Other

ID sylw: 107906

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Terra is supportive of the SWA’s efforts to improve housing standards by requiring
developments to meet Nationally Described Space Standards [NDSS]. However, Terra
wishes to highlight that this requirement will need to be sufficiently justified.
2.93 Footnote 51 of NPPF paragraph 135(f) states that policies may “make use of the nationally
described space standard, where the need for an internal space standard can be justified.”
As noted above, the NPPF is clear that plans should be underpinned by relevant and up-todate
evidence that is adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and
justifying the policies concerned (Para 32). In addition, the NPPF is also clear that planning
policies should have regard to the economic viability of sites (Para 72) and should not
undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 35) – this is supported by the PPG.9
2.94 Terra acknowledges that the PO’s supporting text states the SDC Housing Strategy 2021
evidence log notes that poor space standards on units on developer-led s106 sites (for
affordable housing) are an issue and that a further assessment is being undertaken on the
extent of non-compliance with NDSS and whether this is more prevalent for certain types of
residential development, alongside viability testing the NDSS requirement (Pg.62).
2.95 In this context, Terra would suggest that the SWAs publish a Topic Paper evidencing the
need for NDSS, alongside a Viability Assessment that tests the impact of policy
requirements on the viability of sites allocated in the SWLP in accordance with the NPPF
and PPG in due course. This would be critical evidence to underpin the SWLP’s proposed
policy approach and will be necessary to ensure that the policy is found to be sound.

Other

ID sylw: 107907

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

As a part of the PO, the SWAs have recognised a need to ensure provision for self-build and
custom housebuilding (“SBCH”) is made over the plan period to meet their needs, with
Draft Policy B (Providing Custom and Self Building Housing Plots) requiring all large
developments (100 or more dwellings) to make provision for SBCH on 5% of the
developable area of a site.
2.97 This, although not explicitly stated in the PO, appears to be underpinned by the HEDNA,
which sets out evidence regarding the need for SBCH plots based on the individuals who
have expressed demand for serviced plots since 1st April 2016. The HEDNA, in Table 13.1,
identified an annual average need of 38 and 93 SBCH plots in Stratford-on-Avon and
Warwick respectively. Extrapolated over the plan period, this would equate to a need for
3,275 SBCH plots. In general, this would equate to c.5% of the SWA’s housing need over the
plan period.
2.98 Paragraph 63 of the NPPF, the SWAs should also assess and reflect in policy the need for
(inter alia) people wishing to commission or build their own homes. The PPG is also clear that there are several measures which can be used to do this, including but not limited to
encouraging developers to consider making provisions for SBCH.10
2.99 Whilst supportive in principle, Terra has some concerns regarding the SWA’s proposed
approach to delivering SBCH. In particular, Terra is concerned that there is no evidence
which explains the 100-dwelling threshold, or 5% requirement set out within the policy. As
noted above, the NPPF is clear that plans should underpinned by relevant and up-to-date
evidence that is adequate, proportionate and focused tightly on supporting and justifying
the policies concerned (Para 32). Whilst Terra recognises the ‘demand’ would broadly align
with the 5% requirement, the SWAs must demonstrate how the 100-dwelling threshold and
5% requirement align with the identified need.
2.100 Terra is also concerned that the policy as drafted applies SWLP-wide and offers no
flexibility to respond to local circumstances. Whilst there is evidence of a need for self-build
plots across SWLP-area, this does not automatically mean that there is demand in every
location. Terra therefore considers that further evidence is needed which justifies the policy
applying SWLP-wide.
2.101 Finally, whilst the draft policy requires a marketing strategy for the plots, Terra notes that
the draft policy provides no clarity in circumstances where the SBCH properties have been
marketed but received no interest. Policies must be sufficiently flexible, fit for purpose and
be clearly written and unambiguous (Para 16d). To this end, Terra considers that the policy
should provide clarity as to the approach the SWAs will take if the plots are marketed
unsuccessfully. By way of example, other LPAs have included caveats within similar policies
that have enabled the SBCH plots to revert back to affordable or general housing if there is
a lack of interest after 12 months.

Other

ID sylw: 107908

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Whilst Terra supports the SWAs moving towards Net Zero Carbon development, as set out
in detail in Terra ’s response to Draft Policy Direction- 24 (Embodied carbon), if the SWAs
wish to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and Building Regulations, sufficient
evidence will need to be prepared to justify this – in accordance with NPPF paragraph 32,
the PPG and the 2023 WMS.
2.103 In addition, the NPPF is clear that planning policies should have regard to the economic
viability of sites (Para 72) and should not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan
(Para 35). To this end, the SWLP will need to be supported by a Viability Assessment that
cumulatively tests the impact of policy and infrastructure requirements on the viability of
sites allocated in the SWLP. This should include any Net Zero Carbon requirements.

Other

ID sylw: 107909

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Terra recognises the importance of reducing embodied carbon within the development
process. However, embodied carbon emissions are unregulated in the UK. Current policy and regulation focus solely on operational energy use, as distinct from embodied carbon.
There currently does not exist a nationally approved regulator or nationally recognised
standard, national planning policy or building regulation requirement to assess and report
embodied carbon emissions or whole life cycle carbon assessments – indeed the Future
Homes Standards - MHCLG Consultation on changes to Parts L and F of the Building
Regulations do not propose an embodied carbon target.
2.105 Whilst the SWAs are within its right to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and
Building Regulations, the NPPF is clear that the “preparation and review of all policies
should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.” (Para 32).
2.106 In this context, whilst supportive in principle, Terra is concerned that the SWAs are seeking
to make provision for a policy that deviates from the national requirements without
providing sufficient justification.
2.107 Terra would also note that other Councils have proposed a similar requirement for
developments, which have not been accepted by Inspectors. In particular, in 2022 West
Oxfordshire District Council [WODC] submitted its Area Action Plan [AAP] for a Salt Cross
Garden Village – a case study recognised in the SWA’s ‘Climate Change Baseline Report
(2022) at paragraph 4.5.4. The AAP included Draft Policy 2 (Net Zero Carbon
Development), which required all new development to be net zero on-site through the use
of ultra-low energy fabric specification, low carbon technologies, on-site renewable energy
generation and embodied carbon reductions – Notably, Policy 2 required developments to
meet a < 500 kg CO2/m2 requirement.
2.108 However, the Inspector felt that the policy was inconsistent with national policy, as the
standards within it amounted to a significant uplift on Building Regulations – which
conflicted with then Secretary of State for Communities and Government – Eric Pickles MP
– Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in March 2015, which stated that policies should
“not be used to set conditions on planning permissions with requirements above the
equivalent of the energy requirement of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes”. In
addition, the Inspector noted that the 2015 WMS “remains current national policy on this
matter” (IR124) – indeed, this position remains in the PPG (PPG ID: 6-012-20190315).
2.109 The Inspector also highlighted that whilst Section 1 of the Planning and Energy Act 2008
does allow for some policies to exceed energy requirements of building regulations if they
are deemed reasonable and consistent with national policies, in that instance, the
requirements were not reasonable (IR30). Furthermore, the Inspector highlighted that:
• There was a lack of evidence base to demonstrate the appropriateness of building
typologies and how key performance indicators were selected over alternatives;
• The standards within the plan were too rigid, and could not be realistically met by the
end user; and
• The standards of the policy were not flexible when having regard to the ever-changing
net zero building policy nor to “technological and market advancements and more
stringent nationally set standards, including within the Building Regulations” (IR137).
2.110 Consequently, the Inspector suggested a series of modifications to the policy – including
the deletion of the embodied carbon KPI – and suggested below amendment to the policy
wording:
“An energy statement will be required for all major development, which should
demonstrate the following:
…Embodied carbon – reducing the impact of construction by minimising the amount of
upfront embodied carbon emissions including appropriate embodied carbon targets. A
calculation of the expected upfront embodied carbon of buildings and full lifecycle
modelling”
2.111 Furthermore, regard should still be given to the then Minister of State for Housing’s – Lee
Rowley MP – Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in December 2023. Whilst this was
challenged in the High Court by Rights Community Action, the case was dismissed,
meaning the WMS remains current government policy and a material consideration.
2.112 In light of the above, Terra would highlight that the Government’s intention is to achieve
zero carbon by 2025 through a step-by-step introduction of higher building regulations.
Whilst – in principle – the SWAs are within their rights to deviate from the Future Homes
Standard and Building Regulations where evidence justifies a higher requirement – NPPF
paragraph 32, PPG and the 2023 WMS – Terra note that sufficient evidence to support this
approach is required.

Other

ID sylw: 107911

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Paragraph 33 of the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should demonstrate how plans have
addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives, which includes
opportunities for net gains. Furthermore, Paragraph 187(d) of the NPPF states that
planning policies should contribute to and enhance the local and natural environment by
“minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity…”. However, the PPG is
clear that:
“Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10%
biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for
development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced
including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher
percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to
be given to how the policy will be implemented.” (PPG ID: 74-006)
2.114 Terra supports the inclusion of compensatory measures, including biodiversity offsetting
(i.e. BNG). Whilst it is recognised that the SWAs are at the early stages of plan-making, at
present, Terra is concerned that the SWAs may seek to make provision for a policy that
deviates from the requirement of a 10% BNG (as set out within the Environment Act 2021)
without providing sufficient justification. No evidence on this matter is proposed within the
documents listed in SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ section to support the
SWLP, other than the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’.
2.115 Whilst – in principle – the SWAs are within their right to deviate from the Environment Act
2021 where evidence justifies a higher requirement as per NPPF paragraph 32 and the PPG,
it is Terra’s position that there is currently no sufficient evidence to support this approach,
and as a result, the SWLP could be at risk of being found unsound. In addition, were the SWAs only able to justify a 10% BNG requirement – subject to
undertaking the necessary evidence-based work and viability assessment – the
Environment Act (2021) already requires developments to provide a 10% BNG. In this
regard, it would be unnecessary for the SWLP to set a specific BNG requirement through a
specific policy.
2.117 This is because the NPPF is clear that plans “should serve a clear purpose, avoiding
unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in
this Framework, where relevant)” (Para 16f). To this end, Terra considers that a policy that
duplicates the BNG requirements of the Environment Act 2021 would not ‘serve a clear
purpose’, nor avoid ‘unnecessary duplication’ as the decision taker would need to have
regard to the requirements of the Environment Act 2021 in any event.

Other

ID sylw: 107912

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Whilst Terra recognises the importance of best and most versatile (“BMV) agricultural
land, in relation to economic and environmental benefits, Terra do not consider that the
SWAs approach is necessary.
2.119 The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance
the natural and local environment by “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services –
including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural
land…” (Para 187b). Notwithstanding this, again, the SWAs should have regard to
paragraph 16(f) of the NPPF (i.e. serve a clear purpose and avoid ‘unnecessary duplication).
2.120 To this end, Terra considers that a policy that largely duplicates the protections afforded to
BMV in the NPPF would not ‘serve a clear purpose’ and would fail the test of compliance
with national policy.