Other

ID sylw: 108293

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bostrom Property LLP

Asiant : Fisher German

The Council’s proposed approach is to meet the provisions of the 2024 NPPF through a flexibility
allowance (2,188 dwellings per annum), but the Plan seems to adopt a lower housing requirement
of only 1,679 dwellings per annum, which is derived from the HEDNA (November 2022) (which is
already out of date having regard for the PPG which allows a 2-year period). For the avoidance of
doubt, given the Plan has almost certainly missed the transitional arrangements which would
allow the above approach to be advanced, the housing requirement must at the very minimum be
the Local Housing Need figure of 2,188 dwellings per annum. It is not appropriate or in compliance
with the NPPF 2024 to cover off Local Housing Need through supply but not the adopted housing
requirement, unless the Council is advancing an exceptional circumstances argument.
2.2 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2024) affirms “strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for
objectively assessed needs for housing”. Paragraph 69 states that “Strategic policy-making authorities
should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their
identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over
the plan period. The requirement may be higher than the identified housing need if, for example, it
includes provision for neighbouring areas, or reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development
or infrastructure investment”.
2.3 It is not sound to identify a housing requirement below Local Housing Need (without an
exceptional circumstances argument), justified through having sufficient supply to meet Local
Housing Need. If there is sufficient supply to meet the housing requirement, it is considered highly
unlikely exceptional circumstances could exist which would justify an alternative approach,
particularly having regard to historic delivery rates (discussed below) and the impetus on uplifting
housing delivery endorsed by the most recent framework.
2.4 The housing requirement must therefore be clear it is a minimum of 2,188 dwellings per annum,
or 54,700 dwellings over the Plan period derived from the Standard Method, not the now out of
date requirements derived from the HEDNA. This is required as a matter of soundness, not least
5
‘Positively prepared’, which the NPPF prescribes as “providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks
to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs”; but also consistent with national policy having regard
for paragraphs 11 and 69 as provided above.
2.5 However, in accordance with the NPPF and PPG, it is necessary to consider whether the housing
requirement should be Local Housing Need, or a figure in excess of Local Housing Need. This uplift
can be derived for numerous factors, including seeking to increase economic growth, affordable
housing delivery, or relating to opportunities arising through the delivery of strategic infrastructure.
The Iceni Paper ‘Advice on Housing & Employment Land Needs’ (February 2024) affirms that that
2,808 dpa may be required in South Warwickshire utilising a 5-year migration scenario, and Table
6.10 indicates that at least 2,772 dpa is needed to meet the total affordable housing need. The
Council’s own evidence is clear that if there is to be movement from Local Housing Need, it is likely
to be higher, not lower as currently proposed.
2.6 The PPG also advised logically that evidence of higher levels of delivery in previous years can be a
strong sign of market need and this should be considered as part of setting the housing
requirement. It is noted having regard for the Council’s monitoring papers that the Plan area has
exceeded the Local Housing Need figure of 2,188 dwellings per annum 6 out of 8 years, including
2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2021/22 and 2022/23. It is noted the only year since
2015/16 where housing delivered was below 2,188 dwellings per annum was 2020/21, peak covid
years and thus clearly could have been impacted by Covid restrictions. In two years the Council
delivered in excess of 2,600 dwellings per annum. These figures strongly suggest that the housing
requirement should be increased, not decreased, from Local Housing Need and the Council’s
approach is likely to stifle what is a healthy and successful housing market. This squeezing of new
supply could expedite house price growth, disproportionate to wage growth, and could thus result
in lower spending in the local economy and less opportunity for younger people, or those without
existing equity, to stay in the area.
2.7 Another crucially important factor to review is a consideration of unmet need, but this is subject
of its own question answered below.
2.8 It is noted that the plan assumes windfall delivery of 9,375 dwellings over the Plan period. This
equates to circa 20% of the supply proposed. For such high amount of windfall to be assumed, the
Council needs strong evidence both on historic delivery, but also in respect of ongoing supply. In
6
respect of historic delivery, regard would need to be had for fluctuating delivery rates. It is noted
that the AMR (2022/23) indicates windfall delivery varies significantly from almost a thousand
dwellings achieved in some years, to below 50 dwellings in others.
2.9 Windfall redevelopment opportunities are ultimately a finite resource and those sites which are
easiest and most appropriate for development will likely have been developed, leaving a pool of
more difficult sites less likely to be delivered. Whilst there will be a churn in the supply as sites
become available, recent years delivery cannot be guaranteed to be sustainable over a long period..
Whilst windfall allowance rates by definition cannot be wholly predicted, clearly the higher the
reliance on the windfall delivery, the higher the risk of plan failure is if sites do not to come forward.
The windfall rate should be reduced to reflect this historic uncertainty in respect of delivery.
2.10 It is noted that the approach adopted by the Council is that that LHN will be met through essentially
additional supply or buffer. Notwithstanding our comments above in relation to the soundness of
this approach, it is further worthy to note that when the Council adopts LHN or higher as its
housing requirement, it will be necessary still for the Plan to contain a buffer to ensure delivery. In
accordance with the NPPF, this should be in excess of 5%, but for contingency should be closer to
20%.
2.11 In terms of spatial strategy, the Council confirmed that it intends to proceed with a ‘Sustainable
Travel and Economy’ spatial growth strategy, with three ‘priority areas’ for growth identified.
Priority 1 is brownfield land. Whilst the Council concede brownfield land cannot meet all of its
development requirements, the strategy shows a clear preference for brownfield land and as such
the Council should receive positively additional brownfield opportunities such as those associated
with the Arrow Works site.
2.12 It is noted that the Arrow Works site is not a designated employment site and is located in the
highly sustainable settlement of Studley (currently designated as a Main Rural Centre in the
adopted Core Strategy), close to neighbouring Redditch. The site is in close proximity to existing
bus stops on Redditch Road, with further higher frequency services available a short walk away
on Alcester Road. The Alcester Road forms the settlements main street with various services and
facilities in close proximity of the site including doctors, schools, shops, etc. The site is highly
sustainable and suitable for residential development and should be considered positively as part
7
of ongoing site appraisal and allocation work ahead of the next phase of consultation.
2.13 The site’s tenants have not requested a further extension in lease and thus the current use is
anticipated to cease in 2026. We understand the current tenant have been receiving abatement
notices from the council regarding opposition to the noise levels associated with the current
commercial use. As such, the landowners do not see a sustainable future commercial use of the
site, hence their confidence in residential. The Council should thus recognise this opportunity to
end a noise generating use which is causing amenity issues whilst allocating a site which is
predominantly brownfield.
2.14 A call for sites form has been provided. It is noted that this site falls outside of the scope of the
current Call for Sites consultation, but given the site’s context and opportunity, we hope the Council
will take a flexible approach with regards to this submission.

Other

ID sylw: 108294

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bostrom Property LLP

Asiant : Fisher German

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
2.15 Whilst we do not object to the principal of the identification of a new settlement through this Plan, we would urge caution be applied if the Council rely on a new settlements delivery to meet the overall quantum of housing growth necessary over the Plan period. Large scale, freestanding communities are notoriously difficult to deliver and require significant amounts of planning and infrastructure delivery prior to the first dwellings being delivered. 2.16 Our preferred approach in this scenario is to positively allocate such sites above and beyond the sites needed to meet housing needs, or at worst with highly cautious assumptions in terms of lead in times and annual build out rates. If work is underway and delivery has started, this can be reflected in later plan reviews. This ensures that the site is allocated, which should provide the confidence needed to the market to commit to the works and evidence necessary to obtain the appropriate planning consents but means that housing delivery will continue if work is delayed or doesn’t come forward at all. 2.17 This approach also means the Council retain an element of control, meaning they can ensure the new settlement comes forward in an acceptable manner, and are not forced to compromise on key elements to ensure the site is delivered due to an over reliance on delivery. If it becomes apparent at a future Local Plan Review that the site is going to deliver, through evidence and 8 appropriate planning consents, then the Council can begin to rely on delivery as part of its housing figures. 2.18 Given the likely lead in times, assumed in excess of 7 years supported by evidence documents such as Lichfield Start to Finish Volume 3, Saville’s Housing Saville’s Planning and Housing Delivery and the Letwin Review, it is considered unlikely any development will be forthcoming on such sites until the latter end of the Plan period. This approach however could provide supply and certainty in the long term and an important avenue for future delivery, whilst ensuring a healthy housing land supply to ensure continued choice and competition in the market and not ‘putting all eggs into a single basket’. 2.19 Your attention is also drawn to correspondence of the ongoing Bedford Local Plan Examination where Inspectors concluded recently that build out rates assumed by the Council on the two proposed strategic sites were wholly unrealistic and that there was very little flexibility in the remainder of the Plan. The result being the Council now need to find additional sites to give the Inspector’s assurances that the housing requirements can reasonably be met. 2.20 The Inspector’s letter of the 27 November 2023 sets out these fundamental concerns. Paragraph 53 states “the delivery rate for larger sites is also naturally constrained by traditional factors that would exist regardless, such as master planning and arriving at an acceptable scheme, opening up, providing infrastructure, and resource availability. As such, attaching a high level of premium to delivery rates due to Corridor growth is not a justified approach. It is instead more logical to take a cautious attitude to this issue”. Paragraph 54 continues “Overall, I am not satisfied that the assumed build out rates for either Little Barford or Kempston Hardwick are based on justified assumptions that are soundly based. This is the case before factoring in the uncertainty around infrastructure delivery timings discussed above and is a view that only hardens once the two issues are considered alongside each other”. 2.21 With regards for implications, paragraph 55 states “as discussed above, the soundness of the spatial strategy (and therefore the Plan) is fundamentally linked to the deliverability of strategic infrastructure and the reasonableness of the assumptions on alignment with anticipated growth”. It continues “in addition, the assumed build out rates for the two new settlements on which so much of the Plan’s growth relies upon are not based on justified assumptions”. 9 2.22 Paragraph 56 states “by the Council’s own acceptance, the Plan has very little flexibility built in that may assist with managing either of these issues”, concluding that “from the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that housing needs after 2030 would be addressed as anticipated, leaving an overall gap in provision against assessed needs within the Borough across the entire plan period (including affordable housing)”. 2.23 Taking all relevant factors into consideration, the Inspector’s letter concludes at paragraph 57 and 58 that “from the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that housing needs after 2030 would be addressed as anticipated, leaving an overall gap in provision against assessed needs within the Borough across the entire plan period (including affordable housing)… Taking the three issues of assumptions around infrastructure delivery, build out rates, and the reliance on a stepped trajectory together, I am unable to conclude that the Plan meets the tests of soundness at paragraph 35 of the NPPF”. 2.24 It is apparent any strategy which places overreliance on such delivery risks falling foul of the same issues at EiP. A cautious approach is therefore entirely sensible if there is to be the identification of any new settlements as part of the emergent spatial strategy.

No

ID sylw: 108295

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bostrom Property LLP

Asiant : Fisher German

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 3- Small Scale
Development, Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development?
2.25 No, we do not agree with this approach for the reasons set out below. We set out the compelling
justification for commensurate growth down the spatial hierarchy in relation to Draft Policy
Direction 1.
2.26 Fundamentally, any policy which relies on Neighbourhood Plans to make allocations is not likely
to be effective as ultimately the Council cannot control whether Neighbourhood Plans will be
forthcoming and it will essentially reward communities for not making a Neighbourhood Plan
which is clearly inappropriate. Should the Council wish to rely on this approach, the Policy must be
extended so that if a Neighbourhood Plan has not been made within 2 years of adoption of the
Plan then housing needs for the settlement can be positively met through applications. It is noted
that Studley has been a designated area for the purpose of neighbourhood planning for some time,
but a draft Plan has not yet materialised, thus highlighting the flaws of this approach.

Other

ID sylw: 108296

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bostrom Property LLP

Asiant : Fisher German

2.27 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF however further states that “Plans and decisions should apply a “presumption in favour of sustainable development…For plan-making this means that: strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas” [our emphasis]. This is also again clear at Paragraph 69. 2.28 Stratford forms part of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area and both Stratford and Warwick are within the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area. There are demonstrable unmet needs in both. Whilst these may have improved through the updated Standard Methodology for generating LHN, not least due to the removal of the 35% urban uplift, even with this removed there will still be unmet needs which can be quantified in the short term and positively dealt with through new allocations. 2.29 Given the acknowledged regional shortfalls and thus unmet need, this is an issue which needs to be grappled with at least provisionally in this Plan through the contribution of additional supply. We do not agree this should be inherently linked to the relevant 5-year supply of external authorities as ultimately this may be in dispute and regardless, unmet needs are present now which require response, not hypothetical unmet needs which will only emanate when they do not have a 5-year housing land supply. Clearly a housing land supply shortfall in that given authority will induce the presumption in favour and allow for that issue to be remedied locally, not through neighbouring release of land. Unmet need is a strategic intervention and acknowledgement that authorities are unable to meet their requirements as a fundamental part of Plan making. 2.30 This Plan must therefore as an intrinsic part of its housing requirement provide for unmet needs, and again in terms of supply a sufficient buffer should be provided to ensure that the requirement is met in full in order to be in accordance with national policy and also positively prepared (which explicitly references unmet needs) and effective (NPPF Paragraph 36).