BASE HEADER

Please see attachment in respect of Policy PO1 Preferred Level of Growth and paragraphs 5.6 to 5.23

POI: Preferred Level of Growth
The Council's Preferred Option is for the level of growth between 2011 and 2029 to be 10,800 dwellings at an annual average of 600 dwellings per annum. An objection is made to the level of growth in Policy POI and the justification for this as set out in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.23 for the reasons explained below.

The Council has identified a plan period only up to 2029, which seems to be 15 years from the anticipated year of adoption (April 2014 in paragraph 3.7). This reflects the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), but it is noted that the time frame of the demographic and employment evidence base that the Council is relying refers to the period 2011 - 2031. It is likely therefore that the choice of an end date of 2029 will artificially restrain the levels of growth. It is considered therefore that the time period of the local plan should be extended to 2031to take account of the the Local Plan is based on 'adequate, up-to date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospect of the area (paragraph 158 of the Framework). It is possible that the adoption of the Local Plan would be delayed until after April 2014, and in any event the Local Plan does not demonstrate that it has taken account of longer terms requirements as required by the Framework.

By using the 2029 time period the Local Plan, using the Council Preferred Option could potentially under provide 1,200 dwellings and about 850 jobs.

Choice of Level of Growth
2.4 The Council's decision to choose the Option 1 level of growth 600 dwellings pa 2011- 2029 (lower than Option 2 - 700 dwellings pa) seems partly to be on the basis that the national economy is not performing as well as expected - paragraph 5.22. This is despite the Option 2 figure being more in line with the available evidence base (West Midlands Integrated Policy Model - Cambridge Econometrics July 2010) which reflects the fact that the local economy of Warwick District has and will be likely to continue to perform better than the West Midlands and national average- see the comments at paragraphs 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the draft Local Plan. The Council's cautious aspirations in terms of housing and employment related growth in Section 5 of the draft Local Plan seem to be at variance with the positive comments about the local economy set out in Section 8 of the Preferred Option document. It is noted that paragraph 8.21 states that 'further work is needed to clarify; this figure (need for additional jobs) in relation to more up to date economic and demographic projections and to examine the impact of potential development at the Coventry and Warwickshire gateway site ... '. If this is the case for employment growth then it follows that the further demographic and economic modelling may result in a different housing requirement being identified. In this context the evidence base for the draft Local Plan fails to demonstrate how it has been positively prepared in the context of paragraph 182 of The Framework whereby the 'the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements ... ' and paragraph 158 of the Framework which states 'Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up to date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospect of the area. Local Planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals '.

It is also suggested in paragraph 5.20 that the testing of the two options in the Sustainability Appraisal Framework (SAF) results in Option 1 being preferred. An examination of the SAF reveals that this is not the case. Firstly it is noted that the SAF May 2012 is an 'initial report' that is at the beginning of the process, that sits between the 'scoping report and the 'Sustainability Appraisal Report'. Secondly, it is noted that the SAF has been prepared by Warwick DC and not by an independent assessor.

The table below paragraph 3.7 of the SAF refers to two growth scenarios - trend based (600 homes p.a.) and employment growth based (700 homes p.a.). It is noted that both of these options score the same i.e. 2.5 in the Council's assessment. Appendix 3 of the SAF does not identify whether consideration of these 2 options is based upon an aggregated assessment of individual sites - and if so whether the sites used are the same or different. The SAF does not explain how the consideration of the four options (in the latter part of Appendix 3 and in Section 3.9 of the main Report) have been utilised for the purposes of defining the Preferred Option.

It is also important to note that the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (March 2011) included at Appendix 4 a review of growth options. It is noted that Table 9 identified an annual average increase of 840 households in Warwick District for the period 2008 - 2033 based on CLG 2008-based Household Projections. The Council's own consultants, CQW /Cambridge Econometrics produced a study in 2010 which estimated the annual average increase in households at 800. In this context, the Council's report states at paragraph 5.1

"There is evidence that if existing trends in household growth and economic forecasts are continue, there will be a need to provide an annual average of around 800 new dwellings a year up until 2026. This level of new development broadly equates to the potential supply of land identified within the SHLAA. The Council are of the opinion that this should be the higher growth option .... "

There is no substantive basis to establish the rationale for rejecting a higher growth option of 800 dwellings per annum as proposed during the earlier consultation process. It appears that this option was not tested as part of the SAF process.

In short, it is considered that SAF is not a robust or sound basis for the purposes of identifying a Preferred Option for the Local Plan. It is not transparent. It is not possible to assess the implications of choosing different sites within an option. Consequently, it is considered that the draft Local Plan is not consistent with national policy in enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. Moreover, it is considered that the SAF does not meet the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (European Directive 2001l42/EC) which requires that all plans and programmes are assessed in terms of their impact on the environment.

There is also no evidence base that the Council provides to support the contention in paragraph 5.23 that there is a 'lack of certainty, therefore, that a sufficient number of homes on strategic sites could delivered within the plan period to meet Option 2 '.

This implies, logically, that some strategic sites are more capable of delivery than others, and perhaps have a finite capacity within a specified time frame. However, no assessment is provided to support this contention. For example, the 16 criteria used in the SAF do not include reference to delivery within the plan period in whole or part.

On the basis that Option 1 and 2 score the same in the SAF, and that the Council has chosen the lower growth option (and seemingly ignored following the initial consultation stage, a further higher growth option 'Scenario 3' founded on a robust SQW/Cambridge Econometrics evidence base), we consider that the draft Local Plan fails to meet the objectively assessed requirements for population, housing and employment growth, utilising the Council's own evidence base.

For example, choosing Option 2 in preference to Option 1 would result in the draft Local Plan making provision for an additional 1800 dwellings, and 1800 jobs 2011 - 2029 (increasing to 3,200 dwellings and 3,000 jobs if the plan period is extended to 2031).

The Preferred Option does not therefore support building a strong competitive economy in the context of paragraph 21 of the Framework and does not meet the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as required by paragraph 47 of the Framework.