Option 2 should be supported. We should not be planning future growth with a recession-based mindset. Jaguar Land Rover have created 1000 new jobs at Gaydon this year, as a single example of what can be acheived in the teeth of the worst recesssion for 100 years.

Options 1 and 2 are both way beyond the level of growth felt to be desirable by the vast majority of respondents, and either would encroach on the Green Belt in a totally unacceptable way. The projected growth in jobs over a 20 year period is pure speculation - and very over-optimistic in the current economic climate.

My earlier representations ay that we will need about 450 homes a year.

The fact that this is based on 'the projected growth in jobs' is laughable in the current climate. Also re my previous comment - where is the link between employment growth and growth in housing? Also re point 5.20 how can building 600 more homes per year 'create better opportunities to protect and enhance the natural and built environment and maintain and improve the quality of air, water and soils.'?? Then in point 5.21 it says how devastating this will be

Thge majority of respondents to the survey preferred the option of only 250 homes per annum. Therefore it is undemocratic to go for a much higher figer and the council should repect the views of its residents and fight the case for a lower figure.

This level of growth (both options 1 and 2) will have a devastating impact on the local environment and loss of greenbelt. They are both way over the level of growth preferred by local people and I see no evidence to suggest that this is necessary. Given that we will be in a recession for the next 10 years, what is the point in aiming for this level of growth with the unnecessary loss of amenity to local people? We are not expecting the required level of increase in employment or personal finance to enable this number of people to buy new houses in these huge numbers. Look at the number of unsold new homes on the market in the county already. It is totally unrealistic to expect developers to first build, and then sell, this number of homes in the county year on year. Aim for something that is more achievable and closer to the lower level of growth chosen by local people in previous consultations. And save our precious greenbelt in the process!!

Housing need projections are based on economic conditions which no longer prevail and are unlikely to return for 5-10 years. Housing need grows with economic growth.

The 2011 census shows that the population has not grown to the level assumed in the preferred options. Therefore the justification for the number of new homes proposed is not valid.

The proposal of needing green field sites to deliver a reasonable number of new homes to supply a localised workforce is not justified. Much of the current population of Leamingotn, Warwick and Kenilworth is not employed locally. in light of mitigating climate change the scenario of commuting large distances is changing and the homes once more need to be sited close to the places of work such as Gaydon.

Data used for projections of required housing is already out of date and inaccurate (agreed by council representatives at public meeting on Woodloes in July 2012). Combined with recent news confirming continuing recession in the UK this indicates the projections are vastly overestimating the requirements for housing and the planned numbers need to be revised downwards.

See attachment

Thank you for consulting with the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on Warwick's local plan preferred option.

The HBF is the principle representative body of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the views of our membership of multinational PLCs, through regional developers to small, local builders. Our members account for over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year including a large proportion of the new affordable housing stock.

We would like to submit the following representations on the draft Local Plan.

Plan period

It would be helpful if the local plan clearly stated the period of time over which it is intended to operate. This should be stated on the front cover and in the first paragraph of the introduction, as well as elsewhere in the document, including the section that addresses the housing need over the plan period. We assume that the plan period proposed is 2011 to 2029 although this is not altogether clear.

Section 5: Preferred Level of Growth

It is encouraging to see the Council taking the correct approach to establishing a housing requirement that is in conformity with the NPPF (hereafter referred to as the Framework). It is the function of the SHMA to assess the full housing needs of the district over the proposed plan period.

We note the three scenarios for setting a future housing requirement. Inevitably, given the uncertainties regarding the economy, relying on any one employment-based scenario as the basis for setting a housing requirement could prove too inflexible in the event that the district (or adjoining districts) experience higher levels of employment growth than projected by a particular scenario. We note that option 1 allows for 600 homes a year, while option 2 allows for 700 homes a year. Option 3 has been discounted because the projected increase in jobs would not be matched by the increase in homes (paragraph 5.19).

We do have some qualms about assuming that there is a direct relationship between new jobs in the district and the demand for new homes. The relationship may not be as strong as the Council thinks, and to some extent, the demand for housing in the district will come from people who work elsewhere, typically in the larger employment centres of Solihull, Coventry, Birmingham etc.

We note that the Council's preferred level of housing growth is for 10,800 homes over the plan (PO1: preferred level of growth). This is inadequate since it is lower than the most recent household projections and the evidence from the most recent SHMA (2012). It also fails to take into account the decisions of adjacent local authorities.

SHMA (2012)

The SHMA indicates that the annual need for affordable housing will be 698 homes per year (paragraph 7.50). This exceeds the proposed option, and, significantly, only addresses the affordable housing need, not the demand for market housing. The report does not appear to have assessed what the market need will be in the district in addition to this affordable need. As such, the SHMA does not satisfy the requirements of the Framework, paragraph 159.

It is unclear how the three modelled housing scenarios relate to the requirement of the Framework for the SHMA to identify the scale of housing needed over the range of tenures, including housing demand (paragraphs 47 and 159). It is unclear whether the figure of 698 affordable homes per year relates to the three scenarios since it exceeds two of them and is almost comparable to the third. The SHMA needs to set out what the quantity of need is for market housing and affordable housing over the plan period.

The Council has not explained in its Preferred Option why it is choosing to discount the evidence of need identified by the SHMA. It would appear that the Council is relying upon the argument that because the SHLAA can only identify land for 11,410 homes (paragraph 5.18). This, however, would be to pursue an capacity-based approach to determining the future housing requirement of the district, rather than using the new plan as an opportunity to review the efficacy of existing policies and constraints and consider the possibility of removing these in order to meet the level of housing need identified in the SHMA. A capacity-based approach would be contrary to the Framework, as the expectation is that the Council will do all it can to meet objectively assessed needs (see paragraphs 14, 17, 47, 179 and 182).

Household projections

The 2008 based household projections indicate an increase of 13,000 households over the period from 64,000 in 2013 to 77,000 in 2028 - a period that is approximately comparable to the proposed plan period of 2011 to 2029. This is a figure that approximates to option 2 - the projected employment rate scenario of 12,888 homes. The Council suggests that this employment projection is likely to be optimistic (paragraph 5.22) owing to the most recent ONS GDP forecasts. Nevertheless, the Council may be surprised, and economic growth, and consequently housing demand, may be stronger than it expects. If this is the case the plan will need to have the capacity to respond to rising demand. This would be in accordance with the Framework which expects local plans to meet objectively assessed needs and have sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change.

Furthermore, while we would not dispute the Council's current pessimistic economic prognosis, it is important to remember that housing demand is not solely related to employment. Warwick will continue to experience many more affluent households moving into the district who may work elsewhere and non-economically actives households will continue to consume housing in the more desirable locations. The Council will need to cater for these tastes, but also increase the overall level of supply in order that those on low to medium incomes are not priced out of the district by affluent incomers. Citing the recession as a reason to scale-back plans to accommodate more housing would also be contrary to the Government's new, more positive, planning agenda, as set out in the Ministerial Statement Planning for Growth which sees planning has playing a pivotal role in facilitating greater levels of growth.

Duty to cooperate

There is also the matter of the duty to cooperate to consider and how Warwick's plan will provide for its own unmet needs that cannot be addressed through the plan (paragraph 179 of the Framework) as well as potentially the unmet needs of adjoining councils (paragraph 182). If the council is unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need through its plan (once it has properly identified this, and once it has reviewed existing policy constraints) it will need to plan to ensure that these needs can be met elsewhere without the district. To do so, it will need to plan in concert with adjoining councils.

The draft plan appears to be silent on this question. We note that at least two of Warwick's neighbours - Solihull and Stratford Upon Avon - are advancing plans that will not meet their own 'objectively' assessed housing needs (although there is an issue with the soundness of their own SHMA assessments when judged against the NPPF). Solihull is proposing only 525 homes per year when its SHMA indicates a need for 904 affordable homes. Stratford is proposing a plan requirement of 7,500 homes yet its own housing requirements study recommends between 11 and 12,000 homes over the plan period. Clearly if Solihull and Stratford are not proposing to meet their own requirements then it is very unlikely that they will be willing to accommodate any of Warwick's unmet needs. This suggests that Warwick will need to fully accommodate it own housing requirement since it cannot rely on anyone else to pick up the tab.

The location of new housing

It is unclear why the Council feels it needs to phase the delivery of sites (paragraph 7.20). Surely, if all the sites have been assessed as being suitable for housing, and thus sustainable in terms of the Framework, it should be immaterial when these sites come forward for delivery.

PO5: Affordable housing

I am concerned that the Council is disregarding the evidence of its own viability study in setting an affordable housing target of 40% when the study would appear to indicate that a figure of 35% may be more appropriate. The Council maintains that it can ignore the evidence since it will be flexible in how it applies its policy to ensure viability. This would be contrary to the approach of the Framework which now requires that the cost of affordable housing policy and other policy requirements of the plan are deliverable and to ensure that these do not render developments unviable and thus the plan undeliverable.

This will require the Council to ensure that all its policies applied to be applied to sites, especially those earmarked to contribute in the first five years from the date of adoption of the plan are subject to a reasonable level of policy demands and planning obligations. The onus should not be placed on the developer to demonstrate viability but for the Council to ensure that the cumulative impact of all its policies and demands will ensure that the majority of sites, and especially all those earmarked for the first five years, are viable (see the footnote to paragraph 47 of the NPPF and pages 26 and 27 of the Viability Testing of Local Plans report).

We are also concerned that the study has not modelled-in properly the true costs of development, including those costs to be added to development by the proposed local plan. We note that the study has only factored-in the cost of building to Code 3 and Code 4, but building to the Part L Building Regulations (equivalent to Code 5) will be a requirement from 2016 onwards. This will represent a significant additional cost. The Council should refer to the most recent DCLG report: Cost of Building to the Code for Sustainable Homes: An update cost review, August 2011. This is a significant future but known cost that will impinge upon the viability of sites over the plan period but also in first five years, and must be factored into a new viability assessment (see page 26 of the Viability Testing of Local Plans report).

The viability assessment has also not taken into account the cost of building Lifetimes Homes which is a requirement of policy PO6. A revised viability assessment will need to take account of this.

The viability assessment has not accounted for the cost of the requirement of policy PO12 for developments to provide on-site renewable energy plant to provide a 20% reduction in carbon emissions. A revised viability assessment will need to take account of the costs of doing so.

The viability assessment has not accounted for the cost of biodiversity offsetting which is a requirement of policy PO15. A revised viability assessment will need to take account of this.

The viability assessment has not accounted for the cost of flood mitigation measures as stipulated by policy PO18. A revised viability assessment will need to take account of this.

The report uses BCIS costs, but this is based on Gross Internal Area and does not account for external and landscaping costs and local site works (see page 34 of the Viability Testing of Local Plans). A revised viability assessment will need to take account of this.

The figure for site acquisition costs is rather low at 5.75%. This is more likely to be between 6.5 to 7.5%. We would refer the Council to page 35 of the Viability Testing of Local Plans report.

The viability assessment also assumes a total planning gain package (S106 and/or CIL) of £6,650 per unit. This seems modest. I have commented previously on this in my letter to the council dated 20 September 2010 in which I recommended an average of £15k per dwelling is applied as a more realistic figure. Ideally the Council should prepare a CIL Charging Schedule alongside the Local Plan to ensure an integrated viability assessment and avoids the risk of the CIL setting an unrealistically high charge that has not been reflected in the viability assessment for the local plan. Under the current arrangement, if the plan was adopted, then the Council would need to ensure the levy of any CIL introduced after the plan, in combination with S106, exceeded no more than £6,650 per dwelling otherwise the plan would immediately be rendered undeliverable.

We are also unconvinced by the interpretation of the evidence. We do not feel that the council's conclusions are legitimate ones to reach since the evidence does not support the assertion that either 35% or 40% affordable housing is viable. However, this is really a matter of secondary importance compared to the need for the Council to undertake a Framework compliant viability assessment that takes into account the costs of development, local policies and plan requirements.

On behalf of Barwood Strategic Land LLP and the landowners we write in support of their
respective interests at land 'south of Gallows Hill/ west of Europa Way, Warwick'. This site is
identified in the Local Plan Preferred Options as a location for growth delivering 1,600 dwellings
in phases 2 and 3 of the plan period along with employment land, open space and community
facilities.
Land interests within the proposed allocation are also held by William Davies and Hallam Land;
it is intended that all developers and landowners will work together to secure a comprehensive
masterplanning approach to the development of this site.
We respond to the respective policy areas and chapters below:
1. Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary
- In setting the strategy, it should be made clear the time period that the plan is proposed
to cover. For example, at 1.2, there is reference to the next 15 years and only later in
the document is confirmed that that the plan period covers 2011 to 2029.
- It is noted that paragraph 4.2 makes reference to the fact that the District could grow by
as much as 15% over the next 15 years (from a current population of 138,800) - this
represents an increase of some 20,820 residents. We highlight that the 2008 based
household projections shows growth from 62,938 households in 2011 to 77,955
households in 2029. This represents an increase of 15,557 households. The 2006
based projections showed 17,110 households over the same period. The 2010 based
population projections show very similar population growth to the 2008 based projections
and although the latter remain the most up to date, it is expected that the 2010 based
CLG household projections will be very similar.
- Paragraph 4.10 should be revised to make reference to the need to ensure that Local
Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as
required by the NPPF.
2. Delivering Growth - Housing / PO1: Preferred Level of Growth
- The preferred level of housing growth is proposed to be 600 dwellings per annum
(totalling 10,800 dwellings) over the plan period, which when deducting commitments,
small SHLAA sites and windfalls results in a need to identify and allocate land for 6,986
dwellings. The Council have disregarded Option 2 (employment led growth and 700
dwellings per annum) seemingly solely on the basis that there is a lack of certainty that a
sufficient number of homes on strategic sites could be delivered within the plan period.
Using the Council's own calculations, delivering 700 dwellings per annum would result in
the need for an additional 1,800 dwellings to be found on allocated sites. Part of the
justification relates to the perceived lead in times for the delivery of the larger sites;
however the Council's own phasing programme is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard.
Phasing the larger allocations in Phases 2 and 3 (i.e. post 2019) could result in a
significant number of dwellings coming to the market at the same time and making it
difficult to therefore deliver an additional 1,800 dwellings in full within the plan period.
3 of 6
We would suggest that the Council allows the market and the development industry to
regulate itself in respect of the phasing and the timing of the delivery of development.
To allow the larger allocations to make a start earlier in the plan period will ensure
steady delivery of housing over the life of the plan. It is not in a developer's own interest
to saturate the market however steady delivery on a number of sites over a number of
years will promote healthy competition and ensure sufficient time to allow such sites to
be built out in full. Furthermore, in doing this, there would exist the opportunity to
allocate land for the 'missing' 1,800 dwellings which would make a bigger step towards
meeting the Council's housing need.
- In addition, we highlight that the NPPF makes reference to development which is
sustainable going ahead without delay. It follows that in order for a site to have secured
an allocation in what will be an adopted Local Plan, that site must be sustainable and
therefore in accordance with the NPPF, there is no need for that site to be held back by
an arbitrary phasing policy.
- The Localism Act enshrines a Duty to Cooperate on Local Authorities when preparing
plans. In the event that Warwick District does not meet its own housing need in full, we
see no evidence of adjoining LPA's being prepared to take on and meet that need. The
District is bounded by the following LPA's:
- Stratford District: Latest draft Core Strategy did not propose to accommodate sufficient
growth to meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Coventry: Latest draft Local Plan does not propose to accommodate sufficient growth to
meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Rugby Borough: Adopted Core Strategy does not include any proposals to accommodate
unmet need from Warwick District.
- It is not therefore clear the way in which the Duty to Cooperate has been carried forward
or the way in which the District's housing need will be met in full, particularly given that
the household increase is projected to be closer to 15,557 households rather than the
10,800 households currently being planned for.
- Further justification for using lower housing targets is provided in paragraph 5.22 where
it is stated that using Option 2 would meet the projected change in employment between
2011 and 2031 as identified in the West Midlands Integrated Policy Model. However the
Council consider this to now be optimistic as it was carried out in 2010 and forecast an
increase in employment growth from 2011. We highlight however that throughout the
NPPF there is reference to the need to 'plan positively' and the need to stimulate and
secure economic growth. It would appear that the Council are revising their growth for
the period to 2029 (i.e. the long term) because short term growth has failed to
materialise. This cannot be said to be planning positively or assisting in securing
economic growth.
4 of 6
3. PO3: Location of Growth
- The components of growth are reviewed below:
- Committed Housing Sites (1,224 dwellings): whilst clearly committed sites, we question
whether it is appropriate to include all of these sites and not include any allowance for
non-implementation. A 10% non-implementation rate is the industry 'norm' which we
consider should be applied here, thus reducing the commitments to 1,102 dwellings.
- Small Urban SHLAA sites (290): We seek clarification as to where these sites fall within
Table 7.2 of the Draft Local Plan (DLP).
- Other Windfall Housing Sites (2,300): Paragraph 7.25 of the DLP confirms that the
Council consider there to be a limited supply of land within the existing built up areas of
the towns. Windfalls can be included if the Council can demonstrate that such sites have
consistently become available in the local area and will continue to form a reliable source
of supply having regard to the SHLAA. The Council's SHLAA methodology confirms that
a minimum site size of 5 dwellings was used and that Officer's did not rely solely on sites
which supplied to them by developers or landowners but also conducted their own
research including reviewing areas currently in non residential use and looking at small
scale developments such as change of use of existing buildings. It would therefore
appear that the Council have had every opportunity to identify suitable residential sites
and include them in the SHLAA. With the removal of rear garden land from the definition
of previously developed land, we consider that the scope for new windfall development is
much reduced and that windfalls will no longer continue to make up a significant element
of future supply. Furthermore, under the banner of the NPPF and the requirement to
plan positively, windfalls should be seen as a 'bonus' rather than forming approximately
20% of the overall supply.
Land South of Gallows Hill
- The distribution of housing growth across the District is supported with particular
reference to Land South of Gallows Hill. It is noted that within the Council's Landscape
Character Assessment (February 2009), it is concluded that the study area is not suitable
and the rural character should be safeguarded from development. It is however clear
that this study has considered landscape character in isolation and this study should be
considered 'in the round' as is only one part of the evidence base underpinning the Local
Plan. The NPPF is clear that economic growth is a priority and that economic, social and
environmental factors have to be balanced against each other.
- The developers of this site will be commissioning technical and environmental work to
underpin the draft allocations; this will include detailed landscape and visual work to
demonstrate ways in which the site can be developed without adverse landscape impact.
- Whilst the developers will be working together to ensure a comprehensive approach to
the delivery of the site, we consider it important to recognise that within this should exist
the flexibility to ensure that each developer can bring parts of the site forward at their
own pace within an overall masterplanned approach. The delivery of large sites is often
5 of 6
hampered by requirements to submit a single planning application which can cause
significant delays and is often to the detriment of the site itself.
4. PO5: Affordable Housing
- Whilst we do not object to the provision of affordable housing in principle, we do not see
any up to date evidence of the way in which the appropriateness of the target as been
assessed in terms of the financial viability of development in accordance with paragraphs
173 and 174 of the NPPF. Paragraph 7.43 of the DLP makes reference to a November
2011 document and an Addendum dated May 2012. The May 2012 document does not
feature in the Evidence Base on the Council's web-site and therefore we reserve the
right to make further representations in this respect upon publication of this document.
5. PO6: Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Housing
- We consider that sufficient flexibility should be included within any policy to ensure that
account is taken of up to date market demand in addition to the SHMA's. The latter can
become obsolete very quickly and clearly, if developers feel there is no demand for a
particular type of property then they will not build it, which can result in stalled sites and
lower rates of housing delivery.
- Lifetime Homes: there is no national policy which requires the provision of Lifetime
Homes and we see no justification which supports 25% provision.
- Homes for Older People: whilst the provision of extra care housing is supported, these
have very site specific criteria with operators having specific requirements in respect of
site location and suitability. A site which is suitable for market housing may not be
suitable for extra care housing and it is important to ensure that this policy is not applied
so rigidly so as to sterilise areas of land or stall sites.
6. PO8: Economy
- It is noted that the Council propose to consider allocating a 'proportion' of the site south
of Gallows Hill for employment. The provision of mixed use development is supported
although clearly further clarification is required on the definition of 'a proportion'.
7. PO10: Built Environment
- The Council's Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages prospectus is supported.
8. PO12: Climate Change
- We have reviewed the Council's evidence base and do not see any case for the
introduction of a 20% climate change policy. We are also disappointed to see a
continued emphasis on renewable energy provision within new developments (when the
Council themselves acknowledge the disadvantages with some renewable technologies)
as opposed to the emphasis being placed on energy efficiency. If the overall aim is seek
a reduction in carbon emissions, we fail to see why this should be achieved through
renewable energy rather than energy efficiency measures.
6 of 6
9. PO18: Flooding and Water
- Whilst the policy as a whole is supported it is noted that much of this replicates national
guidance and is therefore superfluous. Furthermore, the requirement that all new
developments include SUDS is unfeasible. There are some instances where SUDS
schemes are not feasible or viable and this should be recognised within the policy.
10. Draft Infrastructure Planning
- Whilst the provision of a draft Infrastructure Plan is supported to assist in providing
certainty to developers when bringing forward new sites, particularly in respect of the
larger strategic sites. We consider that further refinement of this plan may be needed.
For example, within Warwick and Leamington Spa, 6 new primary schools are currently
being considered at the same time as capacity in a number of existing schools is also
identified. It is noted that the NPPF advocates a CIL charging schedule being prepared
in tandem with a Local Plan if possible and we consider this may be appropriate in this
case to assist in determining the total cost of items identified in the Draft Infrastructure
Plan. This is of particular importance when reviewing the Strategic Transport
Assessment Overview Report which identifies a requirement of up to circa £5,000 per
property for transport infrastructure without taking into account any other infrastructure
requirements or planning obligations.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Pegasus Planning Group is instructed by Bluemark Projects to submit representations in respect of the Warwick District Council Local Plan - Preferred Options consultation document dated May 2012. Bluemark Projects controls an area of land north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, outside the Green Belt, which they believe is eminently suitable for allocation as a site for sustainable residential development. Making our representations we are mindful of prevailing Government policy, especially the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act 2011. We also believe that the Ministerial Statement by Mr Greg Clark, called Planning for Growth, dated 23 March 2011 is of significance and should be take into account.

1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development. The Government has included in the NPPF a set of core land use planning principles at Paragraph 17, which should underpin both plan making and decision taking. Among these principles it is set out that planning should:

"Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities."

1.3 In respect of housing development, Section 6 of the NPPF is entitled "Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes" and sets out the following at Paragraph 47:

"To boost significantly the supply of housing, the Local Planning Authorities should:

* Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the Plan Period"

1.4 In particular the NPPF at Paragraph 179 states:

"Joint working should enable Local Planning Authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own areas - for instance, because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework"

1.5 We have been mindful in making our representations of the need for the Local Plan to be judged against the tests of soundness in set out in the NPPF. In addition at Paragraph 182 a fourth test of the soundness of the Local Plan has been introduced, namely that it is:

" ▪ Positively Prepared - the Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring Authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development"

1.6 Following the budget in March 2011, which set out The Plan for Growth, a written ministerial statement was published by the Minister for Planning, Mr Greg Clark, entitled "Planning for Growth". This statement is not one of the policy documents that has been superseded or revoked by the NPPF. The statement makes clear that the planning system should do everything it can to help secure a swift return to economic growth. In particular he states:

"Local Planning Authorities should therefore press ahead without delay in preparing up to date Development Plans, and should use that opportunity to be proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs. They should make every effort to identify and meet the housing business and other development needs of their areas, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth taking full account of relevant economic signals such as land prices"

1.7 In addition, the NPPF at Paragraph 173 deals with ensuring the viability and deliverability of Local Plans. It states:

Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

We consider this to be an important test which should be applied to the policies in an emerging local plan. The cumulative effects of policies that place additional costs on developers need to be justified, and the potential to adversely affect viability and therefore deliverability must be addressed in evidence.

2. SECTION 2

Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary

2.1 We have noted in our Introduction what we consider to be the key issues of national planning policy and legislation which should underpin plan making including the preparation of the Local Plan for Warwick. In particular, we think there should be much greater reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Localism Act 2011 and the Ministerial Statement, Planning for Growth, March 2011 included in the document.

2.2 We of course recognise that Government policy and legislation cannot alone be the key drivers of the Local Plan, and recognise that other strategies and the Council's Vision will necessarily underpin the process in Warwick. However, the omission of reference to national planning policy and legislation is we believe unfortunate and should be rectified. We note references under the heading of "Our Vision for the District" to facilitating and providing for growth both in respect of the local economy and housing needs. We support this forward looking stance on the District's part, however, we question the identification of a specific housing requirement, later contradicted in the Preferred Options document, of 550 new homes per annum on new allocated sites. It is inappropriate to include as part of the Vision which drives the Local Plan, a precise figure for one of the key components of the plan itself thereby raising concerns of a prejudicial approach to the process.

2.3 We also note under the heading of "Environment" that one of the Council's key principles is to avoid coalescence, presumably between settlements within the District, and this is a principle we would support and expect to see carry forward in terms of decisions on the spatial distribution of development. We also note the reference to new development being based on the principles of Sustainable Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages. We consider this approach to be a bold and interesting proposition, but one which cannot at this stage be held up as a prescriptive means of determining future forms of development. There is much of interest in the accompanying prospectus, dated May 2012 and entitled "Garden Towns, Villages and Suburbs". However, we feel this document can be no more at this stage than a starting point for discussion on interesting ideas around urban design.

2.4 Under the section of the plan entitled "The Local Plan Process" we again would suggest that greater reference should be made to the NPPF, and in particular at this juncture to the Localism Act 2011 and the introduction of a duty to co-operate. The Local Plan would benefit from an explanation of the two elements of the duty to co-operate, firstly the issue of legal compliance with provisions in the Localism Act 2011 itself, and secondly matters of soundness as set out in the NPPF.

2.5 The obligations regarding the duty to co-operate placed on Councils are intended to ensure that with the impending abolition of the Regional Strategy tier of planning, some semblance of co-ordination and strategic planning is maintained. Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by the Localism Act 2011, therefore requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of development plan documents. It is also clear that compliance with this legal requirement cannot be undertaken retrospectively, and must be embedded in the process of plan making during the course of preparation of the Local Plan. We note a solitary reference at the end of Paragraph 5.12 to the fact that Warwick District Council will be consulting neighbouring authorities on its proposals, but do not consider this satisfies the legal requirements or the tests of soundness placed on the Council.

2.6 This is an especially pertinent issue in relation to Warwick District Council as it is clear now that Coventry City Council is intending to plan for a level of new housing development which is very significantly lower than the needs arising in the City. Indeed, the response of Coventry City Council in respect of consultation on the Preferred Options document suggest that homes being provided in Warwick District will meet some of the needs arising in Coventry. We are not aware that this is a formal agreement between the districts, as we have seen no evidence of proper co-operation in terms of strategic planning in the sub-region. It is also the case that Birmingham has openly acknowledged that it cannot accommodate all of the needs arising within its boundaries, and will be relying on new housing development to meet the needs of the City being provided in adjoining districts. The clearly established patterns of out-commuting from Warwick into Birmingham suggest that a proportion of the housing needs of Birmingham itself which cannot be met within its boundaries will need to be met within Warwick District. Whilst it is laudable that Warwick District Council is making timely progress on preparing a Local Plan, the duty to co-operate placed upon it in terms of the Localism Act 2011 and indeed Paragraphs 178 to 181 of the NPPF mean that due attention must be given to these matters in order to avoid any problems with the progression of the Local Plan through its Examination in Public.

2.7 We note that at Paragraph 4.8 the Council identifies opportunities and issues that the District faces and the importance of the Local Plan addressing these. We agree with many of the issues identified, but consider that opportunities are not properly represented and greater reference should be made to the excellent locational benefits, strong demand for housing and robust local economy which can support growth of benefit not just to the area but to the sub-region and wider region. Under the heading 'Objectives' at Paragraph 4.9, we consider that amendment in particular to take account of the NPPF has not gone far enough. In particular, we consider that the overarching objective of the planning system should be recognised, namely helping to secure sustainable development. The Objectives section would also benefit therefore from a clear reference to the Government's view of the three dimensions to sustainable development set out at Paragraph 7 of the NPPF, namely that the planning system should perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. We believe these complementary roles are expressed in the objectives set out in the Plan, but they should be referenced more clearly to the NPPF and the achievement of sustainable development.

2.8 Under the sub-section Preferred Level of Growth, at Paragraph 5.1, we agree entirely that the Council should "plan for a level of growth that is founded on the best evidence". Again there should be reference to the NPPF and in particular the requirements of Paragraph 159 with regard to planning for an appropriate level of housing growth.

2.9 In this regard, the reference repeated at Paragraph 5.2 to an objective to support growth in the region of 550 new homes per annum is inappropriate as an issue or objective, as such a figure can only be derived once a clear understanding of the objectively assessed housing needs of the area has been explicitly set out. The need first to establish, based on robust evidence, what the objectively assessed housing needs of the area are is set out clearly in the recently published Inspector's Preliminary Conclusions with regard to the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy Examination. The Inspector, Mr Simon Emerson was clear that an objective assessment of housing needs and demands in the manner required by Paragraph 1.59 of the NPPF is an essential pre-requisite to considerations of how those needs should be met. He went on to say at Paragraph 1.11 of the annex to his Preliminary Conclusions that:

"The NPPF makes clear (e.g [Paragraph]47) that Local Plans should meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. Even if it cannot do so because the exceptions in NPPF14 are met, needs must be objectively assessed so as to identify any unmet need that should be sought in adjoining areas."

2.10 In our view, the starting point for understanding the objectively assessed needs of the District should be the most up-to-date household projections available from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). At this moment in time these are the 2008-based household projections. Analysis of this data shows that over the plan period 2011 - 2029, the projected increase in the number of households in Warwick District is 15,500. It would then be reasonable to include allowances for un-met need, vacancies and second homes in order to derive a dwelling requirement which the District should plan for through the Local Plan process. It is clear from this analysis that the figure of 10,800 dwelling which the Council proposes as its housing requirement falls far short of objectively assessed needs.

2.11 We note references in Section 5 at 5.21 that the SHLAA demonstrates the levels of growth up to 700 dwellings per annum can be accommodated within the District in strategically sustainable locations. We are not persuaded, however, by the dismissal of this option on the basis of the cursory explanation that is contained in the final sentence of that paragraph. The onus is now clearly on Local Planning Authorities to demonstrate why sustainable development, including on greenfield locations, cannot be delivered in accordance with the NPPF, to meet objectively assessed needs. In that context, the land my client controls north of Common Lane, Kenilworth would be entirely appropriate as a location for sustainable residential development, outside the Green Belt, to help meet these needs.



3 Part 2: Delivering Growth

7. Housing

3.1 Whilst we support the identification as a key issue at paragraph 7.4, 'the need to provide more housing to ensure that the needs of current and future residents are addressed', we disagree fundamentally with the preferred level of housing growth that Warwick has chosen to provide for, namely 10,800 new homes between 2011 and 2029, 600 new homes per annum. We have commented previously that we consider this figure is very significantly below the objectively assessed needs of the District. In that context therefore the proposal to provide for 10,800 new homes over the period 2011-2029 fails to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly at Paragraph 47, to use an evidence base to ensure that the Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

3.2 The Council has chosen to produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment solely for the District, and it would appear that the Council's assumptions are that this represents the housing market area within which it must meet objectively assessed needs. The alternative would be for Warwick District Council and other adjoining authorities to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment which covers a wider area taking in a number of authorities and representing a sub-region approach to the distribution of housing growth. There is no evidence that this is taking place as required in the NPPF, particularly Paragraphs 178 to 181.

3.3 The preferred option, PO3: Broad Location of Growth should, we submit, be clearer about the focus for most growth being directed within and on the edge of the existing urban areas and the preference in the first instance for the location of development in areas outside the Green Belt. We support the identification of the importance of the need to avoid coalescence of settlements, and this is especially the case with regard to Green Belt land in accordance with Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

3.4 We therefore think the identification of the broad location for growth as a preferred option would benefit from clearer prioritisation of the need: firstly to concentrate growth within and on the edge of existing urban areas in locations outside the Green Belt; the importance of avoiding development within the Green Belt which closes the gap between existing settlements, and could potentially therefore lead to their coalescence; and, in accordance with these principles, the distribution of growth across the district. We acknowledge the importance of a proportionate amount of growth in the rural areas, based on a hierarchical approach to the suitability of rural settlements.

3.5 In setting out in Table 7.1 what it believes to be the extent of existing housing land supply in the District, the Council has made an allowance for windfall development. Whilst the NPPF clearly indicates that local planning authorities can make an allowance for windfalls, it also states that they can only do so if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. In the absence of any evidence from the Council, it will not be justified in terms of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF to include a windfall allowance. We therefore expect that the Council will need produce the compelling evidence required in order to justify any windfall allowance, which must only apply to sites below the threshold for the SHLAA, and exclude garden land. We therefore have concerns that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a supply of land for 3,814 dwellings. In addition, given that we disagree that the figure of 10,800 dwellings is an appropriate housing requirement over the Plan Period, we therefore believe that the balance of land to be allocated through the Plan is significantly in excess of the 6,986 dwellings indicated at Table 7.1.

3.6 In addition, we find the reference at the end of Paragraph 7.22 to the need to provide housing to support a "Regional Investment Site" in the vicinity of the A45/A46 junction near Coventry Airport inexplicable and inappropriate. It is indicated in Paragraph 7.22 that the over-provision which the Council believes it has made in respect of new housing will enable additional housing to be provided near Coventry Airport. We fail to see how this is the case, as the total of 8,360 is accounted for by other developments identified in Warwick District. Further housing release near Coventry Airport would therefore add to this total. We have seen no proposals with regard to the Coventry Gateway Proposal at Coventry Airport for new housing to be built in the Green Belt, either in Coventry or Warwick. If such a move is to be proposed through the Warwick Local Plan, this will clearly be to meet housing needs arising in Coventry, and we would expect to see it justified fully by evidence of joint working between the respective Authorities in order to meet unmet need arising in Coventry within the Green Belt in Warwick.

3.7 PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing, proposes allocations for housing or mixed use development in order to deliver housing growth. We propose the allocation of land north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, as described in the Background Document we have prepared to support these representations, as suitable for housing development. The Background Document provides an illustrative layout which demonstrates that it is reasonable to assume a capacity of c.65 dwellings on the land outside the Green Belt north of Common Lane. We understand that the Council may not have previously had information to demonstrate that access to the site could be satisfactorily achieved, but the Background Document clearly demonstrates an access solution which will also have the benefit of improving traffic flows and safety on Common Lane.

3.8 The identification of land in the Green Belt for residential development through the plan making process can only be justified in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with Paragraph 83 in the NPPF. We do not believe that the Council can sustain the view that such exceptional circumstances exist where it has not first considered all other options for sustainable development on land outside the Green Belt. In the case of the land my client controls, north of Common Lane, Kenilworth, this site should be identified as an allocation for residential development for c.65 dwellings, in policy PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing.

3.9 Affordable Housing
The Preferred Options document acknowledges that it is not possible for the overall level of housing growth proposed to meet the arising requirements for affordable housing, as the annual arising need for affordable housing is 698,which is in excess of the proposed annual requirement of 600 dwellings per annum. In addition, as the windfall element is likely to consist of smaller sites they are unlikely to contribute towards affordable housing delivery exacerbating the shortfall. The housing requirement is therefore not addressing the need for all types of housing as required by paragraph 159 of the NPPF. In addition, the title to this subsection is incorrect as the Local Plan does not meet the need for affordable housing.

3.10 As identified in the accompanying Housing Evidence Review Paper, it is advised that a higher housing requirement is appropriate taking into consideration relevant factors. Such a requirement, in the order of 17,500, is in excess of the total arising affordable housing need (12,564 dwellings based on an average of 698 dwellings per annum over 18 years) and would assist to deliver a greater amount of affordable housing.

3.11 There is concern that if the overall arising housing needs (for both market and affordable) are not catered for, the poorest in society will be further marginalised (i.e. remaining as concealed/ shared households, when accommodation within the private rented market is potentially beyond their means) and could result in such groups moving out of the District to locations where dwellings that are affordable are available. Such an outcome would have a detrimental effect on society both socially and economically. For example, family/ social networks are broken, which potentially places a greater burden on local services and it could lead to a mismatch between available local labour and jobs, which could result in increased commuting.

3.12 In terms of the proposed policy approach, which requires 40% affordable housing on developments of 10 or more dwellings in the urban area and 5 or more dwellings in the rural area, it is important that the policy approach remains flexible as this blanket level of affordable housing will not be achievable on all development sites.

3.13 It is acknowledged that an Affordable Housing Viability Assessment has been prepared in order to test varying percentages for the affordable housing policy. Such assessments are based upon key variables to test the impact of different levels of affordable housing provision. The key variables set out within the report are: market position, location, value area, density, tenure split and developer profit. There are a number of other factors which have not been taken into account such as site remediation and provision of infrastructure. These can have a huge bearing over whether a scheme is viable or not.

3.14 Assumptions in relation to each of the key variables are used to determine viability. There is concern that given no two sites are the same general assumptions in respect of the cost and revenues of development may be inaccurate. It is therefore essential that the Council allows a flexible approach to delivering affordable housing in order to ensure that development is not prevented from coming forward as a consequence of a rigid policy approach. Similar sentiments are echoed in the Ministerial Statement of March 2012 and NPPF, both of which seek to facilitate housing delivery and ensure that Local Plans do not impose unnecessary burdens that could threaten the viability of development.

3.15 Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
It is welcomed that the PO6: Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes does not include a prescriptive approach to house sizes and types to meet the needs of communities. There is a reference to such information being set out within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. There is concern, however, that this document may not be updated regularly and therefore the information in relation to housing mix and type may become out of date. Indeed the information contained within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is already out of date to some extent as it relies on data from 2011. Further, although information is set out at a sub district level, there may be a justification for a specific mix and type of housing on a specific site or in a particular locality and therefore the Council should ensure the policy is sufficiently flexible to deal with such circumstances. We believe that housing developers have a good understanding of the markets within which they operate, as ultimately they will only build what there is demand for in the area.

3.16 The Preferred Option also requires at least 25% of homes, across all tenures, on sites of 50 or more dwellings to be built to Lifetime Home standards. This is a discretionary standard and whilst a number of house builders do achieve lifetime homes standards voluntarily. It should not be compulsory through planning policy. As with any policy which imposes an additional financial burden on developments, the requirements of Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF are especially relevant. In particular, Paragraph 174 states:

Local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan, including requirements for affordable housing. They should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence.

3.17 We have seen no assessment of the cumulative impact of all of the requirements and local standards set out in the Preferred Options document, and unless evidence is produced which supports the imposition of these, the Local Plan cannot be justified.



12. Climate Change

3.18 The Preferred Options document sets out a requirement that seeks a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from development to include a contribution from renewable and low carbon technologies, which is to be applied to residential development of one dwelling or over and to require new residential development to meet standards set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes. There is concern that this policy approach lacks flexibility and is not the most appropriate strategy. In particular, it is not in accordance with Paragraph 95 of the NPPF which requires local planning authorities:

when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards.

3.19 Reducing energy use through a 'fabric first' approach is something that many developers are currently looking at and is therefore a realistic and deliverable way forward for reducing carbon emissions. For example the AimC4 consortium is seeking ways to achieve the 25% CO2 reduction required between the future Part L 2013 building regulations and the current Part L 2010 building regulations at no additional cost. This would effectively move, in relation to Part L, from Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 to Level 4 without increasing build costs.

3.20 Any future policy on CO2 reduction should begin with energy conservation and efficiency before looking at on-site or off-site renewables / low carbon solutions. The way in which new residential development will meet the carbon reductions required in building regulations is not prescribed and therefore could comprise of a range of solutions but it appears that 'fabric first' is generally the route being pursued by house builders, and as such is a realistic cost effect way of delivering reductions. In view of the fact that carbon reduction is enshrined in current and future building regulations legislation there is no basis for adding a further layer of policy through in the Local Plan. In addition, all development must be planned for its lifetime. Reliance on technologies which may well stop working or become obsolete before the end of the life of the development should therefore be avoided. It is, for example, questionable whether solar PV panels imported from the Far East and added to developments represent a sustainable, long term solution to reducing carbon emissions.

3.21 The reference to on-site energy efficiency measures and low or zero carbon energy generation to meet a carbon reduction equivalent to 20% of predicted energy requirements is not considered to be justified. As noted above the 2013 Part L building regulations will already see a 25% improvement in CO2 emissions over current Part L building regulations (and a 44% improvement over the 2006 version). By aligning Category 1 (Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions) of the Code for Sustainable Homes with Part L of the building regulations the Government are maintaining a realistic timetable to reducing carbon emissions. The emerging Local Plan is taking a contrary approach whereby it is seeking to force measures onto new development prior to the national timetable without exploring the consequences.

3.22 In reality, in respect of house building it is the market that will really dictate the level of energy efficiency and carbon reduction in new homes over and above legal requirements. If buyers are prepared to pay the additional premium for zero carbon homes then the development industry will build them. However at the moment evidence suggests that reducing carbon emissions is not top of the list when purchasing a property, particularly when peoples' incomes are under pressure from other sources.

3.23 There is no objection to reducing the impact development has on climate change but, in respect of new housing, the policy takes no account of the cost implications that will arise from the measures, a burden that will ultimately fall on the house buyers. As previously noted, Paragraph 174 from the NPPF requires local planning authorities to assess the cumulative impact on the implementation of the Local Plan of all local standards, in order for the plan to be justified.

3.24 The Government has not made achieving a particular level against the Code for Sustainable Homes mandatory i.e. the rating can be zero. Whilst the legal requirement to reduce CO2 emissions is currently the equivalent of Code 3, and next year it will be Code 4, there is no legal requirement to meet the CO2 emission equivalent of either Code 5 (100% improvement) or Code 6 (zero net). Paragraph 95 of the NPPF states that when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability local planning authorities should do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards. The emerging Local Plan is seeking to go beyond these without justification.


15. Green Infrastructure

3.25 We object to the proposal to replace 'Areas of Restraint' with Green Wedges. There is no basis in the NPPF for adding a layer of protection or restriction over development in addition to the Green Belt, or above such areas which local communities may seek to identify as Local Green Space.

3.26 The NPPF contains, as one of its core principles in Paragraph 17, reference to recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Large parts of the District are covered by Green Belt designation, with its well established levels of control over development, and the NPPF at Paragraphs 76 and 77 allows local communities, in defined circumstances, to designate land as Local Green Space. Areas of particular nature conservation or habitat value can be afforded protection through the hierarchy of designated sites. There is no justification, therefore, for adding a further layer of 'Green Wedges' and all references to this approach should be deleted.


4 Conclusion

4.1 These representations to the Warwick Local Plan - Preferred Options consultation document have been prepared on behalf of our client, Bluemark Projects. They are supported by a Background Document which identifies a site north of Common Lane, Kenilworth which we contend should be identified as an allocation in the submission version of the Local Plan when it is published.

4.2 Our representations have set out what we consider to be flaws in the consultation document which could render the Local Plan unsound, and we therefore commend the points we have raised to you for further consideration. In particular, we have concluded that the plan should refer more explicitly to the requirements both of the NPPF and the Localism Act 2011. In should also remove references to what could reasonable be concluded is a pre-ordained approach to the overall level of new dwelling provision the Plan should provide for.

4.3 We do not believe the consultation document has properly identified objectively assessed housing needs in accordance with the NPPF, nor is there any evidence of compliance with either the legal obligations or the requirements of the NPPF with regard to the duty to co-operate. These, we contend, are serious flaws in the approach the Council is adopting.

4.4 The Council's approach to the spatial distribution of development should be clarified along the lines we have suggested, and we contend that the land outside the Green Belt north of Common Lane, Kenilworth should be allocated as a housing site in policy PO4: Distribution of Sites for Housing.

4.5 We object to elements of the Council's approach to local standards generally and consider the requirements to justify this in accordance with the NPPF have not been met. In particular we have concerns with the policy suggested for affordable housing and to the approach proposed in relation to lifetime homes. We also object local standards in the manner envisaged in relation to climate change. We further find no basis for the suggestion of a policy to identify green wedges, which should be removed from the Plan.