Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Thwaites families search
New searchThe issues with the 2014-based household projections have been known for a long as having over estimated the population growth level across the country. Despite this the NPPF still currently states that these are the figures which should be used. Within Warwickshire the biggest impact this has had is in Coventry where the highest levels of growth were taking place. Both Stratford and Warwick have been meeting their HDT and have delivered well in excess of 100% of their delivery requirements in 2021 and 2020. This together with the fact that both authorities have in excess of a 5 year housing land supply with the 5% buffer built in, all demonstrates that the authorities have been meeting their plan objectives by delivering dwellings in the past and there is no reason to doubt they will in the future. Looking at the trend based approach for Warwick and Stratford, these figures are in fact higher than the 2014-based projections. The 2014-based projections provides a requirement of 564 dwellings for Stratford and 675 for Warwick and the trend based projections set out a requirement of 868 for Stratford and 811 for Warwick annually. We note that the Urban Capacity study has a housing figure of 31,000, which is more in line with the 2014-based household projections. The conclusion from this was that to meet this lower overall number there would have to be development outside of the urban and settlement boundaries. If we agree that the trend based number are the most appropriate to use for the Plan period then the need to develop outside of the urban boundaries and the settlement boundaries has further increased. This is just the housing need for South Warwickshire; this doesn’t take into account needing to take on any unmet need from Birmingham and the Black Country. Stratford DC is part of the Birmingham HMA so would have been required to take some proportion of the unmet housing needs. If we use the trend-based figures then the housing need is 41,785 dwellings over the plan period; so annually this would be 1,672 dwellings per annum, as a minimum. Until it is clear what additional housing numbers are required from Birmingham and the Black Country, in South Warwickshire, the Plan needs to identify a range of sites which can realistically come forward, both adjoining all existing settlements as well as creating new settlements and providing the larger numbers as a minimum which the trend-based figures are suggesting. From the data on the tenure and type of housing required the greatest need for affordable housing is in South Warwickshire. The analysis indicates that the need for social or affordable rented properties should be focused on smaller properties, as in this sector households’ size is more closely aligned to the sizes of homes. 70% of the need identified is for 1- and 2-bed properties; and 30% for properties with three or more bedrooms. The greatest need for affordable home ownership is for 2 bedroom houses, with some need for 3 beds as well (for both Warwick and Stratford the need was 45% for 2 beds and 25% for three beds). Smaller scale sites can also help provide small scale affordable housing needs in settlements, and having varied affordable housing requirements across the SWLP area allows sites to be come forward and provide these units.
selected
selected
selected
Paragraph 141 of the NPPF as adopted and in the current consultation version both seek to prioritise the use of brownfield land before looking to take land out of the greenbelt. However as identified in the Issues and Options Consultation document, some brownfield sites are located away form settlements such as airfields and by virtue of their location would not be classed as sustainable. However, the Council’s own growth strategy requires the development of brand-new settlements which will have to be in locations outside of the built-up boundaries of urban areas, in order to meet the required housing need. These new settlements will by virtue of their size will be able to provide the funding for their own infrastructure and therefore become sustainable. This may also be the case for smaller developments which seeks to extend existing village settlement boundaries, and therefore increasing the critical mass required to have more services and infrastructure. Not all brownfield development is acceptable; whilst most brownfield sites are located within the urban environment, the urban capacity study has discounted some of these small sites as being unsuitable. Smaller sites also have physical constraints from the existing built environment which means that their development can negatively impact on the amenity of existing residential development as well as negatively impacting on the operation of commercial uses. The urban capacity study has looked at the possible redevelopment of a number of large car parking in town centres to provide some of the housing numbers. The study itself acknowledges that in order for this to happen there would need to be significant interventions and management; this is a strategy which is unprecedented in South Warwickshire and nationally. Regardless of this, it is impossible to provide the housing numbers required over the plan period unless none brownfield development is undertaken. Brownfield development may also with higher development costs where additional care needs to be taken with regards to contamination, impact on access and additional amenity mitigation to make development acceptable. Greenfield or non-brownfield development whilst having to provide brand new infrastructure, has a better opportunity to provide other benefits such as open space, larger plot sizes and affordable housing to help existing settlements.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
New settlements will need to be part of the overall housing strategy if South Warwickshire are able to meet their own housing needs as well as any potential need to take numbers from the Birmingham HMA, and well as the overall Warwickshire HMA. It is clear from Figure 2 in the Issues and Options Document that the northern part of the area is constrained by the Green Belt, and covers most of the undeveloped land within Warwick DC. Stratford DC currently has very little Green Belt but has an overall Open Countryside policy which looks to restrict development. It makes sense therefore for new settlements to be located in areas of Stratford and the South of the area, where there is little Green Bet restriction. New settlements together with the growth of existing settlements and larger Villages is a more comprehensive approach to meeting the housing numbers required. The HEDNA provides information on market demand from local agents which demonstrated that within Warwick and Stratford the demand for family homes is outstripping supply with a minimum of 3 bedrooms wanted, with up to 30% of buyers relocating from London looking for larger homes and more garden space. Generally, in these location there is less demand for flats, with Leamington have some demand for town centre living. Whilst the NPPF and the SWLP principle of ‘brownfield first’ it is clear that the demand for more traditional family homes with a driveway and a garden is outstripping supply, and these types of dwellings can realistically only be delivered where there is space; something which is limited in town centres or the majority of brownfield sites. New Settlements have the ability to provide the dwellings which people want to live in proving the infrastructure they need as they move in. This position is further supported by the Urban Capacity Study, which has concluded that there are not enough sites within the urban boundaries of the existing towns and settlements to meet the housing required, regardless of the method used to calculate the housing numbers. Option for Growth 1 looks at providing a number of new settlements based on the existing rail corridor. One of these corridors is between Leamington and Banbury which would include railway line which runs to the north of Harbury. The proposed new settlement at Depper’s Bridge is already supported by the development of the former Harbury cement works which was originally going to provide up to 200 residential units, a 40 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2), Employment Uses (Use Classes B1/B2 – 6050m2 floorspace), Doctors Surgery (Use Class D1) and creation of nature reserve with associated access and infrastructure. In fact, this development has provided 280 residential units following the grant of planning permission to add 80 dwellings in place of the employment floorspace. However, the new settlements would be exactly that; brand new settlement which would be creating an identity of their own and not seeking to absorb established settlements. The potential new development at Depper’s Bridge would need to ensure that coalescence is not an issue with the established village of Harbury, and should not seek to take away from Harbury. Harbury should as we have set out be required to take some growth from the overall housing numbers, but in doing so should reflect the current nature of development and characteristics.
selected
selected
Trying to amend or create new boundaries of settlement in Part 1 will means that non-strategic allocations will not be included and then the boundaries will not accurately reflect smaller allocations that may come forward. At the moment there are inconsistencies in the way the authorities approach boundaries and development, and this would remain until Part 2 of the SWLP is completed. However, there is no reason why there cannot be a boundary review policy within Part 1 which sets out the aspirations to allow existing settlement boundaries to be reviewed and amended subject to any non-strategic allocations which may come forward or are a part of Plan 2. A review policy like the one to review the housing numbers in the existing Warwick Local Plan after 5 years of its adoption. We would like to point out however that currently the settlement boundaries for villages in both Warwick and Stratford, are extremely tightly drawn, and in practical terms leaves very little opportunity for infill development to take place. A site like Bush Heath Lane should for example help to re-examine boundaries for existing settlements, and amendments made to accommodate this small-scale growth, as early as possible to be able to make it easier for the SWLP to identify land for housing as well as the numbers.
