Other

ID sylw: 108189

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire? 2.41 Whilst St Philips welcomes the SWA’s acknowledgement that the SWLP may need to play a role in addressing the unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities within the Coventry & Warwickshire Housing Market Area [C&WHMA]2 and Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area [GBBCHMA]3, St Philips has some concerns regarding the SWLP’s proposed approach. 2.42 The SWLP proposes – albeit not explicitly – to only assist with addressing the unmet housing needs of the C&WHMA and GBBCHMA only when it these unmet needs are defined, and through the release of ‘reserve sites’. However, the PO does not identify, at this stage, any ‘reserve sites’, nor does the PO’s commentary on the proposed spatial strategy speak to this matter. 2.43 Importantly, the NPPF emphasises that local planning authorities [LPAs] must cooperate to identify and meet housing needs within their housing market areas [HMA] (Para 11b), and that plans should be supported by relevant and up-to-date evidence (Para 32). It also reiterates that LPAs’ continue to be under a Duty to Cooperate [DtC] (Para 24). It is also clear that:
“Plans come forward at different times, and there may be a degree of uncertainty about the future direction of relevant development plans or the plans of infrastructure providers. In such circumstances strategic policy-making authorities and Inspectors will need to come to an informed decision on the basis of available information, rather than waiting for a full set of evidence from other authorities.” (Para 28) 2.44 In this context, given the acuteness of the situation in these HMAs – outlined in detail below – it will be necessary for the SWLP to make provision for any unmet housing needs arising from these HMAs at the point of adoption, rather than deferring this matter to a time when the unmet needs have been ‘evidenced’ and through the release of ‘reserve sites’. Indeed, this is particularly pertinent, given the Inspector’s recent findings in respect of the Solihull Local Plan Review where problems of Birmingham’s unmet need were not adequately addressed within the plan, resulting in a terminal failure of the soundness of the plan. 2.45 It is noted that there is no single, or definitive, approach to determining the proportion of unmet needs that any single area should accommodate. In any event, given that the SWLP area sits within the two HMAs, both with serious historic housing land supply challenges, St Philips considers that there is an extremely high level of certainty based on the current evidence that the SWLP will need to accommodate some of these needs. 2.46 By way of example, whilst there is some degree of uncertainty regarding whether there will be any unmet housing needs arising from the C&WHMA, it is plain to see that the SWLP will need to assist in meeting the unmet housing needs of the GBBCHMA up to 2042 at the very least. Indeed, despite the revisions to the NPPF and SM alleviating pressures in the GBBCHMA in part,4 a significant housing shortfall across the GBBCHMA remains, with an estimated cumulative shortfall of c.42,900 homes across the WMCA up to 2042 under the SM, arising from the Black Country Authorities [BCAs].5 To address these needs, the BCAs are actively seeking to export these needs into the GBBCHMA – of which the SOADC falls within – to be addressed through the forthcoming Local Plan. 2.47 At present, only Shropshire (1,500), South Staffordshire (640), Cannock Chase (500), Stafford (2,000) and Telford & Wrekin (1,6806) are proposing to contribute towards addressing these unmet housing needs. Collectively, this would equate to only 6,320 dwellings between 2018 and 2042, but, notably, several of these plans have stalled or are at risk of being found unsound in due course. Notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding these ‘contributions’, a significant unmet housing need would still remain within the GBBCHMA. As such, at present, there is an unaccounted shortfall up to 2042, which is substantial given the urban context of the BCAs, meaning that a significant proportion of the unmet need will be deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to paragraph 35c of the current NPPF. This highlights the importance of SWAs effectively delivering on their DtC. 2.48 Ultimately, there is a significant, and persistent level of unmet housing need across the GBBCHMA and even with some Green Belt releases in the BCAs it is unlikely to markedly reduce the GBBCHMA’s significant shortfall of housing. To this end, the SWAs and wider GBBCHMA authorities will need to make appropriate contributions towards addressing these needs now. As such, whilst there remains some uncertainty regarding the exact amount of unmet housing needs, under the revised NPPF, the SWLP will need to make provisions based on the current level of information, rather than deferring until these unmet needs are defined. 2.49 In terms of how much of these needs the SWAs should be addressing through the SWLP, it is noted that there is not a single, or definitive, approach to determining the proportion of unmet needs that any single Council should accommodate. That being said, the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should be based on ‘proportionate evidence’ (Para 35c). 2.50 However, as the SWAs will be aware, Lichfields has historically provided an evidence-led approach for how to distribute previous unmet housing needs sustainably. In particular, Lichfields’ Black Country’s Next Top Model analysis considers the functional housing market relationship between the various local authority areas in the GBBCHMA and the origin-authorities of the unmet housing needs. 2.51 It should be noted that of the current contributions towards the BCA's unmet needs, Wolverhampton has highlighted that the BCAs are attributing proportions based on migration trends: “is important to develop an evidence-led approach to dividing up such contributions between authorities across the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) which have a housing shortfall. The proposed approach, which has been agreed by the Black Country authorities, is to divide up contributions based on the proportion of historic net migration flows between the contributing authority and shortfall authorities.” (Para 4.6, Wolverhampton Local Plan - Regulation 19 Consultation Cabinet Report 13th November 2024) (Emphasis Added) 2.52 Importantly, Lichfields’ approach (i.e. Functional Relationship) aligns broadly with the BCA’s approach to apportioning proposed unmet need contributions to the BCAs as a whole. This approach also aligns in principle with the approach adopted to distribute Coventry’s unmet needs across the C&WHMA previously. Again, the Inspector for the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy (2017) endorsed this approach. More recently, in considering how the unmet housing needs of Leicester could be addressed throughout the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area [LLHMA] a similar functional relationship approach was utilised and has been accepted by Inspectors at the Charnwood EiP. 2.53 Notably, Lichfields analysis takes account of the degree of migration and commuting linkages within the GBBCHMA to the BCAs, opportunities to capitalise on sustainable transport links and improve affordability, and the degree of environmental and physical constraints which might impede on an authority’s ability to accommodate unmet housing need. The analysis ultimately illustrates the functional linkages between the authorities within the GBBCHMA, and the origins of the unmet housing need (i.e. the BCAs), and shows how the BCA’s unmet housing needs could be sustainably distributed. For SOADC, Lichfields’ functional housing market relationship analysis indicates that the SOADC should be seeking to make provision for c.1% of the total unmet needs of the BCAs – or around c.500 dwellings based on the current level of unmet need. 2.54 The above serves to highlight that there is evidence to suggest that the SWAs should be seeking to make an appropriate contribution through the SWLP now, rather than deferring it, in accordance with paragraph 35c of the NPPF. St Philips considers that given the relatively modest contribution required of SOADC when compared to the SWA’s own housing requirement up to 2050, it would be entirely reasonable and sustainable for the SWLP to make provision for this within the SWLP. St Philips considers that it is likely that there are sites throughout the SWLP area that could sustainably contribute to addressing the SWA’s own housing needs and a proportion of the GBBCHMA’s unmet housing needs. Indeed, it is evident that there are opportunities to allocate ‘suitable, available and achievable’ land and sites in sustainable locations across South Warwickshire.

Yes

ID sylw: 108190

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy
Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
2.55 In general, St Philips agrees with the SWA’s proposed approach of requiring developments
to make contributions towards the delivery of infrastructure. It is entirely appropriate for
development to mitigate their impacts, and where possible and necessary make
contributions towards associated infrastructure. However, as the SWAs will be aware, these
contributions must:
a necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b directly related to the development; and
c fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development (Para 58,
NPPF).
2.56 As such, as the SWAs progress the SWLP, it will be critical that an Infrastructure Delivery
Plan [IDP] is prepared, which identifies the infrastructure necessary to mitigate proposed
development allocations – this will be particularly critical for any SGLs or New Settlements.
2.57 However, the NPPF is clear that planning policies should be “clearly written and
unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development
proposals” (Para 16d). In addition, Paragraph 34 clearly states that:
“Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include
setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other
infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water
management, green and digital infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the
deliverability of the plan.” (Emphasis Added)
2.58 Therefore, it will be critical that the SWLP is clear through site-specific allocations what
infrastructure improvements are required for each development allocation.
2.59 In addition, and as stated throughout St Philips’ response, the NPPF is also clear that
planning policies should have regard to the economic viability of sites (Para 68) and should
not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 34). 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 site-specific infrastructure required to support the delivery of some sites, as
well as any Community Infrastructure Levy.

Other

ID sylw: 108191

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

St Philips support the SWLP identifying potential SGLs within the Green Belt. It is possible for Green Belt land to be the most sustainable location for development even where other sources of greenfield land is potentially available. This accords with the sequential test in NPPF Paragraph 147 as it is clear there is insufficient capacity to deliver purely through brownfield land and optimising densities, and other authorities in the Housing Market Area are equally constrained by Green Belt and/or tight administrative boundaries.

Land at Stratford Road, Hockley Heath was found to make only a moderate contribution to Green Belt in the Stage 1 Review. St Philips believe the site constitutes 'Grey Belt' as it does not strongly contribute to purposes a, b or d and there are no Footnote 7 constraints on the site. Additionally it is well-located to access a range of key local amenities in Hockley Heath and Solihull. The site lies on one of the main bus corridors providing access to larger settlements and is approximately 2km from Dorridge Station. Hockley Heath is a sustainable location for growth within South Warwickshire and growth would promote sustainable patterns of development in accordance with the NPPF.

Yes

ID sylw: 108192

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 10- Providing the Right Tenure and Type of Homes? 2.72 Yes, paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups (including those who require affordable housing) should be reflected in planning policies. Paragraph 32 states that all policies should be “underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence”, which “should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned.” St Philips therefore agrees that the SWAs should have regard to the latest evidence in drafting policies relating to housing tenure and type in due course, in accordance with the NPPF. 2.73 In addition, Paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF states that policies should be “clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.” In addition, Paragraph 34 clearly states that: “Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.” 2.74 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). Crucially, both the NPPF and PPG are clear that contributions should be tested through the viability process, so as to ensure that they do not undermine the deliverability of the plan. 2.75 In this regard, it is acknowledged that the SWAs have not quantified a proposed affordable housing requirement yet. The PPG8 is also clear that the SWLP should seek to meet as much of its identified affordable housing needs as possible, albeit, the SWLP is not required to meet its affordable needs in full.9 In this context, it will be critical for the SWAs to test different requirements through the Viability Assessment to ensure that the affordable housing requirement would not undermine the deliverability of the SWLP on the whole (i.e. Para 34) – this will particularly be the case for allocations within the Green Belt within the context of the NPPF’s ‘Golden Rules’ (Paras 67, 68 and 156a). 2.76 Notwithstanding the above, St Philips would also support the inclusion of a viability caveat within the future affordable housing policy to enable flexibility where it is required and can be justified. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should be flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and changing economic conditions (Paragraph 82d). As such, St Philips considers that such a caveat would allow developers to react flexibly to changing economic circumstances, and suggests the below wording: “Lower proportions of affordable housing will only be accepted where a viability assessment, prepared in accordance with national planning policy and guidance, clearly demonstrates that the full policy requirement cannot be achieved.” 2.77 Notably, this approach would align with SOADC’s approach within the adopted Core Strategy (i.e. Policy CS.18).

Yes

ID sylw: 108193

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft PolicyA- Providing the Right Size of Homes?
2.78 St Philips is supportive of the SWA’s efforts to improve housing standards by requiring
developments to meet Nationally Described Space Standards [NDSS]. However, St Philips
wishes to highlight that this requirement will need to be sufficiently justified.
2.79 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.”
Furthermore, As noted above, the NPPF is clear that plans should underpinned by relevant
and up-to-date 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.10
2.80 St Philips 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).
2.81 In this context, St Philips 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: 108194

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy B- Providing Custom and Self Building Housing Plots? 2.82 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. 2.83 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. 2.84 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.11 2.85 Whilst supportive in principle, St Philips has some concerns regarding the SWA’s proposed approach to delivering SBCH. In particular, St Philips is concerned that there is no evidence that 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 St Philips 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. 2.86 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). To this end, the SWLP will need to be supported by a viability assessment that cumulatively tests the impact of policy requirements on the viability of sites allocated in the SWLP – including the impact of requiring delivering SBCH if these approaches are proposed. 2.87 St Philips 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. St Philips therefore considers that further evidence is needed to justify the policy applying SWLP-wide. 2.88 Finally, whilst the draft policy requires a marketing strategy for the plots, St Philips 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, St Philips 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.

Yes

ID sylw: 108195

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy
Direction-22- Net Zero Carbon Buildings?
2.89 Whilst St Philps strongly supports the SWAs moving towards Net Zero Carbon
development, as set out in detail in St Philps’ 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.
2.90 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.

Yes

ID sylw: 108197

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction- 24- Embodied carbon? 2.91 St Philips broadly supports the SWA’s approach to ensuring future developments deliver high-quality developments that seek to tackle climate change with proactive sustainable measures. However, St Philips fundamentally considers that policies must be sufficiently flexible, fit for purpose and well evidenced – as required by the NPPF. 2.92 St Philips 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. 2.93 Whilst the SWAs are within their rights 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). In this context, whilst supportive in principle, St Philips is concerned that the SWAs are seeking to make provision for a policy that deviates from national requirements without providing sufficient justification. Indeed, none of the SWA’s evidence base produced to date outlines policy options for embodied carbon; albeit it is noted that the SWA’s SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ suggests that ‘Climate Change Evidence’ will be prepared to support the SWLP, alongside the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’. However, this evidence would need to sufficiently demonstrate that such an approach is justified (Para 36b, NPPF), aspirational but deliverable (Para 16b, NPPF), and does not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 35, NPPF). 2.94 St Philips 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. 2.95 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). 2.96 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). 2.97 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” 2.98 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. 2.99 In light of the above, St Philips 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 –St Philips note that sufficient evidence to support this approach is required.

Other

ID sylw: 108198

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-38 Biodiversity Net Gain?
2.100 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) (Emphasis Added) 2.101 St Philips 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, St Philips 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. Indeed, no evidence on this matter is proposed within the evidence and other documents listed in SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ section to support the SWLP, other than the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’. 2.102 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). 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 BNG requirements – either at the statutory 10% or higher. 2.103 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 St Philips’ 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. 2.104 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 increase in percentage terms through policy. 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, St Philips 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: 108199

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction –39- Environmental Net Gain? 2.105 The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (Para 7, NPPF), and the NPPF is clear that sustainable development comprises three overarching objectives: economic, social and environmental (Para 8). It is also clear that opportunities should be taken to achieve net gains (Para 8). On the face of it, the delivery of Environmental Net Gain [ENG] would align with the NPPF and also be appropriate given that the SWAs have declared climate emergencies – it would also align with WDC’s ‘Climate Emergency Action Programme’ and SOADC’s ‘Council Plan 2019- 2023’. Therefore, in principle, St Philips broadly supports the SWA’s wider sustainable development aspirations and the principle of ENG. 2.106 St Philips understands that ENG comprises a series of holistic ‘net improvements’ to nature, such as water quality and air quality (etc.). In this regard, and notwithstanding St Philips’ broad support, the SWAs should again have regard to paragraph 16(f) of the NPPF (i.e. serve a clear purpose and avoid ‘unnecessary duplication). Crucially, Development Plans should be read as a whole. To this end, in its current form, St Philips considers that the draft policy would not ‘serve a clear purpose’, nor avoid ‘unnecessary duplication’ as the decision taker would need to have regard to the wider SWLP policies – such as (inter alia) draft Policy Directions 22, 24, 29, and 39 – when reading the SWLP as a whole. 2.107 Moreover, the NPPF is clear that policies should be aspirational, but deliverable (Para 16b), and be clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision-maker should react to development proposals (Para 16d). Whilst it is recognised that the SWAs are at the early stages of plan-making, at present, St Philips is concerned that the SWAs may seek to make provision for a policy that is ‘aspirational’, but not ‘deliverable’ as – at present – the policy is ‘unclear’ as no ENG framework presently exists. Indeed, the SWAs recognise this in the PO (Pg.158), stating that one has not been formulated.