See scanned response forms

Attached letter/proforma

Scanned representations

scanned letter

scanned letter

Attached letter

Attached letter

Attached letter

attached proforma

attached

See attachments.

See attached

1 Introduction
1.1 In its document Local Plan Preferred Options, May 2012, at para 3.3, the Council invites the views of all interested parties to help shape a draft Local Plan.
1.2 Here are the views of The Warwick Society. They refer to the Full Version of the Preferred Options and in some cases to some of the supporting documents made available on the Council's website. The Response Form, which we have not found effective for structuring our comments, uses the words 'support or object' rather than the Preferred Options' 'the Council is keen to hear the views'. While we have phrased our comments as views, it will be clear that many would be objections to firmer proposals, and will become formal objections if the next stage of the plan-making process does not respond satisfactorily to them.
1.3 The Warwick Society, the town's civic society, was founded in 1951, and has as its first aim to conserve, for the benefit of the public, or to encourage the conservation of, the natural, artistic and cultural amenities of Warwick and its neighbourhood. It seeks to improve standards of new development to benefit both the setting of the old buildings and the life of the town and its people.
1.4 Warwick is no stranger to development. The mediæval town was largely destroyed by fire in 1694, though many timber-framed buildings at its fringes survived. Rebuilding followed a plan to widen the streets and to improve fire-resistance with stone and brick walls. It took place at the start of the Georgian era. So the High Street, the Cross, Church Street, St Mary's Church and Northgate Street form an elegant and coherent architectural ensemble. It is the juxtaposition of the mediæval with the Georgian which makes Warwick distinctive. More recently, C19 industrial development based on the canal and then the railway has been followed by more extensive C20 sprawl based on the car and the road network. In the decade 2001-2011, the population of Warwick grew from 23,000 to 30,000, a rate of increase of 30%, among the very fastest rates of any town in the UK. Assimilating this growth and building new communities takes a generation.
1.4 The new Local Plan gives a new opportunity to make the town, and the district around it, a finer place, and a better place to live, be educated, and to work in. Its population may grow, because it is attractive, and well-located at the south-eastern corner of the West Midlands. Its future residents, and those who work here or visit, need a vision which ensures that it continues to be attractive, and to function well.
1.5 This means:
1 Developing the local economy sustainably, both facilitating growth in jobs and income and reducing the impact of climate change;
2 A pattern of development which reduces dependence on the car, congestion and pollution;
3 Transport and social infrastructure which enables people to live sustainably and economically;
4 Walking routes, cycle routes, schools, health centres and shops which allow people of all ages and capabilities easy and healthy access to them;
5 A mix of housing which meets local needs, especially affordable housing for families;
6 A rate of development which allows the towns and their communities to absorb change and make each a socially and personally contenting place to be; and
7 Protecting the natural and historic environment, especially the green hinterland of towns, green spaces within them, and the historic buildings which make them special places.
1.6 The Preferred Options fail by a long way to achieve this. The Issues [para 4.8] identified in the earlier consultation correspond quite closely to those that we have emphasised. But the preferred options focus heavily on growth and new development, disregarding the relatively low priority given to them by those who responded to the earlier consultation, and disregarding the negative effects of excessive growth and development on the matters that residents consider important.
1.7 In the following sections, we consider the three main ways in which the preferred options fail to meet the expectation of those who live in the District, and suggest changes which, if introduced to the draft Local Plan, could make it a very much better direction for the District to follow.

2 Population Growth and the Demand for Housing
2.1 The Preferred Options' emphasis on growth in jobs and housing, each matching the other [para 4.10], is founded on a circular argument and on mere assumptions.
2.2 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment [para 5.13] 'projects' (not forecasts) future growth in the District's population. It explains [SHMA figs 2.13 and A2.4] that 'in-migration' has been much the most important cause of population growth in the fifteen years 1996-2010. Of a total population increase of 18.9k (from 119.8k to 138.7k), 16.5k has been net in-migration, and only 2.4k the natural change. The report notes [para 2.33] that 'past migration trends will have been influenced in part by past levels of housing delivery.'
2.3 The SHMA assumes the average rate of in-migration of the last five of those fifteen years, 2006-2010, and projects it for the next twenty. There is no quantified analysis of the causes of the in-migration, nor any quantified forecast of its future level. It is simply an assumption.
2.4 The SHMA goes on to assume an age profile for the in-migrants, again basing its projection on neither evidence nor analysis, but on assumptions, in this case those of the ONS [SHMA para 2.17]. The projection of net in-migration is the difference between two much larger numbers, gross in-migration and gross out-migration, and the in-migration figure is produced only by adding that assumed net projection to the ONS assumption of out-migration. The projection is not a forecast, just an arithmetical exercise, and its predicted growth in population is no more solid than the assumptions and extrapolations on which it is based.
2.5 The extrapolations have as their base the after-effect of rapid housebuilding in the years before the market collapsed in 2008. All that they show - as described at the end of para 2.2 above - is that if houses are built, people will move into them; in a second circularity, if the mass housebuilders do not believe that their output will be sold, they build little. A third circular argument then enters the Plan as it stands: if the population rises, employment will rise, as those who buy and occupy the new houses are very likely to have jobs - without which they do not have the means to buy the houses.
2.6 We conclude that the preferred level of 'growth' is simply a bid for growth, rather than a forecast for which there is either evidence or action plan, other than almost free-for-all development with all of the negative impacts on existing residents and the environment that that will bring. The alternatives of more modest levels of growth, in both housing and employment, with much lower damaging impacts, would be equally valid for the Council to choose. We urge that it should reconsider its preference in the light of the absence of evidence in support of it, and take a broader view of both growth and all its consequences.

3 Infrastructure
3.1 The infrastructure proposals do not provide for sustainable development. The modelling of the existing network against possible locations for development consists only of modelling vehicle flows. It does not reflect the national polices and Local Transport Plan which require priority to be given to reducing the demand for transport, and to walking cycling, and public transport.
3.2 Except for the possibility of Kenilworth station (which would have a negligible impact on demand for road use in the peaks) all of the significant infrastructure proposals are for increases in the road network. They have been selected to deal with some of the local congestion created by increase in demand of the various housing site options. They do not provide a coherent transport network for Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth, rather a continuation of the existing mismatch between traffic and the capacity available to accommodate it.
3.3 Good railway services are already provided at Leamington and Warwick Parkway stations. The level of service at Warwick station is significantly inferior to that of Warwick Parkway, even though it serves a much more substantial population within walking distance. Conversely, almost all access journeys to Warwick Parkway are by car. For journeys to and from work, Birmingham and London are significant destinations and there is some commuting in to Warwick and Leamington which is badly served by Warwick Parkway. The basis of a sustainable infrastructure plan should be to improve train services at all three of these stations, and especially at Warwick station, and to concentrate development close to them, minimising car use. This possibility does not appear to have been considered.
3.4 The conclusion of the modelling is that the existing level of congestion on the urban road network in Warwick, and elsewhere, will be worse than now for longer each day. No attention has been given to the requirement to reduce the impact of traffic on Warwick town centre, in particular to meet the Air Quality Management Area requirement to reduce the level of noxious emissions. This failure invalidates the infrastructure plan. The health of residents, as well as the town centre economy and the conservation of its historic buildings all require that the legal requirement to restore air quality should be given absolute priority.
3.5 Instead, the infrastructure plan proposes spending almost all of the potential developers' funding contributions on major expansion and 'improvement' of the road network. The lesson was learned decades ago that changes of this kind, increasing capacity on some congested sections, simply increases congestion on adjacent parts of the network, through the traffic that the improvements generate.
3.6 We are disappointed and concerned that the preferred options do almost nothing to allow transport demand to be met more sustainably, rather simply try to accommodate it at the expense of the environment and of existing residents and road users. We consider that the whole emphasis of the plan should be above all on sustainability of transport, not just for its environmental impact but also because the prosperity of residents of the district depends on accessibility to services without having to meet the increasing costs of car use.

4 Locations for Development
4.1 Much of the criticism of the Preferred Options has been directed towards the allocation of particular areas of greenfield land at the fringes of the urban area on which large-scale house building is proposed. These sites represent a major misdirection of development. We consider that, rather than the strategy of the Preferred Options, the pattern of development in the district should be dramatically different.
4.2 The total level of development should be substantially lower, of the order of 250 dwellings per annum, Option 1, which is sufficient to meet local needs and not to encourage in-migration.
4.3 Unbuilt existing permissions themselves provide nearly five years' supply to meet this level of requirement.
4.4 Beyond these absolute priority should be given to brownfield sites, as provided for by the NPPF. The Preferred Options propose only that brownfield sites should be used at the end of the plan period, the effect of which would be to consume greenfield sites rather than to bring forward brownfield sites by increasing their value. Some brownfield sites may provide for small numbers of dwellings, but these should not be dismissed: there are potentially many of them.
4.5 Brownfield development should include the intensification of existing development within the urban areas. We do not rule out 'garden development', which can often be in locations close to existing facilities and employment and easily served sustainably. There are extensive areas of development carried out mainly in the second half of the twentieth century where more intensive use of existing housing and employment land would be entirely feasible - were the market signals to encourage it. The proposals for much more intensive office use of the IBM/Opus 40 site on the north-west edge of Warwick go too far in this direction, but demonstrate that intensifying development on a site well connected to the transport network can be attractive to developers.
4.6 Only as a last resort should greenfield land be allocated. The suggestion that it can produce high-quality environments by applying the principles of the garden cities is spurious. The garden cities were planned around local employment and services (in the era before the car, competing supermarkets, choice of school admissions, and two-income households became the societal norm): that is not how we live now. All of the greenfield sites at the urban fringe would be largely car-dependent. As well as their damaging impact on infrastructure and on existing settlements, they would not produce stable, happy communities of their own. The rapid growth in population of Warwick in the last decade requires a period of much gentler growth while the new communities gel.
4.7 The allocation of land south-east of Warwick between the Banbury Road and Europa Way does exactly what the Preferred Options say that they wish to avoid, merging the built-up areas to their east and west. The northern part, north of Gallows Hill, would make Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash into a continuous, sprawling urban area. The southern part, between Europa Way and the Banbury Road would extend this sprawl beyond the natural existing edge of the built-up area, taking development over higher ground and visible from long distances. It would have a directly damaging effect on Castle Park, Grade 1 registered landscape.
4.8 The Green Belt was established to end the outward sprawl of the major conurbations. Circumstances change and there may be exceptional reasons for declassifying Green Belt land: the expansion of Warwick University may be a virtuous case of this. But it is essential that its edges should not be eaten into by extending urban sprawl, for example at Loes Farm and north of Leamington, in the opposite direction from that which it was originally intended to prevent. Similarly, when the Green Belt was designated land south of Warwick and Leamington was not seen as threatened by sprawl from the conurbation simply because the towns stood in the way. Now, that land requires the same level of protection as the post-war Green Belt gave to the edge of the Birmingham and Coventry built-up areas.
4.9 Instead, the Green Belt has become the guarantor of favourable surroundings for the few residents in and outside villages scattered across it. Given the severe damage to the existing urban areas that would follow from their outward extension, an entirely different approach is required to find acceptable greenfield sites. The possible 'Gateway' development around Coventry Airport is an example of this approach: it must concentrate employment and housing close to good transport links without creating undue pressure on the existing urban areas. Planned new or enlarged settlements outside Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth, and in some cases outside the district - delivered through cooperation with neighbouring authorities - should also be preferred. The substantial employment at Gaydon is not matched by housing provision in the locality, rather met by car-borne commuting to it. Warwick Parkway station and the nearby A46 provide an opportunity not for an urban extension but for a new settlement outside the existing urban boundary, which would not damage what lies within it. Hatton and Lapworth, with existing railway stations, could also be the focus of much more extensive development than is proposed.

5 Conclusion
5.1 We have concentrated on the three main ways in which the preferred options would both worsen the quality of life of the district's residents and damage the historic environment.
5.2 In the copious supporting documentation, there are many more details of the proposed policies which we cannot support.
5.3 But we have limited our comments to these three main issues to try to persuade the Council that the eventual draft Local Plan must be very different from the Preferred Options now proposed.
5.4 We urge the Council to reconsider its preferences and to recognise its long-term responsibility to both the environment and the quality of life of Warwick district.

See Attached.

I am writing in response to the above publication issued by the council to object to what seems to be ill thought out scheme. It would appear that the aim is the development to provide a vibrant and thriving town where people want to live, work and relax which at first glance seems to be a good idea but in the current economic climate (which I see extending well into 2015 and beyond) I think this could be misguided when money is tight. We need to extract maximum gain for minimum outlay.
You aim is for 555 home per year but there is little information contained within as to where this figure has come from and what the make of the proposed resident taking up these homes? When I'm out and about in Leamington it seems to me that the population is aging or old judging by the number of care homes in the district, has your proposal considered this and their requirements as it's a well-known fact that we are all living longer? With the on-going lack of finance to purchase these properties is the council proposing some sort of assistance? Or are we going to end up with ghost estates? The old Potterton site has been re-developed and a good proportion of that is still empty and unsold from what I can see.
Following on from this as a landlord I know in certain areas these empty properties are been taken on by housing association to provide affordable housing but depending on the number this could result in a highly desirable estate being tainted and the home owners losing out big time as a result. So again this could deter people from relocating to Leamington
You say that you want 40% of the housing to be affordable but go into no detail on how you intend to achieve this as this is one of the most expensive areas to buy property? And more importantly keep them affordable long term? Will you ensure all such residents have covenants that prevent tenant ownership and if so how would you enforce it?
Is the council intention to ensure that these new developments have been designed to promote a safe environment and reduce any policy costs going forward?
What steps have the council taken to assess the effects that the proposed Milverton development would have on the water levels in the area considering this area is surrounded to the north and west by the river?
Going by the contents of the summary I do not see any exceptional circumstance to warrant the destruction of the green belt, which once gone cannot be replaced and is conytrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. To the north of Leamington these is limited local amenities. And I know from my daily walks with my dog the vast range of wild life that exist in the proposed Milverton area from bats, newt to a vast array of birdsong which lifts my heart every time I hear it regardless of the weather. I also know the vast number of dog walkers, runners, cyclists and ramblers from around the district that make use of and enjoy these limited facilities
Also by the fact that you have identified non Green Belt land that could be used, and that developers probably already have options on, and that you have discounted then I am certain that owners of this land in conjunction with developers will gain planning permission on appeal resulting in a vast over provision of land to the detriment of the town and its residents
You state that you want to ensure that people who work in the district have the opportunity to live here but what has this decision be based on as I suspect judging by the morning jam that the majority of residents actually work in the surrounding district or further afield judging by the station platforms for the rush hour trains to Birmingham and London
You state that you want to reduce through town traffic, this I am sure is of concern to existing traders in the town centre and likely to deter any new venue looking for a location as this is likely to reduce footfall and likely income
What is the situation with empty properties within the district? What percentage are empty? What steps are being taken to get them back in to use, is the council using any incentives?
To my mind from the above points the starting point in developing a local plan would be to look at the logistical issues inherent in the district which I see as
* Leamington is split in half with a band that covers the river, canal and railway line - with only 4 historic crossing points
* The vast majority of the Leamington trading and industrial estates, that will form the majority of the employers locally are south of this divide
* To the west Leamington butt up against Warwick so the scope for doing anything in this area is limited, especially as the division is again reinforced by the river
* The ultimate boundary to the north is fixed by the A46
* The ultimate boundary to the south is fixed by the M40
* The vast majority of the out skirts of the town to the north and east areas are bound by green belt
* There are only two routes between Leamington and Warwick that are divided by the river

Bearing the above points in mind any plan should to my way of thinking:
* Be geared to address the bottle neck in getting around in the district so to this end it should be to improve the means of negotiating the river/canal/railway line with consideration to
o introducing a crossing to the east of the town and a ring road joining Heathcote Whitnash and Cubbington and improving the West Hill Road out to where it joing the A452
o introducing a link across the river to link the two roads between Leamington and Warwick to provide more travel flexibility
o improving the capacity of the fossway to provide an alternative transport path with the introduction of roundabouts at dangerous crossing point
o improving the A452 so that it provides a main transport path as it "A" rating denotes rather than being controlled by feed from minor roads at Shires Park and Chesford Bridge
o improving transport paths in Kenilworth to provide ring road to the west
* improving the local rail infrastructure to provide an alternative means of getting between Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth say the introduction of minor stations at milverton, sydenham, whitnash, emscote, hospital/race course with regular service supporting these stops are peak hours
* Improving bus service by proving circular routes rather than the usual star systems
* Ensuring that it does not exacerbate current transport aspects within the district developing north of the river when industrial and trading estates are south of the river is simply not logical
I my view the proposed introduction of a northern relief road through Old Miverton will not achieve the desired result as it will simply put more loading on the Old Milverton Road (which is not included in your proposal for upgrade).and the A445. Also are residents going to take a 5 mile roundabout route when they only want to go 0.5 mile up the road?. The introduction of this road will also result in the destruction of Old Milverton and be the start of the coalescence of the urban area between Leamington and Kenilworth.
I'm not convinced either that a park and ride scheme is the right way forward and would like to see what basis the council has for this and its cost effectiveness. I know when I pass the one in Stratford (which is a location with far greater attractions and hence visitors) always seems to be empty.
The first time I used the A46 after the M40 junction was modified to improve traffic flow I was elated until I arrived at the roundabout which to my mind will simply backup the congestion to that point . Why this roundabout wasn't situated below the road with slip roads to it I simply can't understand. So let's try and do better going forward.
Finally one area that I see as missing from you plan is an ECO goal, I know that you mention climate change, reducing carbon emissions and the like but I think the council should be championing measures well beyond anything given in national sustainable construction. There are a number of developments around the country when innovative design has been applied providing high density housing whilst still providing tenants with the same levels of outlook on a normal estate. Again I was excited when it was announced that the old Potterton site was to be redeveloped but I am ashamed every time I drive past as it could have be used to provide an indication of a forward thinking council.

Please see attachment relating to Policy PO4 Distribution of sites for housing and objections to pargraphs 7.24 to 7.33 and:
1. Scale of Green belt release north of Wrawick and Leamington;
2. Proposed Allocation South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way, Warwick
3. Proposed new alternative allocation south of Harbury Lane, Warwick

We feel that the initial process for determining the location for the new housing is fundamentally flawed. Where the housing and employment land is needed and most appropriate should have been decided first and then the land acquired not building where land has been offered. The document states " make sure new developments are in places that will reduce the need for people to use their cars".

PO 12 also states that "transport is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions" yet all the proposed sites outlined in the plan will lead to more car journeys. It is difficult to imagine that there will be enough CIL money to develop the public transport measures needed to tempt people out of their cars.

It would make more sense to build around Warwick Parkway Station and the proposed station in Kenilworth.

In determining the number of houses needed little heed seems to have been taken of the housing stock being released by an aging population. It is difficult to see how anything in this plan has much economic benefit for Warwick. The SHMA says that employment will drive demand for housing and that 526 houses per annum are needed to achieve employment growth of 10% and forecasts employment growth of 11,860 jobs over years 20l1-203l.It is difficult to see where these jobs will come from unless the jobs created by the Coventry and Warwick Gateway scheme are included and what benefit will that bring to Warwick. The document says "need to provide employment land in and around the Districts main towns to meet local needs and encourage creation of jobs". All the employment land options are outside Warwick and there is no mention of employment opportunities within the town centres.

RefP09
*
It is hard to justify "specific support for a major new retail development in Leamington Town Centre" as how will Warwick and Kenilworth prosper? We would like to suggest that the phrase "strongly resist any out of town centre proposals" be replaced with "not allow any out of town proposals" if WDC is serious about ensuring that" our town centres remain successful". There is no mention in the plan of the effect of cyber retailing and where are the plans for Wi Fi in our town centres? There are few firm proposals in this document or the draft infrastructure document for the plan to bring people into the town centre eg public transport, parking and ,particularly for Warwick, coach parking.

RefP017
There is nothing in the plan as to how WDC will "support visitor accommodation
in town centres"

RefP018
We suggest that "ensure that new development can be provided with adequate
water supply" should read "sustainable water supply".

With reference to the Green Infrastructure plan. Why are the four future opportunities not included in the plan.

Warwick Chamber of Trade are disappointed that there appears to be little of benefit to the town and hopes to see some improvements in the final document.

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.

see attached