Gaydon development in Stratford District have been underestimated.
4)Development areas have not been located where the need to travel has been minimised. The impact of traffic generated by transport movements related to the development proposals has been ignored

*The representation sets out and highlights a series of what are considered key references from the NPPF regarding traffic and transport related matters and associated infrastructure requirements, these can be viewed in the full submission.
*The Save Warwick Group, together with the Town Council, The Warwick Society and Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council were concerned that the approach to transport adopted in the Local Plan was seriously flawed. They jointly commissioned Royal Haskoning DHV, the UK branch of the independent international engineering and project management consultancy with special expertise in Transport Planning, to undertake a peer review of the Strategic Transport Assessment 4. This can be seen in full at www.savewarwick.co.uk.
The report confirms the concerns of the campaign groups and provides detailed evidence to provide the background for the matters raised in this submission below.
*Wrong Strategic Decisions
The fundamental flaw leading to many of the transport issues is the decision to locate most of the major new development areas south of the River Avon. This strategy will not satisfy the needs of the NPPF "to ensure that development that generate significant traffic movements are located where the need to travel will be minimized and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised". The plan does not satisfy the "need to focus significant developments in locations which are or can be made sustainable".
The peer review states the following
-The £34 million worth of mitigation proposed will be insufficient to address all the transport impacts
-The methodology used for the TA (Traffic Assessment) for the local plan has a series of shortcomings and is considered unsound.
-The will be left by a legacy of congestion which will damage health , heritage assets and have negative economic impacts on Warwick.

*Shortcomings of the STA4 Traffic Assessment
-It is incomplete / unfinished
-Despite 27 proposed Improvements for traffic mitigation the traffic modelling has shown network failure and increased congestion in key areas, particularly in Warwick. There is concern that leaving decisions regarding town centres to separate strategies is inappropriate/ ineffective.
-The interpretation of the data does not give the full picture; traffic growth has been' capped'/ reduced so as to make traffic 'predictions' fit the series of indicative proposals.
Education trips have been excluded, trip discounting assumes 22.5% of trips will be subject to mode shift, peak spreading assumptions have been made assuming that people and institutions will change their working hours and travel times
-The report admits that the current indicative schemes will not solve the problems and goes on to say that "without a full, and potentially increased schedule of highway improvement schemes" the development allocations as proposed cannot be accommodated under the proposals in the current assessments.
-The assessment includes simplistic 'inception design solutions' for the mitigation but has not gone into detailed proposals - without sufficient detail how can the proposals be trusted to deliver what is necessary?
-The traffic assessment report is also considered unacceptable because it concludes that the proposed transport strategy will only mitigate 'in part' the potential impacts and that 'some residual impacts will still occur'.It is considered that further work is required to refine and assess the details of the mitigation schemes and that the order of delivery/ prioritisation of particular elements are agreed.
-The Traffic Assessment acknowledges that in spite of the application of the proposed mitigation measures not all of the impacts are fully mitigated. In the opinion of the campaign groups it is believed that this is unacceptable and that the current plan strategy is therefore flawed/ cannot be accommodated.
-The STA4 report recognises that sustainable transport options will have to be provided / improved to reduce traffic impacts and that work is on-going with regard to this matter. There is no evidence to support that sustainable transport measures will significantly reduce car trips (borne out by DFT research), therefore the methods/ assumptions employed by the traffic assessment are questioned/ argued not to be sufficiently robust.
-The modelling used in the assessment is unreliable / subject to problems issues of reliability. The ability of the network to cope with 2028 traffic is questioned.

*The Cumulative Impact Assessment which looks at combined Warwick and Stratford District traffic issues/ cumulative impacts has been completed too late in the process to effectively influence the proposed development patterns for Warwick District.
-The Lighthorne/ Gaydon proposals are seen as having a significant effect on South Warwick as it is the area through which many of the residents will travel to work.
-The CIA does not include information and analysis of the proposed schemes in detail, nor does it comprehensively identify the full scope of impacts and benefits that occur as a result of the allocation strategies. It merely identifies what strategic elements of infrastructure are likely to be required to ensure the growth can be accommodated upon the existing network.
-The deliveries of capacity enhancements to the M40 corridor are essential to ensure local networks are not overloaded. The plans and their allocative strategies are prejudiced if this does not happen.
-It is suggested that the methodology for undertaking the modelling exercise has required a 'capping procedure' that produces model instability and concern over the outputs presented as a consequence.
-Journey times and congestion times are predicted to increase despite mitigation, this will have adverse effects on air quality
-There is little or no evidence / regard given to the effects of the damage the proposals will do to the historic fabric and heritage assets of Warwick town centre.
-There is little or no evidence on the impacts of the traffic proposals on health, air quality in Warwick town centre will deteriorate even more which will be damaging to health and the environment.
The representation also attaches detailed supplementary information on traffic congestion statistics and air quality matters (see appendix 2 and 3 of the full submission).

Object

Representation ID: 66682

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plans for the necessary social infrastructure are not ready. Assumptions are made in the Plan that schools, medical centres, hospital beds and other social infrastructure will be provided. We are currently aware that school issues have not been automatically agreed with the County Council. Similarly the successful conclusion of other facilities cannot be assumed.
There is a serious funding gap for necessary infrastructure. Work done by save Warwick indicates that there is a there is a shortfall between the cost of infrastructure and the funding available in the region of 50 million pounds.
-The Council is considered not to have published a meaningful local plan viability assessment at the time the representation was submitted, at the end of January 2014 campaign groups were provided with information on the work done to date by officers which indicated that they were far from being able to show the full costs of the plan at that stage.
-In the absence of this essential evidence Save Warwick have produced their own assessment which is set out in an appendix to their representation. It shows a significant shortfall in receipts over the potential costs.
-Save Warwick Estimate that the infrastructure ' bill' will amount to something over £215 million, and all things considered that there will be a shortfall in required income over costs in the region of £30 million which is going to have to be met by council taxpayers.
-It is estimated that the County Council (as a major provider of roads and services) could be faced with a shortfall of around £85 million.
Save Warwick have forwarded three solutions to the funding shortfall scenario that they believe is inevitable
1 - To economise on infrastructure (which would mean more overcrowded schools and roads) - this is considered unacceptable.
2- Load the additional costs on the taxpayer - an average of an extra £500 or so on the tax bills of every household in Warwick District.
The final alternative is to change the plan - which is what Save Warwick prefers.

The Council should produce and publish their own up to date viability study so that it can be interrogated and provide satisfaction that infrastructure requirements are deliverable. Without this the Local Plan must be assumed to be unsound.

To conclude / summarise
The Plan does not conform to the NPPF or Planning Practice Guidance. The Council has not published sufficient detail in its financial viability assessments to justify its claims that the plan is viable. Furthermore, assessments undertaken by others demonstrate that it is highly likely that the shortfall in funding will cost Council tax payers upwards of £30 million.

Object

Representation ID: 66683

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plans for the necessary social infrastructure are not ready. Assumptions are made in the Plan that schools, medical centres, hospital beds and other social infrastructure will be provided. We are currently aware that school issues have not been automatically agreed with the County Council. Similarly the successful conclusion of other facilities cannot be assumed.
There is a serious funding gap for necessary infrastructure. Work done by save Warwick indicates that there is a there is a shortfall between the cost of infrastructure and the funding available in the region of 50 million pounds.

Object

Representation ID: 66684

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Plan would be seriously damaging to our environmental and heritage assets. The Plan gives insufficient attention to our heritage and is potentially damaging to it (in contravention to the provisions of the NPPF).
The Plan is considered unsound for the following reasons:-
The Local Plan identifies the valuable heritage assets of the District and the processes required to obtain planning consent for developments within conservation areas and affecting historic buildings. Save Warwick support these policies.
The plan correctly identifies the importance of the historic environment of the district's principal towns and that this historic legacy has been carefully guarded, however it fails to mention its contribution to Warwick as the quality of the heritage assets/ historic environment are a driving force behind the visitor economy that supports so many local businesses and is therefore a major source of employment.
Save Warwick state that over many years there has been a growing appreciation of the impact of traffic on our heritage assets and on our historic towns. The general response to this has been a wish to remove the bulk of traffic from the vicinity of conservation areas and return the streets to the people, in doing so this protects the historic buildings from the impact of traffic.
The Local Plan does not address the need to protect our town centre conservation areas (especially Warwick) from the impact of the developments proposed in the plan itself.
There is little or no evidence that the plan has addressed the impacts of traffic created by new allocations (especially those in the south of Warwick) on the character, attractiveness, user-friendliness and fabric of our heritage. The Transport Assessments that form part of the plan predict significant increases in the levels of traffic flowing through Warwick Town Centre as a consequence of the new development areas intended to the south of Warwick. The phase 3 Transport Assessment identifies accepts that this extra traffic can be accommodated on the existing road network with junction improvements and other 'blunt instrument' traffic management measures being proposed to alleviate the effects of traffic in such a way that is inappropriate and damaging to a top quality conservation area crammed with historic buildings.
Despite the intended 'mitigation, measures, the assessments admit that congestion and queuing will increase significantly, this will be damaging to the streetscape of what remains substantially a mediaeval town.
Increased traffic / congestion levels will compound the levels of pollution and increase pollutants (NO2), particulates and vibration that will all damage health and cause the degradation of our historic buildings and the attractiveness of the very things that so many people come to see. The centre of Warwick (Jury/High and Swan streets) is all part of a designated AQMA where the Local Authority is obliged to take action to reduce levels of pollution.
Save Warwick is aware of correspondence between English Heritage and Warwick District Council in the course of the Local Plan consultation in response to planning applications on land adjoining Gallows Hill and Banbury Road where concerns have been raised about the impacts of development on Warwick Castle, Castle Park , the conservation area and the Listed Buildings located there.
A copy of key extracts of the aforementioned letter is attached to the original Save Warwick response. As a consequence Warwick District Council has deleted Strawberry Fields and another area south of Gallows Hill from its intended allocations and this is welcomed by Save Warwick.
The plan still does not address the issues faced by the historic buildings and core of Warwick Town centre by the extra traffic to be generated by all the other developments proposed south of Warwick.
To conclude / summarise
The Plan does not conform to the requirements of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance and neglects to protect our conservation areas, historic buildings and their settings from the harmful consequences of the proposed plan.

Object

Representation ID: 66685

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Plan would be seriously damaging to our environmental and heritage assets. The Plan gives insufficient attention to our heritage and is potentially damaging to it (in contravention to the provisions of the NPPF).

Object

Representation ID: 66686

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.