Issue and Options 2023

No

The development of the SWLP to date has clearly involved a huge amount of work. However there is a fundamental flaw in the process which has been amplified by the publication of the draft revised National Planning Policy Framework (December 2022). The current direction of Government policy is that Green Belt land should be protected and does not have to be released to meet housing need. SWLP Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 seek to promote health and environmental resilience, much of which we know can be gained from protecting and enhancing Green Belt land. This is evidenced by numerous comments from local people who use the Old Milverton footpaths for recreation and exercise (see Supporting Document A uploaded at S12). This is why Old Milverton & Blackdown Parish Council are so dismayed to see Green Belt development assumed in all five of the ‘spatial growth options’ here. Doing this is more than just being “blind” to whether proposed locations are in the green belt (Section S6, line 37). By offering no alternatives it suggests that the planning team has already assumed that it is necessary to remove land from the Green Belt. This is contradictory to national policy for three reasons: 1. The Government has asserted that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. See letter from the Secretary of State for LUHC to MPs on 5.12.22. This is now reflected in the draft NPPF (paragraph 142). 2. It does not take into account the views of local communities. The Secretary of State said that local authorities would “work with their communities” to determine “how many homes can actually be built, taking into account what should be protected in each area - be that our precious Green Belt or national parks, the character or an area, or heritage assets.” See written statement from SS LUHC, 6.12.22. 3. It ignores the existing protections for Green Belt land as outlined in (new) paragraph 143 of the NPPF which states: “Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development... [including whether it] (a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; (b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and (c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground. As we will set out in the remainder of our response, this ‘full examination’ has not taken place and the result is that the consultation document presumes that there will be Green Belt development, even though: i) no Green Belt review has taken place and ii) options for non- Green Belt development have been explored in SWLP workshops yet no weight or visibility has been given to these in the consultation document. With regard to the SWLP plan process, this situation gives rise to some key questions: i) Why is there no option to comment on Section 6 (“A review of green belt boundaries”)? ii) What would the timetable be for a review of the Green Belt? The West Midlands Land Commission (2017, p63) has cautioned against reviews being done piecemeal, so it should be part of a joint exercise. The results would then need to be known before spatial growth options can be firmed up, yet current timescales indicate that the preferred option will be put out for consultation in just four months’ time (July 2023). iii) Even if such a review were to take place in time, the Green Belt around North Leamington fulfils all of the stated purposes. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify its removal as the Secretary of State has made clear that housing need figures do not take precedence. Please see an analysis of the value and contribution of the Green Belt in North Leamington (Supporting Document B uploaded at S12). One further point that we wish to make is that some of the SWLP work that has been undertaken has not been presented transparently, to take three examples: i) The Spatial Growth Strategy Workshops which you carried out in June and July 2022 and reported on in September 2022 each involved two exercises to decide the distribution of growth, one with Green Belt development permitted, and one with it not permitted. This means that there will have been numerous explorations of non-Green Belt development, none of which feature in the consultation document. There is a complete lack of visibility or weight given to non-Green Belt development. ii) The 54% figure cited in favour of Green Belt development is, at best, misleading. This is not a representative figure because the respondents to the first consultation were not a representative sample. The document also fails to mention that 45% of respondents were developers, landowners or businesses (35% developers and 10% landowners according to Consultation Statement January 2022, p275). This suggests that only a small proportion of other respondents were in favour of pursuing growth opportunities. This skew towards groups with a vested interest means that this statistic should not be used as the primary statistic setting the scene for Section 6. More importantly it should not be used in any way as a justification for pursuing this strategy. iii) There are numerous other commissioned desktop studies and reports which make up the technical documentation. These amount to some 2,250 pages and are incredibly dense but at the same time utilise generic tick box descriptors, lack local knowledge and make extrapolations from uncomprehensive and potentially inaccurate data. They could even be construed as manufacturing a case for justifying exceptional circumstances to develop the Green Belt. Such studies must not be allowed to be used as a justification for development in the Green Belt. In view of all the above, we feel that the premise of the consultation is flawed and that the current process should be halted while the background and options are revisited in light of the national policy direction on the Green Belt.

Volume 3, Appendix B of the Sustainability Appraisal is troubling. We have looked closely at the analyses for Royal Leamington Spa North East (B.12) and Royal Leamington Spa North West (B.13) and find a number of statements inaccurate or opaque, for example: B13.4 (page B76) says “This Broad Location is unlikely to lead to coalescence of settlements.” However any development here would subsume Old Milverton and Blackdown into Leamington. It would also take the outskirts of Leamington up to the southern outskirts of Kenilworth, particularly the development at Thickthorn and other sites nearby. This is precisely what the Green Belt is designed to protect against. Also at B13.4 we are told “a minor negative impact on the recreational experience associated with these, and surrounding, footpaths could be expected”. If this site is developed, there will no longer be any recreational experience to be had as the footpaths would become pavements through a housing development. We think it is therefore inaccurate to call this a ‘minor negative impact’. All of our concerns about the analysis in this document apply equally to sites B.12 and B.13.

selected

selected

No

It would not be sensible to safeguard schemes which were not well-thought-through originally, and which are now based on outdated assumptions. The Park & Ride scheme in WDC is one such example. No land should be safeguarded for this site and no likely demand has been demonstrated for such a facility.

No answer given

selected

selected

selected

The examples given in the study are encouraging and a wider-ranging, more detailed exercise should be undertaken to ensure that the “brownfield first” pledge is met. The need to prioritise brownfield development comes across clearly in recent Government policy. The “brownfield first” pledge was most recently reiterated by the Prime Minister in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 6.10.22. Most brownfield sites are sustainable because they are located in areas with train stations and bus routes. It may be necessary to explore meeting the costs of remedial measures from public funds to make the use of these sites viable for developers. Additionally, we support the suggestion of the Secretary of State for LUHC (written statement 6.12.22) to explore setting a lower Infrastructure Levy rate on brownfield over greenfield to increase the potential for brownfield development. This would allow South Warwickshire to reflect national policy and deliver the “brownfield first” pledge by giving substantial weight to the value of using brownfield land. Certain types of intensification in town centres should be supported for example the conversion of unused retail property, including upper floors, to provide housing. In terms of the way that brownfield development is measured, it is important to be specific about the number of dwellings rather than the number of sites. For example, the current Warwick District Plan states that it seeks to maximise the use of brownfield sites with 9% of allocated sites using brownfield land. It does not say what percentage of houses would be on brownfield sites, which might not be very different depending on the size of the brownfield as opposed to greenfield sites.

selected

selected

selected

No

In more general terms, the Settlement Analysis (like the other technical documents) has been conducted ‘blind’ to whether an area is in the Green Belt or not. Chapter 2, para 2.2, page 6 states that “The premise of the study is to identify the opportunities and constraints for growth in and around the settlements.” The analysis then undermines its own premise by ignoring the massive constraint that Green Belt land rightly places upon development: “the analysis has been undertaken irrespective of whether the settlement is within the green belt – it is simply the physical attributes of the settlements.” Although it does acknowledge the “strong national policy designation” for Green Belt where “any incursion would require thorough examination and robust justification” the analysis is flawed because this fact is not even mentioned in the analysis of those settlements which are in the Green Belt. In addition, it only analyses the existing settlement, rather than the proposed extension areas, many of which spill into Green Belt land.

No

In more general terms, the Settlement Analysis (like the other technical documents) has been conducted ‘blind’ to whether an area is in the Green Belt or not. Chapter 2, para 2.2, page 6 states that “The premise of the study is to identify the opportunities and constraints for growth in and around the settlements.” The analysis then undermines its own premise by ignoring the massive constraint that Green Belt land rightly places upon development: “the analysis has been undertaken irrespective of whether the settlement is within the green belt – it is simply the physical attributes of the settlements.” Although it does acknowledge the “strong national policy designation” for Green Belt where “any incursion would require thorough examination and robust justification” the analysis is flawed because this fact is not even mentioned in the analysis of those settlements which are in the Green Belt. In addition, it only analyses the existing settlement, rather than the proposed extension areas, many of which spill into Green Belt land. Finally it is inaccurate to say that “this matter will be explored further in the Issues and Options consultation.” It is dealt with only summarily in Section S6 and no consultation question is posed so there is no opportunity for stakeholders to comment directly.