Policy DS16 Sub-Regional Employment Site is unsound, it contravenes the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); there has been no consultation with the local community and other stakeholders concerning the removal of this land from Green Belt; the Sub-Regional Employment Site is NOT the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
There is neither objectively assessed need for the policy nor any consideration against reasonable alternatives subject to sustainability appraisals. The policy should be based upon evidence including the production of a sub-regional strategy. The evidence should not be prepared retrospectively in an attempt to justify the plan.

This policy is at odds with your policy with growth villages. This will add housing in these areas but not employment. Just more people driving cars in the area!

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

see attached

Warwick District Council Local Plan Consultation:
Response from Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership

Thank you for inviting the CWLEP to comment on your Local Plan consultation.

The CWLEP notes that the Local Plan submission draft has been positively prepared and supports the growth ambitions of the C&W SEP for growth and investment. However more reference should be made to the overarching framework for growth and positive statements toward achieving inward investment and economic growth in line with the NPPF.

The CWLEP recognises that the pre submission Local Plan makes strong connection between the need for employment growth and housing growth. However, the CWLEP questions whether the plan makes adequate provision for new employment land, in terms of quantum, location and choice. Policy DS8 states the Council will provide for a minimum of 66 hectares and paragraph 2.29 says there is a need to allocate 19 to 29 hectares of new employment land. However Policy DS9 only allocates 19.7 hectares (plus an allowance for local needs at the sub-regional site). Furthermore both Policy DS8 and DS9 are framed to meet 'local needs' whereas an objective of the SEP is to also encourage and support inward investment. The policies need to be flexible and to enable the decision-taker to be responsive to meeting business needs. The CWLEP would advise that strong consideration should be given to the employment land study (the Atkins study).

The allocation of land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport as a sub-regional employment site (Policy DS9) supports the SEP. However Policy MS2: Major Sites in the Green Belt does not support the SEP. The local plan should take a more positive stance to the sites identified, which includes Honiley Airfield at Fen End, rather than merely comment that "there may be very special circumstances to justify further development." If this were to be the case there would be no need for the policy at all as further development could be allowed under existing Green Belt policy. The policy should identify the sites for development and set down development management criteria, which should include for flexibility in proposed uses.

Policy EC1 fails to comply with the policies of the NPPF in relation to opportunities for SMEs. The NPPF provides for the conversion of existing buildings (not just as part of a farm diversification scheme) plus the erection of well-designed new buildings within rural areas. The NPPF also provides for the replacement of a building. These forms of development do not appear to be provided for in the plan (except in the Green Belt). There should also be no need in EC1 - In rural areas, criterion e) to limit support to just the growth and expansion of 'existing rural businesses and enterprise'. In line with the SEP and NPPF the policy should allow for new business start-ups and enterprises moving into the area. The provision and effect of the policy is inconsistent with the explanation to it.

The CWLEP considers that there are a number of potential missed opportunities:

* Rail links - Warwick Parkway/Leamington stations should be identified and the implications should be considered. There could be opportunities to encourage sustainable interchange facilities and at Leamington there could be issues associated with the gyratory at Old Warwick Rd/Bath St/Spencer St/Lower Avenue.

* Employment sites - Notwithstanding the Green Belt issues at Fen End, Stoneleigh Park and Thickthorn the document is a bit cautious in tone. In addition, there should be a commitment for the monitoring and alignment of employment with the needs of business and investment, which should be based on evidence of revised economic forecasts.

* Kenilworth Station - a bit cautious in tone

* High Employment/housing ratio - This is potentially quite difficult in that it raises long term development issues that could lead to housing choices needing to be made in the future presenting WDC with some very difficult strategic housing land decisions about the whole balance of the development of Warwick/Leamington. This could eventually lead to a need to consider Green Belt releases to the north.

* Policy EC1 could be more positively worded, for example, it could be amended to read "It is not clear whether Policy EC1 applies equally within and beyond the Green Belt"?

* Monitoring and review - there should be a commitment from each Council and the C&W LEP area on monitoring and alignment employment. This monitoring data would identify the needs of business and investment should be based on evidence on revised economic outlook/forecasts and current market conditions. This data will also help to guide the alignment between housing and employment land provision for the sub-region.



CWLEP Planning Business Group, June 2014.

----

Please see the below e-mail sent on behalf of the CWLEP:

Please note that the response submitted on behalf of the CWLEP to the WDC Local Plan contained a minor error - please disregard the suggestion that policy EC1 should be more positively worded.

Kind regards

Lizzie

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached