BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Preferred Options
ID sylw: 49320
Derbyniwyd: 11/07/2012
Ymatebydd: G R Planning Consultancy Ltd
Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:
Council consistently resists residential led scheme on former Quick's site at Station Approach. This land is not allocated in LP for housing.
None of the land has planning permission for residential and is therefore not a commitment.
Planning brief confirms B1 and residential will be supported but this is not a SPD and weight cannot be attached.
SHLAA includes land as potentially suitable urban site, but not a commitment. Confirms availability subject to bus garage relocation for 150 units.
Clients remain supportive of residential development here.
LP should promote and bring forward this site consistent with recommendation to Core Strategy.
Testun llawn:
I act on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd the owners of the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach in Le...
I act on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd the owners of the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach in Leamington Spa. My clients objections to the Warwick Local Plan (WLP) are set out below.
1. Background to BRB (Residuary) Ltd Objections
As you know the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach benefits from an extant planning consent for B1 development (planning reference: W06/1058). This development was promoted in conjunction with Network Rail who own the land abutting the existing railway line. The outline planning permission for the B1 scheme was issued on the 28th April 2010 and was the culmination of 10 years of my client's hard efforts to actively promote and bring forward this site for development.
The consent provides for 8,047sqm (86,629sqft) of B1 (Office) floorspace on a 2.3 hectare site. It also includes the complete upgrading of Station Approach and other costly off-site highway improvements which can only be secured with the agreement of adjoining landowners (including the Council as owners of Station Approach) and through the additional funding generated by the redevelopment of the Former Quick's Garage site. Even though my clients and adjoining landowners reached agreement in 2008/2009 over the funding of the Station Approach upgrade and other highway improvements, the Council's decisions to consistently resist a residential led scheme on the Former Quick's site effectively put a stop to this comprehensive scheme and led to the break-up of the consortium of landowners that were a party to that agreement.
On numerous occasions my clients have made it very clear to the Council that without the ability to jointly fund the extensive highway works (with the developers of the Former Quick's site) any form of development on the Former Goods Yard site would be commercially unviable and could not proceed on its own. This position was reaffirmed in our representations to the Core Strategy Preferred Options and in my letter dated the 19th August 2009 (a copy of this letter can be provided if required).
More recently, my clients objected to the hybrid application on the Former Ford Foundry site (planning reference W10/1310) on the grounds that it represented a unique opportunity to bring forward the comprehensive regeneration of the whole of the Station Area (my letters dated the 15th December 2010 and 17th February 2011 refer). In particular, that it provided the mechanism to secure the relocation of Stagecoach to the Former Ford Car Park site thus opening up the way for the land to the north of the Station to come forward for residential development. Our objections concluded that if the Council failed to take a pro-active approach then not only would this opportunity be lost but it was also likely to mean that the Council's policy objectives for regenerating the whole of the Station Area were unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future. The Council proceeded to grant planning permission for the hybrid application in August 2011 without any provisions or commitment to relocate the Stagecoach Depot.
The Council have recently, through the Deputy Chief Executive, instigated discussions to bring forward a co-ordinated approach for the land north of the Station. Whilst my clients were not invited to the original meeting in May this year (but did outline their position in a letter to the Deputy Chief Executive dated the 30th April 2012 - a copy of which can be provided if required), my clients have since then agreed to partly fund in conjunction with other landowners (including the Council) a Scoping Study of the development potential of this land on which tenders are currently being sought. This Study will also consider the development potential with the Stagecoach Depot remaining in situ on its current site.
As I explained in my telephone discussions with the LDF Team this background is of considerable importance in understanding my clients objections to the WLP as currently drafted.
2. Objection to Housing Provisions & Policy PO4
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that neither my clients site nor any of the land north of the Station was allocated in the WLP for housing. Although the Station land is shown on the accompanying 'Maps' as 'Development Sites' Officers confirmed that this was an error. The latter appears consistent with the wording of policy PO4 in that it does not refer to the land at Station Approach. Officers confirmed that the latter was due to the fact that this land is regarded as a 'commitment'.
Paragraph 7.20 of the WLP in setting out the housing requirements to 2029 confirms that some of the required provision has already been accounted for in 'committed' and 'windfall' sites. The latter relates to small sites and the former to "sites which had planning approval for housing" as at the 1st April 2011. None of the land at Station Approach has planning permission for housing and in line with the definition in paragraph 7.20 it cannot therefore be a 'commitment'. The land at Station Approach is of course covered by the Station Area Planning & Development Brief (2008 Brief), adopted by the Council in September 2008. However, this simply confirms that B1 (Business) and residential development will be supported in this location, including residential development across the whole of the site, the latter subject to the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. The Brief does not, however, form part of the Development Plan in that it is not a Supplementary Planning Document prepared in accord with, at the time, PPS12, undermining the weight that can therefore be attached to it.
The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) includes the land at Station Approach as a 'Potentially Suitable Urban Site' ('Site Ref L35'), but again does not refer to it or treat it as a 'commitment'. It also confirms that its availability is subject to an alternative location for the Bus (Stagecoach) Garage been found and suggests it could provide approximately 150 units by 2019 - 2024.
My clients supported in principle the 2008 Brief's promotion of residential development on their site. They continue to remain fully supportive of residential development in this location, but as this is not a 'commitment' my clients are firmly of the view that the WLP must be amended to:
Allocate the land at Station Approach for housing through policy PO4, and
Allocate a suitable and viable site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot
Paragraphs 150 -182 (inclusive) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirm that Council's must be realistic in seeking to bring forward land for development and should only allocate sites that can be 'delivered' within the Plan period. At present, the land at Station Approach is not a 'commitment' and there are no proposals even in the 2008 Brief to bring forward this land for residential development. The 2008 Brief and 2012 SHLAA both suggest that the land can only be developed comprehensively for residential use following the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot.
The WLP clearly provides the opportunity to not only promote and bring forward the land at Station Approach for residential development through its allocation under policy PO4, but also the allocation of a separate site to accommodate the relocated Stagecoach Depot (subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study referred to earlier). This approach is consistent with that recommended by my clients in their response to the draft Core Strategy (see my letter dated the 19th August 2009). The arguments and justification put forward at the time remain, but take on greater significance given that the new Local Plan format now seeks to address and provide for all future 'allocations' or development 'needs', rather than being restricted to bringing forward strategic growth locations as was the case with the draft Core Strategy. The Stagecoach allocation would need to be supported by a commitment from the Council to use, if necessary, its CPO powers, either to secure the provision of the new site or Stagecoach's relocation from their existing site (again subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study).
3. Objection to Employment Provisions & Policy PO8
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that my clients site and specifically their extant B1 consent was not included in the 'supply' of available ('committed') employment land. This is reaffirmed in the 'evidence base' for the WLP, the 2011 Employment Land Supply. Table 1 of the latter confirms that the Station Goods Yard should be excluded from the 'supply' as the 2008 Brief supports residential development across all the land to north of the Station.
In discussing this issue with the LDF Team it was agreed that I should explain my clients long term aspirations for their landholdings. In doing so it's important to firstly understand the role and purpose of my clients, BRB (Residuary) Ltd. The Company was formed following the split up and sale of British Rail in 1993. It was given the role of discharging the remaining functions of the British Railways Board. The Company is owned by the Government and reports to the Department of Transport. It is responsible for a variety of functions including the disposal of remaining land (and buildings) surplus to the needs of the operational railways. The land at Station Approach is not required for future railway purposes and my clients have therefore sought to promote and then market the land with the benefit of planning permission as the Company is required to achieve best value for any land that it disposes of.
The B1 consent was therefore obtained by my clients in order to market and sell their site. However, as I explained above the failure of the consortium of landowners that was put together in 2008/2009 (through the Council's refusal of various applications for residential led development on the Former Quick's Garage site) combined with the economic recession (and collapse of the B1 market) has meant that it has simply not been possible for my clients to dispose of the site.
A residential development (once the market has improved) is likely to secure best value for the site, but it appears that this can only be delivered through the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. If the latter cannot be achieved and no other options come forward in the proposed Scoping Study, then B1 development clearly represents the best and most acceptable alternative land use for the site which, subject to securing a viable scheme in conjunction with adjoining landowners, could also secure best value for my clients and the Government. It is important therefore that my clients interests and options are fully protected and hence the need to maintain the existing B1 'commitment' (my clients intend to renew their B1 consent as it expires in early 2013 and will shortly enter into pre-application discussions with the Council to achieve this).
In relation to the WLP, my clients would support amendments that sought to allocate the Former Goods Yard (and adjoining Network Rail land) for employment (B1) and housing. This could be done under policy PO4 which I note includes sites allocated for housing and mixed-use developments, including employment. This 'dual' allocation would be consistent with the 2008 Brief which as I confirmed supported the development of this land either for housing or B1 (Business) Use. The WLP should also seek to allocate a site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot subject of course to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study, as this Study will also assess the potential for residential and/or mixed-use development on all the land north of the Station with the Depot (Bus Garage) remaining in situ on its current site.
I would of course be pleased to discuss these objections further with you in order to resolve my clients concerns and secure appropriate changes to the WLP before it progresses to the Submission stage.
[dangos mwy]
1. Background to BRB (Residuary) Ltd Objections
As you know the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach benefits from an extant planning consent for B1 development (planning reference: W06/1058). This development was promoted in conjunction with Network Rail who own the land abutting the existing railway line. The outline planning permission for the B1 scheme was issued on the 28th April 2010 and was the culmination of 10 years of my client's hard efforts to actively promote and bring forward this site for development.
The consent provides for 8,047sqm (86,629sqft) of B1 (Office) floorspace on a 2.3 hectare site. It also includes the complete upgrading of Station Approach and other costly off-site highway improvements which can only be secured with the agreement of adjoining landowners (including the Council as owners of Station Approach) and through the additional funding generated by the redevelopment of the Former Quick's Garage site. Even though my clients and adjoining landowners reached agreement in 2008/2009 over the funding of the Station Approach upgrade and other highway improvements, the Council's decisions to consistently resist a residential led scheme on the Former Quick's site effectively put a stop to this comprehensive scheme and led to the break-up of the consortium of landowners that were a party to that agreement.
On numerous occasions my clients have made it very clear to the Council that without the ability to jointly fund the extensive highway works (with the developers of the Former Quick's site) any form of development on the Former Goods Yard site would be commercially unviable and could not proceed on its own. This position was reaffirmed in our representations to the Core Strategy Preferred Options and in my letter dated the 19th August 2009 (a copy of this letter can be provided if required).
More recently, my clients objected to the hybrid application on the Former Ford Foundry site (planning reference W10/1310) on the grounds that it represented a unique opportunity to bring forward the comprehensive regeneration of the whole of the Station Area (my letters dated the 15th December 2010 and 17th February 2011 refer). In particular, that it provided the mechanism to secure the relocation of Stagecoach to the Former Ford Car Park site thus opening up the way for the land to the north of the Station to come forward for residential development. Our objections concluded that if the Council failed to take a pro-active approach then not only would this opportunity be lost but it was also likely to mean that the Council's policy objectives for regenerating the whole of the Station Area were unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future. The Council proceeded to grant planning permission for the hybrid application in August 2011 without any provisions or commitment to relocate the Stagecoach Depot.
The Council have recently, through the Deputy Chief Executive, instigated discussions to bring forward a co-ordinated approach for the land north of the Station. Whilst my clients were not invited to the original meeting in May this year (but did outline their position in a letter to the Deputy Chief Executive dated the 30th April 2012 - a copy of which can be provided if required), my clients have since then agreed to partly fund in conjunction with other landowners (including the Council) a Scoping Study of the development potential of this land on which tenders are currently being sought. This Study will also consider the development potential with the Stagecoach Depot remaining in situ on its current site.
As I explained in my telephone discussions with the LDF Team this background is of considerable importance in understanding my clients objections to the WLP as currently drafted.
2. Objection to Housing Provisions & Policy PO4
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that neither my clients site nor any of the land north of the Station was allocated in the WLP for housing. Although the Station land is shown on the accompanying 'Maps' as 'Development Sites' Officers confirmed that this was an error. The latter appears consistent with the wording of policy PO4 in that it does not refer to the land at Station Approach. Officers confirmed that the latter was due to the fact that this land is regarded as a 'commitment'.
Paragraph 7.20 of the WLP in setting out the housing requirements to 2029 confirms that some of the required provision has already been accounted for in 'committed' and 'windfall' sites. The latter relates to small sites and the former to "sites which had planning approval for housing" as at the 1st April 2011. None of the land at Station Approach has planning permission for housing and in line with the definition in paragraph 7.20 it cannot therefore be a 'commitment'. The land at Station Approach is of course covered by the Station Area Planning & Development Brief (2008 Brief), adopted by the Council in September 2008. However, this simply confirms that B1 (Business) and residential development will be supported in this location, including residential development across the whole of the site, the latter subject to the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. The Brief does not, however, form part of the Development Plan in that it is not a Supplementary Planning Document prepared in accord with, at the time, PPS12, undermining the weight that can therefore be attached to it.
The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) includes the land at Station Approach as a 'Potentially Suitable Urban Site' ('Site Ref L35'), but again does not refer to it or treat it as a 'commitment'. It also confirms that its availability is subject to an alternative location for the Bus (Stagecoach) Garage been found and suggests it could provide approximately 150 units by 2019 - 2024.
My clients supported in principle the 2008 Brief's promotion of residential development on their site. They continue to remain fully supportive of residential development in this location, but as this is not a 'commitment' my clients are firmly of the view that the WLP must be amended to:
Allocate the land at Station Approach for housing through policy PO4, and
Allocate a suitable and viable site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot
Paragraphs 150 -182 (inclusive) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirm that Council's must be realistic in seeking to bring forward land for development and should only allocate sites that can be 'delivered' within the Plan period. At present, the land at Station Approach is not a 'commitment' and there are no proposals even in the 2008 Brief to bring forward this land for residential development. The 2008 Brief and 2012 SHLAA both suggest that the land can only be developed comprehensively for residential use following the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot.
The WLP clearly provides the opportunity to not only promote and bring forward the land at Station Approach for residential development through its allocation under policy PO4, but also the allocation of a separate site to accommodate the relocated Stagecoach Depot (subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study referred to earlier). This approach is consistent with that recommended by my clients in their response to the draft Core Strategy (see my letter dated the 19th August 2009). The arguments and justification put forward at the time remain, but take on greater significance given that the new Local Plan format now seeks to address and provide for all future 'allocations' or development 'needs', rather than being restricted to bringing forward strategic growth locations as was the case with the draft Core Strategy. The Stagecoach allocation would need to be supported by a commitment from the Council to use, if necessary, its CPO powers, either to secure the provision of the new site or Stagecoach's relocation from their existing site (again subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study).
3. Objection to Employment Provisions & Policy PO8
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that my clients site and specifically their extant B1 consent was not included in the 'supply' of available ('committed') employment land. This is reaffirmed in the 'evidence base' for the WLP, the 2011 Employment Land Supply. Table 1 of the latter confirms that the Station Goods Yard should be excluded from the 'supply' as the 2008 Brief supports residential development across all the land to north of the Station.
In discussing this issue with the LDF Team it was agreed that I should explain my clients long term aspirations for their landholdings. In doing so it's important to firstly understand the role and purpose of my clients, BRB (Residuary) Ltd. The Company was formed following the split up and sale of British Rail in 1993. It was given the role of discharging the remaining functions of the British Railways Board. The Company is owned by the Government and reports to the Department of Transport. It is responsible for a variety of functions including the disposal of remaining land (and buildings) surplus to the needs of the operational railways. The land at Station Approach is not required for future railway purposes and my clients have therefore sought to promote and then market the land with the benefit of planning permission as the Company is required to achieve best value for any land that it disposes of.
The B1 consent was therefore obtained by my clients in order to market and sell their site. However, as I explained above the failure of the consortium of landowners that was put together in 2008/2009 (through the Council's refusal of various applications for residential led development on the Former Quick's Garage site) combined with the economic recession (and collapse of the B1 market) has meant that it has simply not been possible for my clients to dispose of the site.
A residential development (once the market has improved) is likely to secure best value for the site, but it appears that this can only be delivered through the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. If the latter cannot be achieved and no other options come forward in the proposed Scoping Study, then B1 development clearly represents the best and most acceptable alternative land use for the site which, subject to securing a viable scheme in conjunction with adjoining landowners, could also secure best value for my clients and the Government. It is important therefore that my clients interests and options are fully protected and hence the need to maintain the existing B1 'commitment' (my clients intend to renew their B1 consent as it expires in early 2013 and will shortly enter into pre-application discussions with the Council to achieve this).
In relation to the WLP, my clients would support amendments that sought to allocate the Former Goods Yard (and adjoining Network Rail land) for employment (B1) and housing. This could be done under policy PO4 which I note includes sites allocated for housing and mixed-use developments, including employment. This 'dual' allocation would be consistent with the 2008 Brief which as I confirmed supported the development of this land either for housing or B1 (Business) Use. The WLP should also seek to allocate a site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot subject of course to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study, as this Study will also assess the potential for residential and/or mixed-use development on all the land north of the Station with the Depot (Bus Garage) remaining in situ on its current site.
I would of course be pleased to discuss these objections further with you in order to resolve my clients concerns and secure appropriate changes to the WLP before it progresses to the Submission stage.
