I OBJECT TO THE HOUSING PROPOSALS DUE TO THE FACT THAT:
- THE LAND IS GREENBELT DESIGNATED
- WITH THE PROPOSAL OF HS2 RUNNING THROUGH THE AREA THE BUILD UP OF TRAFFIC ON THE RUGBY ROAD WILL INCREASE DRAMIATICALLY
- HS2 PLANS TO INTERSECT THE RUGBY ROAD, HOW WILL THE TWO BUILDING PROJECTS WORK TOGETHER
-FLOODING PROVISIONS IN THE AREA ARE ALREADY STRETCHED. ADDING MORE CONCRETE WILL NOT HELP THIS MATTER
- THE LOCAL AMENITIES CANNOT COPE WITH ALL THESE ADDITIONAL HOMES

Selection of the H50, land East of Cubbington, is an ill-considered decision, which has failed to take into account a number of crucial points, which make this plan not sound or legally compliant.

1. The area allocated is arable, greenbelt land and National Planning Policy dictates that Green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Building Houses on the site of H50, does not constitute exceptional circumstances when there are far more suitable alternatives in the Cubbington area. With a growing population, how will building on arable land help? Yes, there will be increased housing but insufficient locally grown produce to feed the population. Resulting in food costs spiraling upwards as it now has to be imported with the risks and over reliance issues this poses.

2. The H50 site currently soaks up a lot of rain water, but even then there is run off into the brook at the bottom of the field during extreme weather events. This water then runs through the village. In 2007 due to the amount of water runoff, the lower portion of Cubbington was flooded with many residents seeing their homes under water. Even if the developers implemented improved drainage throughout the lower Cubbington village, building on the H50 land will still leave the risk of flooding to parts of the village to be unacceptably high.

3. The Local plan has completely failed to take into account the local infrastructure and the impact of building 195 houses (95 on H50) will have. Has it been determined that the two primary schools in Cubbington Village, have the capacity to accommodate the children from the 195 new homes? Has the impact on North Leamington School been assessed, for not only the impact of the new homes in Cubbington but in the wider Leamington area? The Cubbington and Lillington area is served by the Cubbington Surgery on Rugby Road, a surgery that today is oversubscribed. What provisions have been made to enlarge or provide new local surgeries? On the bigger scheme, what plans are in place to enlarge Warwick Hospital to accommodate and provide a good level of service to all the residents who live within the Warwick DC area who require both in and outpatient services? The Local Plan has not considered the impact on congestion and car parking within the Warwick DC area. Today at weekends it can be difficult to find parking in Leamington Town Centre and traffic can be very slow due to the volume. Building 1000s of new homes will only make this worse, if new carparks and road improvement are not provided. The proposed Local Plan has failed to consider these crucial and critical infrastructure issues.

4. The site of H50 and the land east of Cubbington is of particular beauty and home to a multitude of wildlife. On any given day in this area, several varieties of birds of prey like kestrels and merlins and woodland birds like woodpeckers and pheasants can be seen, plus a wide variety of garden birds. Building on H50 will not only destroy an area of great beauty, which future generations will be unable to enjoy, it will also have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife.

In summary the selection of the H50 land is wrong, is not suitable for the purpose of building houses. Furthermore I doubt that the people responsible for choosing this site even visited it before slecting it. From reviewing the plan it clearly looks like the work of someone, sat at a desk, with a map and a set of crayons. If they had visited the site they would have seen many of the issues faced.

The fact the parish Council was not consulted on H50 is incomprehensible and inexcusable. Those involved in preparing the plan must be held accountable for this.

It is wholly unacceptable that Cubbington Parish Council was NOT consulted about the development allocation of site H50 Land East of Cubbington. The plan therefore fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. It is also unsound for reasons listed below:
1) All of the area that has been allocated is green belt land. Government policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, is that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. The Local Plan fails to make the case that the circumstances in Cubbington are exceptional.
2) Flooding risk of surface water drainage from the H50 fields will require a sustainable urban drainage system to be employed. Even if such system is employed the risk of flooding of susceptible parts of the village will be unacceptably high.
3) The proposed H50 development will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape east of Cubbington.
4) Building the proposed number of homes will increase traffic on the B4453 Rugby Road, which is already high at peak periods. Road access may be problematic when the road is embanked in order to bridge the HS2 line. We already experience a lack of parking in the village, both by Cubbigton School and the village shops.
5) The Local Plan makes insufficient provision for improving Cubbington's infrastructure to support the increased population, for example schooling, medical facilities, drains / sewers.

Selection of the H50, land east of Cubbington, is an unsuitable decision, which has not taken into account several crucial points:
1) The area H50 is all green belt, and as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, it states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. The modifications of the proposed plan, do not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' which justify removing this as green belt, especially when there are more suitable alternatives within the Cubbington area.
2) The H50 land currently helps to soak up a lot of rain water, however there is still a considerable amount of surface rain water that runs down H50 (east of Cubbington) into a brook at the bottom of the field. With the planned loss of woodland due to the construction of the HS2, the situation will be made worse, as this currently also helps in the absorption of surface rain water. Building on this site could have a detrimental effect, particularly to the lower parts of Cubbington, such as New Street causing flooding to these homes. Many houses in lower Cubbington have been badly effected in the past due to flooding, with residents seeing their homes under considerable amounts of water. Although recent flood alleviation measures have been put into place, and so far seem to be working, they do not take into account any further developments of houses and additional roads; the current drainage system would be overwhelmed by extra rain water that would not be absorbed by the H50 land. There is no indication that an examination has been carried out with regards to additional surface water flooding within the local plan, and the impact that this may have. The drains and sewers in the village are inadequate for an increase in population, with some existing pipes in the lower parts of Cubbington being only 6" in diameter and will simply not cope with an increase of surface water. (See all attached photographs showing the effect of rainfall in field H50 east of Cubbington).
3) If the H50 land is used for housing it will mean the loss of productive arable land which is consistently used to grow crops. With the loss of this land to grow local produce, it exacerbates the UK's issue of having to import more food and the impact that comes with that, such as increased food costs.
4) The proposed H50 development would have a damaging impact on the landscape to the east of Cubbington. A large part of what makes Cubbington desirable is that it is a small, contained village, including the village church which is a Grade One listed building dating from the early 12th century. There is already going to be an impact on the landscape due to the construction of the HS2. The area of H50 east of Cubbington is of particular appeal, and is home to many types of wildlife such as pheasants, woodpeckers, birds of prey as well as muntjacs and hares, building on this site would have a detrimental effect to the local wildlife especially as the animals are losing large areas of woodland due to the HS2.
5) The H50 land east of Cubbington is regularly used by dog walkers, cyclists, walkers and runners using the public rights of way in this field. Not only is there a public right of way around the edge of the field, but there is also one directly through the middle of the field to B4453. These rights of way would have to be respected, as they are all frequently used. Changes to public rights of way can only be made by legal order. The proposed development would also require access from the B4453, potentially close to where the HS2 and road cross. This combined with increased traffic, which is already very busy at peak times of the day and reduced visibility, will cause potentially hazardous situations.
6) There have been insufficient arrangements for improving Cubbington's infrastructure to take into account the proposed building of 195 houses, and the number of residents that will live there. The two primary schools in the village are already oversubscribed, and with the building of 195 houses, many of which will be 'family homes' there will be an increased demand. This has a knock on effect to North Leamington School, which is the only secondary school less than 3 miles from Cubbington and is also at capacity. There seems no evidence to show that this has been considered. In addition all the local GP surgeries are oversubscribed in the Cubbington and Lillington area and there is no mention in the local plan as to how issues like these are to be overcome. A knock on effect of this again will cascade to Warwick Hospital. Due to working there, I am aware that the hospital is constantly struggling to cope with the current amount of patients seen as outpatients, inpatients and in its Accident and Emergency Department; how then is it supposed to continue to provide a safe and caring service to patients if the pressure of work is to be continually increased by the addition of more residents in the area that will require it's service. The local plan is failing to consider these important local infrastructure issues.
7) These new proposals for H50 have been suggested without the correct consultation and engagement with the local community and locally elected representatives. No comprehensive information has been circulated to the local community about these dramatic proposals. The way in which the residents are being asked to complete the form to contest proposed local plans for building developments has been deliberately made overly complicated and ambiguous, even for someone who is confident in working online. Therefore anyone who may find this more difficult, the process is a deliberate, and daunting obstacle. The wording and many appendices are all designed to deter many people from contributing their views regarding the proposed plans.

There has been no consultation with local residents with regard to the increase in planned housing.
Cubbington historically suffers from flooding due to run off water. There have been two major schemes which have attempted to deal with the problem. Notably, the scheme where work was completed in Cubbington Primary School in 2001, failed to address the flooding in 2007. The latest scheme, completed in 2015 on Mill Lane, has yet to be tested.
It has been suggested that the covering of land that acts as a natural soak away can contribute to further surface water and increase a flooding risk.

1. Building on Green Belt land !!?
2.Risk of flooding as we have previously suffered
damage and higher insurance to affected
properties.
3. The detrimental impact on landscape, as if
having the proposed HS2 in our backyard isn't
bad enough!!
4. The increased in the traffic on the B4453
which already struggles with the volume of
traffic particularly at the Comptons
crossroads which has in the past seen up to
two accidents in two days. The increased
pollution is also another worry as each house
will no doubt have a MINIMUM OF 1 car per
household.
5. Schooling, medical facilities drains/sewers.
These will all be totally inadequate, What if
any provision has been made for these.

This is a joint representation from Jonathan Rawlings and Maureen Rawlings.

The allocated area is green belt land. The National Planning Policy Framework states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. We feel that the Local Plan fails to make the case that the circumstances in Cubbington are exceptional.

---The proposed H50 development will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape to the east of Cubbington; the Local Plan acknowledges that there are landscape issues.

---The Local Plan makes insufficient provision for improving Cubbington's infrastructure to support the increased population, eg: medical facilities; schooling and drains/sewers.

This is a joint representation from Jonathan Rawlings and Maureen Rawlings.

Surface water drainage from the H50 fields will require a sustainable urban drainage system to be employed within any development. We consider that even with such a system the risk of flooding of susceptible parts of the village will be unacceptably high.

---Building the proposed number of homes will increase traffic on the B4453 Rugby Road, which is already high at peak periods. Road access for H50 may be problematic when the road is embanked in order to bridge the HS2 line.

This is a joint representation by Irene and Raymond Burden.The allocated area is green belt land. The National Planning Policy Framework states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. We feel that the Local Plan fails to make the case that the circumstances in Cubbington are exceptional.---The proposed H50 development will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape to the east of Cubbington; the Local Plan acknowledges that there are landscape issues.---The Local Plan makes insufficient provision for improving Cubbington's infrastructure to support the increased population, eg: medical facilities; schooling and drains/sewers.

This is a joint representation from Irene and Raymond Burden.Surface water drainage from the H50 fields will require a sustainable urban drainage system to be employed within any development. We consider that even with such a system the risk of flooding of susceptible parts of the village will be unacceptably high.---Building the proposed number of homes will increase traffic on the B4453 Rugby Road, which isalready high at peak periods. Road access for H50 may be problematic when the road is embanked in order to bridge the HS2 line.

The land shown as H50 is not suitable for development :-
1 Too close to HS2 and access could be required during construction
2 Impact on an area of high land scape value and the Local Plan accepts there are landscape issues.
3 Protect Green Belt Status. Boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. None exist.
4 Flooding of surface water into village will increase due to housing.
5 Increase of traffic on B4453 by additional housing further exasperated by HS2 construction traffic.
6 No provision for increase in Cubbington infrastructure schools etc
7 No requirement identified for additional housing in Cubbington.

Joint representation for Mr Andrew Rawlings and Mrs Samantha Rawlings.
The proposed H50 development will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape to the east of Cubbington; the Local Plan acknowledges that there are landscape issues.

The Local Plan makes insufficient provision for improving Cubbington's infrastructure to support the increased population, eg: medical facilities; schooling and drains/sewers.

Surface water drainage from the H50 fields will require a sustainable urban drainage system to be employed within any development. We consider that even with such a system the risk of flooding of susceptible parts of the village will be unacceptably high.

This is a joint representation for Mr Andrew Rawlings and Mrs Samanatha Rawlings. 2nd part of representation.

Building the proposed number of homes will increase traffic on the B4453 Rugby Road, which is already high at peak periods. Road access for H50 may be problematic when the road is embanked in order to bridge the HS2 line.

The allocated area is green belt land. The National Planning Policy Framework states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. We feel that the Local Plan fails to make the case that the circumstances in Cubbington are exceptional.

Proposal is unsound because;

Proposed use of green belt land in non exceptional circumstances and not justifying going against government policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Extensive flood risk from use of proposed fields, leaving areas of the village susceptible to flooding.

Negative impact on landscape and wildlife, already under threat from the development of HS2.

Impact of a large increase in population on local infrastructure.
Increased traffic on roads, specifically B4453 also possible impact of HS2.

Insufficient provision for increased need for local amenities including, schools and medical care.

Negative impact of increase on a small local community.

My concern is about plot H50 in the modified plan - the paragraph below summarises my concerns.

The concern is that the Sustainability Survey Appendix 3 acknowledges that the steeply sloping site is adjacent
to an area of flood risk in the existing village - this is due to surface water run off into a brook called the
Pingle. This is confirmed in the Environment Agency Flood Maps (latest edition 2013) as a significant area of risk
and the Survey states that sufficient mitigation will be available (using a Sustainable Urban Drainage scheme (SUDS)).
It does not make clear whether this has been assessed by the Environment Agency since over £0.9 Million was spent
early in 2013 to provide a second flood mitigation scheme for the existing problem following a failure of the
first mitigation scheme in 2007 resulting in extensive flooding of houses adjacent to the Pingle.
It has also been acknowledged to residents in adjacent low lying parts of the village (New Street and Ladycroft)
by Severn Trent that the surface drains and sewer system is inadequate to cope with heavy rainfall at present.
I presume that this will need major refurbishment and upgrading in order to cope with the output from 95 more houses.
There is also no mention of the effects that removal of most of Cubbington Wood by the building of HS2 may impact on run off into the Pingle.

I am very concerned that all these factors may not have been take into account in terms of risk to the rest of the village and the cost of major further upgrading of sewers and surface drains off site.

see attached
Local Plan Consultation Response Form - Question 7
I object to the New Local Plan proposals for Cubbington in the "Sustainability Appraisal Addendum 2016 including appendices" file :http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3207/sustainability_appraisal_addendum report_2016_inc_appendices.pdf

Site: Land East of Cubbington Size & Approx. Capacity: 95 dwellings Ref L17 (aka H50)

Natural Environment and Landscape
1. Safeguarded land in H50 is reserved for the construction of HS2. The impact of the changes that HS2 will bring to the site has not been considered. When built the HS2 line will run approximately 400metres from the new housing and is likely to cause noise nuisance.

2. The H50 sites on Rugby Road are adjacent to rejected sites which have a similar landscape value and any building there would be a significant new development. Why can H50 now be accepted if the rejected sites were found unsuitable?

3. Ref SA 10 report Feb 2013 Table 4.20 - Page 88/126
In the previous plan the Allotment Gardens (CU3*O) and the Waverley Equestrian Centre (CU4*O) were rejected on grounds "would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value."

Location, Shops and Community Facilities
1. Error - The site is not located adjacent to the Rugby Road Local Shopping Centre. The Rugby Road Shops are around 1.4km away.
The nearest local shops are in Cubbington Village which does constitute a "Shopping Centre". Ref page 36/57 (104).
2. There is no GP Practice in Cubbington.
3. No proposals to mitigate expected increased pressure on existing services and facilities.

Sustainable Transport and Traffic
1. Error -The site is not on the 538 bus route.
2. Bus Route 69 only runs once a day from Weston at 10.31am and has NO return services listed.
3. The nearest bus stop for No 68 bus service is more than 400m away on Rugby Road near Church Lane. This service is unreliable.
4. It was recognised in November 2013 that local roads A452, A445 and B4453 are identified as being heavily used. Development may have cumulative negative effects on transport and travel times, as well as Air Quality.

Green Belt and Agricultural Land
1. The erosion of the Green Belt is to be deplored. It has been recognised that the area around H50 is of high landscape value and should be protected.
2. Additionally, the Grade 2 farmland which is to be lost from the Greenbelt was not assessed and this could affect its' suitability for a building development. See also flood risk.

 
Nature Conservation
1. North Cubbington Wood is designated Ancient Woodland and the Princethorpe Woodlands Living Landscape Trust area is a conservation area only a short distance from Cubbington and H50.

Flood Risk
1. Some of the serious concerns about flooding have been omitted from the SA Addendum Feb 2016.Pages 37/57 (105) and 38/57 (106)

Notwithstanding that we are now looking at the effects of developing H50 instead of the Allotment Gardens and land opposite Willow Sheets Meadow I think this is relevant:
Below is a transcript of November 2013 SA of potential village site allocations - Cubbington Pages 23/61 to 25/61 - Ref: SA04_SustainabilityAppraisalPotentialVillageSiteAllocations.pdf

"One site is located within an area of medium or high flood risk and therefore there could be major negative effects on flooding. It is recommended that any residential development avoids the flood risk areas which would prevent the major negative effects identified. All other potential allocations are not located within an area of flood risk. However, it has been identified by the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2013) that Cubbington suffers from major surface water flooding and that the drainage systems in the area (public, private, highway or land drainage) were not designed to cope with the exceptional conditions. The SFRA recommended that future development is avoided and that effective planning policies should be implemented in accordance with the SUDS recommendations provided in the SFRA. Unless local plan policies are developed to address the issues of flooding with regard to new development in Cubbington, given its sensitivity there are likely to be major short to long-term negative effects."

Water Quality
1. H50 is also in the Surface Water Drinking Water protected area as well as a Surface Water Safeguarded Zone. - This is not referred to in the new report.

Do we really need this many dwellings?
1. The plan covers 2011 -2029 - How many dwellings were completed in the period 2011 - 2016?
Have these completion figures been factored into the totals?

Suitability to accommodate Coventry's housing need:
1. Strong links to Coventry -
There are no strong links with the City of Coventry and no transport services available to link the two places
2. Villages with the best infrastructure facilities -
Cubbington's infrastructure facilities and local services will need to be improved to accommodate more housing, more people and more traffic.
3. Areas that could provide quick turnaround to meet the 5 year housing supply -
The construction of the HS2 overbridge and road realignment will have to be completed before construction could commence. This would delay the start until at least 2020.

See attached

See attached

See attached

Even though it purports to follow government guidance, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is not independent and is seriously defective. It has considered only one side of the equation and only those with a vested interest in growth have influenced its findings. Population and household projections have been wrongly used as if they were forecasts. The assumption on headship rates is questionable and the study fails to get to grips adequately with economic issues, commuting, international migration, student needs and affordable housing. Above all, the SHMA acknowledges the high degree of uncertainty about the future but then plumps for a single figure of so-called Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) which is poorly justified. This figure is seriously lacking in credibility. [section 3]

The local authorities in their Memorandum of Understanding have misused the SHMA by adopting the so-called OAN uncritically and indeed adding to it. They have failed to consider whether environmental and other policy factors limit the ability of the area to meet its housing needs. The decisions they have reached about the distribution of housing provision within the housing market area are arbitrary, opaque and extreme, making the proposed plan unsound and unsustainable. The proposal that Warwick District should take the largest share of Coventry's overspill is reckless and wholly unjustified given the Green Belt status of a large part of the district. [section 4]

The Council have failed to demonstrate that nearly 17,000 dwellings can be built in the district by 2029. All the evidence suggests otherwise. Their response to the low level of dwelling completions in the first four years of the plan period is to allocate even more housing, without considering what (if anything) can be done to improve building rates within the existing allocation. As a result, the proposed plan would have a range of undesirable consequences for urban regeneration, vacancy rates and dereliction, commuting, service and infrastructure costs, housing opportunities and loss of Green Belt which neither the Council nor the Sustainability Appraisal have adequately considered. Those negative effects which the Sustainability Appraisal does recognise have played no apparent part in the development of the strategy. Almost half the dwellings to be built on allocated sites are in the Green Belt. The proposed plan is unsustainable and is directly at odds with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. [sections 5 and 6]

The proposed plan and the cumulative impact of its development proposals would exacerbate problems which the district already faces such as loss of character and environmental quality, traffic congestion and inadequate public transport. Many of the individual housing proposals - particularly those involving substantial loss of Green Belt - cannot be justified and will do great damage. Nearly half of housing development on allocated sites would be in the Green Belt and the proposed plan does not comply with government policy on housing development in the Green Belt. Insufficient consideration has been given to the infrastructure implications of development on such a large scale. [section 7]

The plan is unsound, unsustainable and unworkable. It stems from a deluded view of the growth potential of Coventry and Warwickshire and is contrary to government policy. The plan needs to be fundamentally re-thought and housing provision of between 10,000 and 10,500 dwellings would be much more appropriate and potentially achievable. [section 8]

3. Defects in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)
The SHMA prepared by G L Hearn was intended to be an objective assessment of housing need in Coventry and Warwickshire. While it purports to follow government guidance, it has the following serious defects which fatally undermine its credibility:
* As a general rule, only organisations with a vested interest in increasing housing provision from its already very high level have been consulted. Those able to take a more detached and balanced view were conspicuously excluded. The local authorities themselves have a strong incentive to push house building rates higher and higher thanks to the New Homes Bonus.
* While the terms of reference for the study are reasonably objective, a wealth of e-mail correspondence between the local authorities and the consultants (released under the Freedom of Information Act ) suggests that there was a good deal of manipulation behind the scenes.
* The study rightly uses ONS population and household projections as the baseline for its work, but treats them as if they were forecasts. On the contrary, ONS say ''The population projections have limitations. They are not forecasts (my italics) and do not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors (for example, government policies on immigration or student fees) might have on demographic behaviour...... As a forecast of the future population they would inevitably be proved wrong, to a greater or lesser extent..... Projections become increasingly uncertain the further they are carried forward into the future'. Hearns have fundamentally erred in treating the projections as forecasts and failing to consider how the policies or other factors that underlie them may change in future. They assume (paragraph 3.34) that uncertainty is mainly attributable to inadequacies in base data, but the effects of future changes in societal trends and public policy are likely to be far more influential. The SHMA never faces up to these issues.
* There is an unexplained anomaly in the use of the projections. The difference from the 2011-based to the 2012-based projections for the HMA is a decrease of 127 dwellings per annum. However, in Hearns' work this results in an increase of between 472 and 572 dwellings per annum . The consultants do not adequately explain this apparent conflict.
* The approach is based on the implicit assumption that new dwellings will meet existing and future housing needs, but this is not the case. Almost 90% of the private housing market involves existing, not new, housing stock. With the exception of starter homes, the great majority of new dwellings are bought by existing home owners. Except in the very long term, prices are insensitive to the volume of new house building and the market is not particularly effective in ensuring that newly arising housing needs are met.
* The study rightly explores a very wide range of scenarios in its attempts to quantify Objectively Assessed Need but fails to critique the underlying methodologies of the different models in which it places its faith. The study plumps for single figures within the range of possible outcomes (often towards the upper end of the range) that are arbitrary or poorly justified. The eventual recommendation that 4,272 dwellings per annum should be built in Coventry and Warwickshire seems to be a black-box generated number instead of being backed up by credible analysis at each step in the process.
* The 'part return to trend' on headship rates is poorly explained and justified. It is far from certain yet whether the cessation of the fall in average household size in recent years is just a 'blip' or the 'new normal' . The factors likely to influence this lead in different directions and give different outcomes. The consultants assume that a reduction in average household size will resume, but there is very little evidence for this;
* The economic forecasts used by Hearns give widely divergent results. The fact that they are based on past development trends is a major weakness, particularly as only a short, probably unrepresentative period has been considered. They also lack explicit assumptions about the productivity relationship between GVA and job growth. Yet the Local Enterprise Partnership is trying to attract high tech and high value added jobs, which would result in a lower number of jobs for a given level of GVA;
* The Strategic Employment Land Study is based on very arbitrary assumptions and data and has not been subjected to critical analysis. The 'talking up' of Coventry's employment prospects in section 4 of the study is very speculative, verging on wishful thinking, and the whole OAN is consistent with a rose-tinted view of economic prospects in Coventry and Warwickshire, bearing in mind past lower than national growth rates and skills shortages . Hearns have suggested upward adjustments to OAN in some areas in relation to economic prospects, but do not seem to have considered downward adjustments in other areas so the analysis is all one way. The equation made between jobs and people is over-simplistic;
* The assumptions about commuting are unrealistic. Commuting patterns change over time and it should be one of the objectives of a plan to reduce longer distance commuting in the interests of sustainability. Conversely however this plan is likely to lead to significant increases in commuting (see Section 6 below). The assumption that the commuting rate will remain as in 2011 is therefore naive and lacks any credibility;
* Much of the increase in population in Coventry over the past ten years or so appears to be related to the growth in student numbers in the city. A huge amount of development of student accommodation has taken place. The SHMA never properly addresses this issue. It fails to consider whether and to what extent these trends are likely to continue into the future; or the extent to which students require separate housing provision (as opposed to living in halls of residence or shared accommodation). Why should there not be a 'partial return to trend' on this issue, as on headship rates?
* International migration is mentioned in section 3, but there is no discussion of whether past trends are likely to continue. The Government is under intense political pressure on this issue and has maintained its target of lowering net in-migration by more than half. The outcome of the EU referendum is also likely to have a bearing on international migration. In recent years, Coventry has taken more than its fair share of in-migrants. There is no reason to think that in-migration to the city can or will continue at anything like recent levels. In Warwick District, net migration (including international migration) has varied greatly from year to year since 1995 and is inherently unpredictable. Also, net migration is influenced by housing and employment provision so there is an element of circularity in any forecast which is based on past trends;
* The relationship between affordable housing and overall housing need is never convincingly established by the study. Affordable housing should be a sub-set of overall need, not an 'add-on', so Hearns' upwards adjustment of OAN to take account of affordability appears unjustified. It is also debatable whether 'affordable housing' is affordable in practice to many new households. There is no evidence that Hearns have taken sufficient account of recent changes in government policy.
To sum up, the SHMA is a seriously flawed piece of work that should not have been used without critical analysis. At best the resultant so-called Objectively Assessed Need is subject to great uncertainty; at worst it is not credible at all.
4. Defects in the Way the SHMA Has Been Interpreted and Used
Government guidance is that Objectively Assessed Need should be a starting point for assessing what housing provision should be. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises that there may be circumstances in which development requirements cannot be met because of the demonstrable lack of environmental capacity.
In a letter in December 2014 , the then minister said 'A Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints that indicate that development should be restricted.... The outcome of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans......Councils will need to consider Strategic Housing Market Assessment evidence carefully and take adequate time to consider whether there are environmental and policy constraints, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their overall final housing requirement.' Unmet needs from neighbouring authorities should be met 'where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development' .
The Local Plans Expert Group have drawn attention to a common deficiency in local plans. They conclude that 'despite the clear test set by paragraph 14 of the NPPF, few authorities compile an assessment of the environmental capacity of their area' . They go on to propose that a proportionate Assessment of Environmental Capacity should be an important part of plan making. The local plan making authority should consider the extent to which the plan can meet OAN consistent with the policies of the NPPF.
This type of approach is conspicuously absent in Coventry and Warwickshire. The local authorities in their so-called Memorandum of Understanding and Warwick District Council in its plan have taken a lemming-like approach which is directly at odds with Government policy. They have decided without adequate explanation that Hearn's Objectively Assessed Need of 4,272 dwellings per annum (already an artificially high figure) should be increased still further to a housing target of 4,408. They have then failed to consider whether environmental constraints prevent this new figure being met in its entirety. The Hearn approach and its results have not been subjected to any critical analysis whatsoever and the uncertainty that runs right through the study has simply been ignored. It is sheer folly to pick out a single figure and stick to it come what may. Such an inflexible approach is certain to be found wanting as the implementation of the plan unfolds. Meanwhile a great deal of damage will have been done. The position is even more serious in Warwick because the modification to policy DS20 opens the door for even further housing development in future to meet unspecified housing needs in other areas.
The housing proposals for individual authorities are unjustified, to say the least. Coventry is deemed (without supporting evidence or argument) to be able to accept only 1230 (64%) of its OAN of 1930 per annum. The remaining 700 is distributed (without explanation) between three Warwickshire districts - Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rugby and Warwick. In Warwick's case, this results in proposed housing provision of 18,640 over the full twenty year period to 2031, which is over 55% higher than its own OAN. This is a fundamentally unsustainable and unjustified outcome.
The Warwick Plan gives no explanation of -
a. Why Coventry cannot meet more of its OAN;
b. How the allocation of the excess to other authorities has been decided. The 'redistribution methodology' has not been explained or justified;
c. The account taken of Green Belt, environmental and other policy constraints, both in Coventry and in the surrounding Warwickshire districts, in making this judgement;
d. The wider effects of 'transferring' housing need originating in Coventry to Warwick and other authorities.
The plan also fails to consider the density of new housing development or whether intensification of use of the existing housing stock could be achieved without loss of quality in the urban environment. On most development sites, a density of 35 dwellings per hectare has been automatically assumed, ignoring the variability between sites and their settings and the potential for higher density. By leaving this vital issue unconsidered, the plan fails to provide adequate justification for the link between the vast quantum of new housing development proposed and the huge land area involved.
The Warwick Local Plan is therefore fundamentally unsound and unsustainable, quite apart from its unquestioning reliance on a deeply flawed Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The approach taken is, quite simply, indefensible.
5. Implementation Problems
Government guidance requires the Council to demonstrate the deliverability of the plan . The Council do not seem to have asked themselves whether it is realistic to expect 16,776 dwellings to be built in Warwick District between 2011 and 2029.
The Council claim that 1,483 dwellings were completed in the district during the first four years of the plan period - 2011 to 2015: an average of 371 dwellings per annum. The plan requires an average of 932 dwellings per annum to be built over the full plan period, including those first four years. If dwellings built in the first four years are discounted, the average for the remaining fourteen years rises to 1,092 dwellings per annum, nearly three times the rate achieved in the first four years (during which the economy was growing). It simply cannot be done.
The Housing Trajectory in Appendix A shows very clearly the unreality of what the Council are proposing. Average completions per annum between 2018 and 2022 are assumed to be some 1,730 per annum, nearly five times the rate achieved in the first four years of the plan. The beginning of this period is a mere two years away and the assumption seems to ignore the lead time required to assemble skilled workers on a very large scale.
The plan states that at April 2016 there will be sites with planning permission for 5,161dwellings. It is very difficult to believe that all these permissions will actually be implemented during the plan period, though that is apparently what the plan assumes (in contrast, for example, to the Rugby Local Plan which assumes low take-up of existing permissions). In reality, allocating many more sites is likely to reduce the take-up rate on existing permissions still further. Over-allocation on this scale would effectively destroy the planning strategy because the Council would surrender control to house builders over where and when dwellings would be built. Adding an arbitrary 'element of flexibility' to housing provision , taking it up to a grand total of 17,557 , makes matters even worse.
A figure of 16,776 dwelling completions by 2029 therefore belongs in the realms of fantasy. National and regional studies have shown that the main factor limiting the scale of house building has been the sharp decline in public sector house building. Despite some recent policy announcements, there is little prospect of a significant revival in house building by this sector. Private sector building has been stuck at around 90,000 dwellings per annum nationally since 2008 and the latest RICS survey indicates that growth in private sector house building slowed considerably during the first quarter of 2016. Overall, housing permissions have exceeded starts by about 50,000 dwellings per annum nationally in recent years .
A recent study by The Guardian newspaper showed that the nine largest national house building companies were sitting on planning permissions for 615,000 dwellings. Either they were incapable of building more because of shortages of labour, materials and / or finance; or effective demand is so low that they had no confidence that they could sell houses if they were built, or they chose to limit their output in order to keep house prices artificially high. Some house builders may also see investment in land as an end in itself in view of rising land prices. The truth probably lies in some combination of these factors. House builders have recently been criticised for 'land banking' by the Local Government Association.
So the prospects of 16,776 dwellings being built in Warwick by 2029 are negligible. Even so, house builders continue to press for high levels of provision so that they will have even more scope to pick and choose the sites that will bring them the greatest profits. This is understandable from their point of view, but should never form part of a credible planning strategy.
6. Likely Effects of the Housing Policies
As a result of this serious over-provision, the plan's housing proposals will have a wide range of unintended consequences -
a. The sites that provide developers with the greatest potential profit will tend to be green field sites outside urban areas rather than brownfield sites within them. The momentum behind urban regeneration will therefore be weakened still further and it will become much more difficult to redevelop windfall sites becoming available within the urban area. The Local Plan is right to have made an allowance for windfalls, but the more green field sites they allocate for housing development, the more difficult it will become to benefit from windfall sites;
b. Over-provision of housing can be expected to accelerate vacancy rates, dereliction and decay in the existing stock, particularly in the more marginal housing areas;
c. The displacement of housing from Coventry into Warwickshire will increase longer-distance commuting and lead to greater car dependency. No proper analysis has been done of this vital aspect of the proposals, least of all by the Sustainability Appraisal. Can the road and public transport systems cope with the extra traffic and passengers? With many roads, particularly in the towns of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Kenilworth, close to or above capacity already, the strong suspicion must be that the Warwick plan is unsustainable in transport terms. Where new roads or improvements to existing roads are proposed, insufficient information is given to demonstrate their financial viability or effectiveness in dealing with congestion;
d. A more dispersed pattern of development will lead to higher service and infrastructure costs once existing capacity thresholds have been exceeded, and will divert severely limited public sector resources away from renewal of services and infrastructure within existing urban areas . Developer contributions are rarely sufficient to provide necessary supporting services and facilities in their entirety;
e. Provision at a level not supported by effective demand is particularly destructive of the housing opportunities available to newer, younger and less well-off households: those most likely to be in housing need. New housing will overwhelmingly not be purchased by newer households. It is not valid to assume that a glut of new housing will result in lower prices all round, making the existing stock more affordable to those in housing need. In practice new homes are generally such a small proportion of the total housing stock that they do not have a significant lowering effect on prices;
f. Very substantial areas of Green Belt will be lost, compounded by losses for other purposes such as the sub-regional employment site. Proposed housing development in the plan accounts for some 500 hectares of Green Belt land and much of this is in strategically significant areas where the Green Belt performs vital functions, meeting all or most of the five purposes of Green Belt. It is very revealing that the plan does not make clear that meeting housing needs is not sufficient on its own to constitute the very special circumstances needed to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt (see below) and that it generally ignores the recommendations of the Joint Green Belt Study;
g. Rigid adherence to forecasts gives only the illusion of certainty, inhibiting necessary adaptations to new problems and unforeseen opportunities . Warwick and the other Coventry and Warwickshire authorities have chosen to adopt a particularly rigid and unresponsive interpretation of present government policy and their proposals are therefore doomed to fail in practice.
These potential impacts of the Warwick Plan's housing proposals render the plan unsustainable and therefore not in compliance with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework.
In particular, the plan fails to give sufficient weight to two key aspects of government policy:
a. That the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in the Green Belt ;
b. That need for housing will rarely be sufficient to constitute the very special circumstances required for inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In July 2013, Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said that 'The single issue of unmet demand....is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the 'very special circumstances' justifying inappropriate development in the green belt' This was followed by a DCLG policy statement in October 2014 - 'the local planning authority should prepare a strategic housing land availability assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability....of land...and take account of any constraints such as green belt which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need . This was in turn reflected in Planning Practice Guidance . Yet Warwick District Council, along with the other Coventry and Warwickshire authorities, seems to have ignored this very important element of government policy .
The Sustainability Appraisal has been updated to reflect the latest modifications to the plan and specifically the huge uplift in housing numbers. However it suffers from a major weakness: that it treats the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the local authority Memorandum of Understanding as givens without subjecting them to sustainability appraisal in their own right. In general it does not apply sufficiently rigorous analysis and places exaggerated faith in mitigation measures. It plays down some negative effects because of uncertainty about the exact form development will take. It also makes some very questionable individual assessments - for example that the effect of high growth on public transport and community services and facilities will be positive, when experience suggests that provision of these facilities and services almost invariably lags well behind housing development, particularly when it takes place as rapidly as is envisaged in this plan. A positive assessment of the high growth options against 'reduce need to travel' also seems fundamentally misguided when such a high proportion of the proposed development involves meeting Coventry's housing needs in Warwick District.
Impact on the Green Belt should have featured as one of the sustainability criteria used to appraise the plan and its policies. Green Belt is simply subsumed within the much wider criterion of 'Prudent Use of Land and Natural Resources' and it tends to get lost in the process. The appraisal frequently pulls its punches, talking for example about the potential for the loss of Green Belt when the strategy entails certainty of massive Green Belt loss.
Nevertheless the Sustainability Appraisal finds that the two high growth options (900 and 1,000 houses per annum) would have negative effects in relation to six of the sustainability criteria used to assess options. This conclusion is effectively ignored in the plan itself and there is no evidence that it has played any part in the development of the strategy. The Council have wrongly assumed that they have no alternative but to meet so-called Objectively Assessed Need in full, plus the huge uplift to meet Coventry's excessive housing needs.
7. Comments on Specific Housing Policies and Proposals and their Justification
My calculations suggest that some 4,575 (49%) of the new dwellings on specifically allocated sites would be in the Green Belt. This is a staggering figure which cannot possibly be reconciled with Government policy as described above. It is difficult to imagine why Warwick District Council, given the large amount of its land area subject to Green Belt policy, agreed to accept by far the largest individual proportion of Coventry's overspill (6,640 dwellings). On the basis of conflict with government policy and the need to preserve a strong Green Belt to secure the continued separation of the towns in the district from each other and from Coventry, I object to all the locations for housing development listed in paragraph 2.81 as having been removed from the Green Belt.
My comments on selected proposals are as follows:
* Kings Hill (H43) - This development would be a huge and totally unwarranted projection of the built-up area of Coventry into the Green Belt and open countryside south of the city. It would doubtless be followed soon afterwards by an application for a boundary revision to extend the city's area. This is an area of good quality landscape which makes an important contribution to the role of the Green Belt in separating Coventry from Kenilworth. The proposal relies heavily on a new railway station and roads but given the long delay in securing reopening of Kenilworth station there can be no guarantee that a station at Kings Hill will be open before development takes place.
* East of Kenilworth (H40) - This long swathe of development would close the Green Belt gap which currently exists between the built-up area of the town and the A46. On rising ground, the development would be very visible from countryside to the east near Ashow and the National Agricultural Centre.
* North of Milverton (H44) - This would constitute a substantial northward extension of Leamington Spa into the Green Belt, bringing it significantly closer to coalescence with Kenilworth. The safeguarding of a large area of additional land for future development makes the present proposal just the thin end of the wedge. The explanation talks blithely about dualling the A452 but this is unlikely to be feasible within the existing built-up area of Leamington and may not be affordable in any case.
* Baginton (H19) - The Rosswood Farm site, almost in line with the airport runway, seems particularly ill chosen from the point of view of noise, air pollution and air safety.
* Barford (H48 et al) - The cumulative impact of these developments would be expected to have a substantial impact on the character of the village.
* Bishops Tachbrook (H49 and H23) - Taken together, development of these sites could be expected to have a profound effect on the character of the village and would involve projections into open countryside to the west and south.
* Cubbington (H50) - A substantial projection of development into pleasant open countryside east of the village.
* Hampton Magna (H51 and H27) - Taken together, these developments would represent a huge extension of the village into Green Belt and open countryside to the south and east, changing the character of the village in the process.
* Leek Wootton (DS NEW 3) - Although a minority of the site was already developed, this does not justify the proposal, which forms a very substantial westward extension of the village into open countryside and Green Belt.
* Whitnash (H-03) - Whitnash is already a peculiarly shaped and poorly accessed urban extension. This large development will add an extension to the extension, taking the village across the railway to the east and making it stick out even more like a sore thumb. It is noticeable that there is no proposal for a railway station to serve it.

Policy DS New 1 includes vague criteria for allocating land for housing south of Warwick. It is wrong in principle to consult without more clear-cut proposals, leaving local people and interest groups in a position of great uncertainty.
The plan is far too deferential towards the growth aspirations of Warwick University. The plan should not give the university carte blanche to do whatever it wishes to do, but that in effect is what is proposed.
A general problem is the heavy reliance on master planning for comprehensive development of the larger proposed housing sites. This will make it even less likely that the housing proposals will be implemented on anything like the timescale envisaged in the housing trajectory, particularly where land is in multiple ownership.
In new paragraph 1.09, the plan talks about new development enhancing the setting of natural and heritage assets. This is delusional and makes a mockery of what little remains of the plan's environmental credentials.
New paragraphs 2.1 to 2.43 talk about taking land out of the Green Belt so that it can be safeguarded for possible future development. In relation to government policy, there is even less of a case for this than where development is claimed to be needed during the plan period, and I have already shown that the latter is contrary to government policy.
I have not found a policy directed towards controlling or influencing the types and sizes of dwelling to be constructed in the district. This plan seems to treat planning for housing as no more than a numbers game and in doing so it ignores government policy that the nature of new housing is important .
8. Conclusions
The housing proposals in the emerging Warwick Local Plan are unworkable, unsustainable, contrary to key elements of Government policy and against the interests of residents of the borough. They are deluded and unsound. They stem from a fundamentally misconceived growth-orientated strategy that reflects wishful thinking about the economic prospects of the sub-region by the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Coventry and Warwickshire local authorities compounded by some far from independent technical work of questionable quality to support it. The proposals give minimal weight to the environment and character of the district, which have hitherto been cornerstones of successive plans. They will result in the Council effectively abandoning control over planning for housing and in a significant reduction in environmental quality.
Much of the problem with the housing strategy stems from Coventry's overweening growth aspirations, which result in dumping large quantities of housing and employment development on neighbouring local authorities. This is counter-productive, unsustainable and unachievable. If Coventry cannot live within its means, it should not simply decant large-scale development to neighbouring authorities with no thought for the consequences..
The question of what would be a realistic and achievable level of housing provision for Warwick between 2011 and 2029 is a matter of judgement rather than calculation. Taking into account all the factors discussed in this Critique, my view is that provision of between 10,000 and 10,500 dwellings would be appropriate. This would have a good prospect of being achieved and would meet the reasonable housing needs of the district, as opposed to the inflated figure assessed by G L Hearn and the huge additional uplift provided through overspill from Coventry. Provision at this level would allow a much higher proportion of development to be on brownfield sites within the urban area (including windfalls) and would require little or no release of Green Belt land for housing.

See attached

See attached

Sustainability Appraisal Process

1. The statutory requirements concerning SA of Local Plans are set out in European Directive 2001/42/EC [the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or 'the Directive'], which was transposed into English law by the Act and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 [the 2004 Regulations]. Section 19(5) of the Act requires an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in a development plan document, such as this LP, to be carried out and for a report to be prepared. SA covered by this provision incorporate the corresponding requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. Regulation 12 of the 2004 Regulations provides that an SA report must identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of: a) implementing the plan; and b) the reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan. The SA report has to include such of the information set out in Schedule 2 as is reasonably required.

2. The purpose of the SA (incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive) is to ensure that the plan or programme (in this instance the Warwick Submission Local Plan Proposed Modifications - LPPM) promotes the principles of sustainable development by assessing the potential environmental, social and economic impacts or benefits of the plan and incorporating suitable mitigation measures to decrease or increase these respectively.

3. Paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that A sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects (of the plan) on the environment, economic and social factors.

4. The Guidance (NPPG) explains that the role of SA is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives (Paragraph 11-001-20140306). The SA needs to compare all reasonable alternatives including the preferred approach. It should predict and evaluate the effects of the preferred approach and reasonable alternatives, and clearly identify the positive and negative effects of each alternative. All reasonable alternatives should be assessed at the same level of detail as the preferred approach. The SA should outline the reasons why the alternatives were selected, the reasons why the rejected alternatives were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in the light of the alternatives (Paragraph 11-018-20140306).

5. The Local Plan has had a long gestation period and this is reflected in the numerous SA that form part of the evidence base, which goes back to the original scoping report in 2011. The more recent SA of note includes the Village Housing Options SA in November 2013, which examined the potential development options in the main villages. There followed Publication Draft SA Report in April 2014 and the Submission SA in February 2015. Each stage in this process considered the strategic options and sites. The submission SA in February 2015 brought the earlier work together to support the consultation on the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan

6. It is important to note that during this process the scale of housing development was steadily increasing but as can be seen below it is only at the Proposed Modifications stage that the level of requirement increased substantially i.e. 30.5% above the Submitted Plan:

Plan Version Level of Housing Requirement 2011 - 2029 Date

Revised Development Strategy 12,300 June 2013
Publication Draft local Plan 12,860 April 2014
Submission Plan 12,860 Feb 2015
Proposed Modifications 16,776 Feb 2016

7. A key part of the emerging LPPM is the allocation of land of an appropriate scale, location and type to meet the necessary housing and economic requirements of Warwick District during the plan period. To accommodate the substantial level of additional housing required the Council has had to reconsider the suitability of a wide range of sites that had been previously rejected.

8. Whilst the SA process does not make the final decision on which sites to allocate, it does provide powerful evidence to aid the decision making process as it is unlikely that 'unsustainable sites' will be favoured in the preferred policy. Where sites are selected, the SA process must clearly demonstrate how the alternatives were selected and why sites were discarded.

9. A major concern arises about the way in which the consideration of alternatives has been handled in the SA process in respect of the Proposed Modifications. In the context of these representations to the LPPM, one of the key aims is to review and understand the process by which the SA may have contributed to the rejection of reasonable alternatives for additional development in the Villages centres as an option (in favour of major green belt/green field release new settlement proposals elsewhere) and therefore the exclusion from the strategy of potential residential development sites on the edge of sustainable settlements to meet the substantial housing need, in particular sites CU3*o and CU4*O at Cubbington. It is also of concern that site H50 at Cubbington has emerged at the same time.

10. To understand how the PMLP reaches the conclusion regarding the distribution of development the methodology and documents from the Sustainability Appraisal of the PMLP have been reviewed.

11. The Proposed Modifications provide the first opportunity for all parties to express a view on the Council's approach. No consideration was given to potential allocations in the previous stages of the Local Plan because the scale of requirement was substantially smaller.

12. Additionally, the SA provides no consideration of the relative in-combination effects of additional development in the different options. The SA's consideration of in-combination effects is partial and incomplete.

Consideration of alternatives and the legality of the Proposed Modifications SA

13. In the case of Cubbington, it is apparent that the SA has failed to give adequate reasons for discounting sustainable sites, such as CU3*O (Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road) and CU4*O (Waverly Equestrian Centre), at the Proposed Modifications stage in the context of a substantially increased housing requirement.

14. Appendix IV of the Proposed Modifications SA sets out the 'Potential Site Allocations - Chronology of Identification, Assessment, Refinement & Development of Options'.

In terms of sites CU3*O and CU4*O, it states:

Village Housing Options Consultation SA Nov 2013

Discounted Options - Subject to SA, appraisal presented alongside the Consultation Doc for public consultation in November 2013.

Warwick District Council
Publication Draft Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
April 2014

No change to sites - CU3*O and CU4*O - Discounted Options

No further appraisal work required. Reasons for the selection/ rejection of Options provided in Section 4 of the SA Report.

Consideration of Strategic Options is summarised at paragraph 2.11 of the SA which states:

2.11 Reasonable strategic options for the level and distribution of growth were subject to high level strategic SA against each SA objective in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The findings of this work is summarised in Section 4 with the detail provided in the Scoping Report (2011), Initial SA Report (2012) and Interim SA Report (2013), which are all available on the Council's website. The appraisal carried out in 2013 provided a commentary describing the potential effects and possibilities for mitigation of any adverse effects or enhancements of positive effects. Any changes to the overall level or distribution of growth proposed in the Local Plan since the Revised Development strategy consultation in 2013 have also been considered in Section 4.

Warwick District Council
Submission Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
February 2015

No change to site. Discounted Option.

The appraisal of site options for Burton Green (sic) have been updated to reflect consultation reps. The revised appraisal is presented in Appendix VI and the reasons for selection/ rejection of sites are provided in Table 4.20.

Paragraph 4.69 of the SA Feb 2015 states:

4.69 To take account of consultation responses received on the Publication Draft SA Report (April 2014) revisions have been made to the appraisals for proposed site options in Burton Green and Cubbington. The findings and revised appraisals for potential village site options are presented in Appendix VI of this Report. Table 4.19 (sic) provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for village site allocations.
Table 4.20 of the SA states:

CU3*O - Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road- Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.
CU4*O - Waverley Equestrian Centre - Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.

N.B. Table 4.19 of the SA Feb 2015 contains a number of sites rejected at that time which have now come forward as allocations at the Proposed Modifications stage e.g. The Asps, Gallows Hill, Westwood Heath, North of Milverton.

Warwick District Council
Local Plan:
Proposed Modifications
Sustainability Appraisal
Addendum Report
February 2016

Sites CU3*O and CU4*O - Site still not included. No changes.

No further SA work required.
Paragraphs 3.28 and 3.29 of the SA Feb 2016 state:

3.28 The Proposed Modifications set out a number of changes to the village sites allocated under Policy DS11 and these were screened for their significance with regard to SA. The majority of the proposed changes do not significantly affect the findings of the previous SA work for village/rural site options - as presented in Section 4 and Appendix VI of the Submission SA Report (SA10). The Council has considered four new site options for the growth of villages in Baginton, Barford, Cubbington and Hatton Park that have previously not been considered through the SA process and each was subject to full SA with details of findings presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The sustainability appraisal of the new sites identified potential major negative effects as a result of the loss of Green Belt and best and most versatile agricultural land, however this is consistent with previous findings and the findings of the SA for the overall cumulative effects for the villages were not significantly affected.

3.29 There were a number of other new site options considered through planmaking but not progressed further as allocations in the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan. These were options that had not been previously subject to SA in 2015. Therefore, they were tested through SA and the findings are also presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The reasons for not progressing these new site options are provided in Appendix IV of this SA Addendum Report that sets out a chronology of site options.

15. It is clear therefore that sites CU3*O and CU4*O were not subject to further SA work at the Proposed Modifications stage. It is also apparent that the allocations in the Proposed Modifications were not considered in combination and no reasonable alternatives were even identified, let alone considered.
16. Following the judgment in the Cogent Land case, it is clear that, in principle, the identified defects in the SA process may be cured by a later document.

17. In order to rectify these defects further SA work would need to be undertaken. As part of that exercise the Council should revisit the reasons given for selecting the now preferred option and rejecting the alternative options to ensure that there is a robust justification.

18. Once the further SA work is complete it should form the basis of an SA report that meets all the relevant requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. The SA report will need to be published for public consultation and, depending on its outcome, further SA work may indicate the need for further proposed modifications to the Local Plan. Any such modifications would need to be the subject of public consultation.

19. It is clear therefore that there are a number of deficiencies in the SA process which demonstrates that it is not legally compliant with the directive nor with guidance issued by government and is therefore unsound. These deficiencies are;

i) The lack of clear evidence as part of the consultation process to demonstrate the consideration of alternatives, which runs contrary to the open and transparent nature of the SA / SEA process and is a legal requirement.

ii) A failure to comply with NPPG Paragraphs 11-001-20140306 and 11-018-20140306 as noted above.

iv) A failure to comply with (Annex I (h)) of the Directive which requires that the Environmental Report outlines the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached