Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 66184

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

The local plan is not sound because it fails to:

provide sound, accurate evidence to justify discounting land at Station Lane, Kingswood for housing development, despite assurances that previous misrepresentations would be rectified.
does not provide certainty over the long term
identify sufficient land within or adjacent to the largest villages proportionate to their sustainability criteria
include sufficient sites which are deliverable in the next 5 years to meet the 5 year housing land requirement
address the need for a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply arising from the Council's record of persistent under delivery of new housing
fully address the implications on Warwick District of the potential housing land shortfall in the Housing Market Area and surrounding local authority areas 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
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
provide sound evidence to demonstrate that highway access could be satisfactorily achieved to enable safe development of the sites allocated for housing in Kingswood; and
remove part of the land fronting Station Lane from the Green Belt and include it within the Settlement Boundary and allocate it for residential development
it does not comply with the NPPF and its presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Strongly recommends the allocation of land fronting Station Lane. THis would include discounted option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary. THe site is in an extremely sustainable location, close to Lapworth railway station and bus stops,the local primary school, shops and surgery. The Council's assessment of the site was distorted by the Council's decision to ignore the existing access opposite 145 Station Lane and assume access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary opposite 155 Station Lane. The Council also failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development was confined to the field fronting Station Lane rather than the larger SHLAA site. Alternative landscape and highways assessments demonstrate inaccuracies with the Council's evidence base.
Highways Statement carried out by Savoy Consulting disputes the County Council's conclusions that demonstrating access could be acheived opposite 145 Station Lane. Access into the site would not require the removal of any trees.
THis highways evidence calls into question many of the Highways conclusions on other sites in Kingswood. It raises serious doubts over the deliverability of H29 and H30 where access would need to be obtained over third party land.
Landscape assessment carried out by Barry Chinn concluded overall the landscape and visual impacts for the development are considered to be predominantly localised and contained within a reasonably small area. Despite submitting this information the Council's evidence base remains unchanged. The SHLAA does not relate to the site area being promoted but instead the full extent of the land in the Council's ownership much of which it is agreed would not be suitable for development and would have an acceptable impact on the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 66490

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

The housing requirement should as a minimum correspond with the full objectively assessed need identified in the Joint SHMA. This represents a need for an additional 100 dwellings over the plan period. The requirement is also likely to increase in response to the legal obligations arising from the duty to cooperate. It is likely that a number of Councils in the housing market area will have a shortfall, other risks may arise from Birmingham. Policy DS20 provides too much 'wriggle room' for the authority to escape its obligations. The policy does not have a timescale for reviewing the plan, instead there should be a committment for doing so within 3 years in order to address the needs of the housing market area.

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.