UPSVLP 0405
We assume that the actual period runs from 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2038 in line with the Council?s plan monitoring, however it would be helpful if this were clarified.
It is clear that the Borough is facing challenges in relation to housing and affordable housing supply. It, therefore, remains our position that the proposed reduction in housing requirement and allocations to meet this requirement is not sufficient in tackling these challenges identified by the Council.
We suggest that ?to achieve this Vision? is inserted prior to Points (2) to (11), to confirm what the Council intends to do to support the delivery of the Vision.
Our Client is generally supportive of the overall proposed Vision for Warrington, which is generally consistent with national policy and will help bring forward positive social, economic and environmental change. As stated within our previous representations, as drafted, the proposed Vision is significantly lengthy, causing its focus and intent to be lost. The Vision should be short and concise, setting out the Council?s Vision for the Local Plan going forward, and the need to boost housing and employment and the Borough?s role in delivering these needs during the Plan period. There also appears to be substantial overlap and unnecessary repetition between the matters identified within the Vision and subsequent Strategic Objectives.
Our Client is generally supportive of the Objectives, which remain largely unchanged from the previous iteration of the Plan. An exception to this is the significant reduction in the housing delivery requirement, from 945 per year to 816 per year. This is based on the Standard Method Calculation of housing need. Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that the standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour (Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216). The Standard Method Calculation does not produce a housing requirement figure, and we therefore urge caution in proposing the Standard Method Calculation as the housing requirement. Paragraph 3.2.5 of the justification for the Strategic Objectives states that the Objectives have been updated to reflect the higher level of development that Warrington must plan for in order to meet its future development needs whilst retaining the character and liveability of the town. However, Objective W1 contradicts this statement and actually reflects a reduction in the planned level of development, particularly in relation to housing. Furthermore, our Client is concerned that the emerging Local Plan fails to consider in full the role of the outlying settlement due to the Plan?s continued focus on the Warrington Urban Area. It is our Client?s position that this over-reliance on the Urban Area will result in deliverability issues over the Plan period. We, therefore, consider that the Local Plan needs to be sufficiently equipped to respond to these issues, and to secure the vitality and viability of these outlying settlements and rural areas. This recognition should be made upfront within the Strategic Objectives.
The need to create a new garden suburb and urban extension is generally supported, alongside the need for development in outlying villages. However, we urge caution in the reliance of the Fiddlers Ferry opportunity site to provide 1,310 homes within the Plan period. The Council?s allocation of this land is not justified and there is a clear lack of evidence which confirms the deliverability of the Site. As such, the Council should not rely on the Fiddlers Ferry Site to deliver such a substantial amount of new housing within the Plan period, and further housing allocations should be made. Furthermore, our Client does not support the continued approach taken by the Council as to how and why only appropriate ?incremental growth? for each outlying settlement is proposed. It is our Client?s position that insufficient justification or rationale has been provided to explain this approach and we maintain that the outlying settlements will require a greater level of development to sustain their viability and vitality.
The Council provides their proposed case for exceptional circumstances which justifies the need for Green Belt release. It is our Client?s position that the Council?s justification for Green Belt release is appropriate, particularly as it has been demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity to meet the Borough?s housing needs within the Urban Area accordingly, and as such, Green Belt release is required. This approach and justification is compliant with Paragraph 139 of the NPPF and is therefore supported by our Client.
It is our position that the Borough?s approach to employment growth (jobs) and the number of homes to be provided is mismatched. Notwithstanding that Warrington has experienced significant levels of employment growth in the past, the LHNA confirms that a ?mid-point? forecast of employment growth has been adopted and this, as well as current commuting patterns, does not justify an increase to the housing requirement to support employment growth in Warrington. Our Client strongly opposes this approach and does not believe it has been sufficiently justified. In particular, the impacts of in-commuting are already an issue within Warrington. The existing motorway infrastructure struggles to accommodate the volume of commuting workers and experiences significant traffic congestion, particularly at peak times. The Council?s stagnant approach to job growth and housing delivery will therefore, only increase the number of commuters and heighten this issue, which will have a number of social, economic and environmental impacts. It is, therefore, clear that new homes should be provided to accommodate those who work within the Borough. It is necessary for the housing requirement to reflect that.
We suggest that additional sites are allocated on land adjacent to outlying settlements. This should also include a mix of greenfield, Green Belt and brownfield land. Our Client?s Site at Mill Lane in Lymm is available and able to quickly deliver homes within the short to medium term and we, therefore, promote this as a site to be allocated for housing delivery within the Local Plan.
Our Client objects to the Council?s approach to focus the majority of new development on brownfield land. A number of the identified allocations are considered unviable, or have other constraints such as flood risk. There is a lack of evidence to support the deliverability of some sites identified within the SHLAA. Due to this uncertainty, it is clear that some SHLAA sites cannot make a contribution towards the Council?s land supply. it is clear that the Council need to provide sufficient evidence for all of the proposed housing sites in order to inform an accurate view as to whether these sites are likely to deliver housing development within the Plan period. The annual minimum need from the SHLAA sites greatly exceeds that which has been achieved in the last 5 years. The emphasis on the town centre to deliver a significant proportion of the housing requirement carries significant risk associated with the uncertainty surrounding the deliverability and viability of key sites. There is currently a lack of evidence to support the allocation of the Fiddlers Ferry site, and there is no justification to confirm that it is capable of coming forward. As such, it is clear that the Local Plan needs to increase the number of green field and Green Belt sites in higher value areas, including in the outlying settlements, which offer much more certainty of delivery within the plan period.
The Policy is contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF and PPG, due to the use of a stepped requirement without appropriate justification.
The Council?s justification as set out at paragraph 4.1.19 suggests that the stepped requirement is a direct response to the SHLAA sites and allocation in the trajectory, rather than offering a specific evidence based justification. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to consider a good mix of sites that can deliver across the plan period. In stating that a stepped requirement is needed, the Council is effectively acknowledging that this requirement to achieve a range of sites has not been met. The Council?s most up-to-date five year housing land supply position confirms that, as of 1st April 2019, the Council only had a 3.7 year supply of housing land. Given that the Council have previously been unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, it is clear that a stepped approach to housing delivery is not justified.
The approach to reviewing the Plan as drafted is contrary to Paragraphs 31 to 33 of the NPPF, which clearly set out the need for Local Plans to be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence, and be reviewed every 5 years.
Policy DEV1 states that the Council will only give due consideration to a review or partial review of the Local Plan, this is not a firm commitment. It is necessary to include a mechanism to ensure that the Council can demonstrate and maintain a deliverable 5 year housing land supply throughout the Plan period. As such, it is considered that a partial review of the Local Plan may be necessary, should the Council experience a period of under-delivery (such as 3 years). This will provide greater certainty to developers in relation to the circumstances when further land release will be required. This should also be applicable to the overall housing requirement figure rather than the phased trajectory currently proposed.
It is clear that owing to a higher requirement being applied and issues with the identified supply, there is a significant shortfall in supply beyond the plan period. The constraints of the Borough mean that this is highly likely to require further Green Belt release
The allocation, or as a minimum safeguarding, of suitable Green Belt sites is therefore required to ensure compliance with the NPPF and ensure that the Green Belt boundaries established by the WLP have a sense of permanence. We, therefore, maintain that our Client?s Site at Mill Lane is a suitable option for safeguarding or allocation.
The annual need for housing set out by the Council beyond the Plan Period is 605 homes. This is the annual average of household growth between 2028 and 2038 as taken from the 2014 based household projections. As such, it is the starting point for establishing the result of the Standard Method. The Council is working on the assumption that, owing to the delivery of homes through the Local Plan, the affordability of housing will no longer be a significant issue in 2038. While the rationale behind this is understood, it is at best an optimistic, and at worse a na?ve, position to take. This is amplified by the fact that the housing requirement for the Local Plan is already the minimum acceptable level and does not account for any additional economic growth. It is considered that a more rational and straight forward approach would be to ?roll over? the current requirement for an additional 12 years, which creates a more realistic scenario. If this approach was progressed, the need for housing over the 12 year period will rise from 7,260 to 9,792, totalling an increase of 2,532. This constitutes a significant uplift and means that, even if the Council?s proposed supply of 7,487 is taken as read, there would be a deficit of 2,305 over the 12 year period. The source of the additional supply within Plan for flexibility figure of 1,948 is unknown at the current time. The 10% flexibility set out in Table 1 which sets out the land requirements for the plan period shows 1,469. This is 479 homes different, and it is not currently clear where this additional supply is coming from. The suitability of using the flexibility in the supply for the plan period to meet the housing needs beyond it is also questioned. The contingency has been applied in order to allow for the slippage and non-delivery of some sites. As such, by definition some of this will be required to make up for the resulting shortfall in the plan period. While the Council acknowledge that the availability of brownfield land suitable for development is likely to reduce after the plan period, a figure of 3,024 (252 per annum over 12 years) homes is proposed for the supply. This does not appear to be based on any current evidence and the Council will need to justify the use of this figure.
This approach is contrary to Paragraph 63 of the NPPF which allows affordable housing to be delivered off site where a financial contribution can be robustly justified.
This section of the Policy should be amended to reflect and ensure compliance with the NPPF
Part 10
Aa 100% requirement for all homes to be build to M4(2) standard has not been justified within the Local Housing Needs Assessment. This is also the case for justifying the need for 10% of homes to be M4(3) standard.
Whilst having adaptable and accessible dwellings available to allow older people to stay in their homes required is sensible, the associated need to downsize is a fundamental part o the housing market and opens opportunities for families and younger people to access the larger homes they require. It should also be noted that the current wording of the requirement for housing for older people is unclear, as there is no definition of what this is. Whilst the explanatory text at paragraph 4.1.61 refers to dwellings at M4(2) and/or M4(3) standard having a positive impact on meeting the needs of older people in terms of suitable housing available during the plan period, it is not clear if the requirement to accommodate housing for older people means that development of 10 or more dwellings will only need to accommodate development at these standards, which is required by the Optional Standards section of the policy regardless. If so, this represents unnecessary repetition and is not compliant with Paragraph 16 of the NPPF. We urge caution from the Council in seeking to introduce building standards which are properly controlled by other legislation outside of the planning system; historic measures such as Code for Sustainable Homes have been shown to be impractical to enforce through the planning process.
Parts 15 to 18
The explanatory test references sheltered housing and Care Homes. However, neither of these would be suitable to accommodate on a smaller Site.
The Council need to clarify the requirements of this policy so that it is clear what is to be provided, and at what quantity.
Part 19
In terms of self and custom build housing, the Council?s policy is unclear as to how a sufficient supply of plots will be identified. Whilst it is accepted that the site-specific allocation of self and custom build to allocations over a certain size exists, this can lead to slower delivery rates of housing and the need for complex ?claw back mechanisms? for the land if there is not sufficient demand for plots.
An alternative to this would be the allocation of smaller sites exclusively for self and custom build homes.
Part 20
Policy GB1 would set a Green Belt boundary which is incapable of meeting the need for housing and as such cannot be considered to be positively prepared.
This can be rectified be ensuring that sufficient land is released from the Green Belt in the form of allocations, or safeguarded land, to ensure that these needs are met. We recommend our client's site at Mill Lane it is removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing development within the Local Plan.
The Council has adopted a housing requirement that seeks to meet the bare minimum acceptable under the NPPF, which takes no account of possible economic growth. The urban capacity identified in the SHLAA is optimistic given delivery constraints, particularly around the Town Centre, and so there is a high possibility that this capacity may be lower. The Council?s assumptions that underpin the housing need and supply beyond the plan period are no adequately justified and it is likely that additional allocations or safeguarded sites will be required. As such, it is imperative for the Local Plan to allocate additional sites to meet the needs of the Borough. It is considered that our Client?s Site at Mill Lane will make a valuable contribution to the housing land supply and will assist in meeting the Council?s housing requirement.
In terms of provision 11 of the Policy, which relates to compensatory improvements, the Policy is currently unclear and ambiguous as to which developments will have to provide these improvements to the remaining Green Belt.
Add "Where development proposals result in land being removed from the Green Belt, or are part of an allocation on land formerly in the Green Belt," to the start of Part 11.
It is assumed that this would only relate to development that results in land being released from the Green Belt, in accordance with Paragraph 142 of the NPPF. The policy should be rewritten to make it explicit that this provision only relates to development resulting in a loss of Green Belt land, and not all development proposals.
Part 11
As drafted, the current wording of part 1.g) of the Policy is not aligned with the NPPF and is considered to be unsound, owing to a conflict with national policy.
Replace "there is no adverse impact on the local community" with "the cumulative residual impact associated with it is not severe" from Part 1 (e).
Paragraph 111 of the NPPF is clear that the development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The current wording of the Policy implies that any adverse impact on the local community owing to an increase in traffic would not be acceptable.
Part 1 (e)
It is considered that these parts would be more appropriate for these to be contained within a separate policy rather than Policy INF1.
It is unclear why the Council has chosen to include (4) protect future re-use of disused rail corridors; (5) improving freight transport provision; and (6) sustainable transport of minerals and waste within the policy
Parts 4,5 and 6
Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that it is for ?the applicant to demonstrate whether particularly circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage?. The policy as drafted does not make an allowance for this. The policy should also ensure that the IDP is clear as to what will be required to be delivered from each scheme, and the confirmed costs for this, to ensure certainty for the developer, and compliance with PPG Paragraph 005 (Ref ID: 10-005-20140306) and PPG Paragraph 007 (Ref: ID: 10-007-20140306) in relation to a sound viability evidence base, and the costs for the developer and the need to ensure that the cumulative impact of the scheme does not result in schemes becoming unviable.
Clarification on the Council?s approach to CIL is required given that this will impact on the contributions and infrastructure required through the IDP. In terms of the Infrastructure Development Plan, which was produced in 2019, a number of proposed works are assigned indicative costs and funding, however, a number of schemes, such as the M62 capacity and junction improvements, and M6 capacity improvements, whilst assigned to be delivered through Policy INF1 do not. in the instances where indicative costs have been provided, and funding is confirmed, there are in a number of instances substantial funding gaps, such as in relation to Flood Risk Management, which has an indicative cost of over ?14.3 million but only ?500,000 funding has been confirmed. Overall there is an identified funding gap of over ?13.8 million which the Council envisages will be delivered by the Environment Agency, United Utilities and WBC contributions. There is no guarantee of this source of supply, particularly when public body resources are being stretched. Accordingly, much greater certainty and evidence needs to be provided prior to the adoption of the Local Plan. Additionally, it is noted that out of circa 160 infrastructure projects and elements to be delivered, there is in excess of a ?1.54 billion funding gap required to bring forward these identified schemes; it is unclear how this gap will be met. This raises significant concerns over the deliverability of the Plan and its infrastructure delivery.
To meet the requirements of paragraph 16 of the NPPF, some elements of the Policy need further refinement.
Points 10,11,12 should be merged and simplified.
Policy ENV2 provides guidance on how development should respond to flood risk and water management issues across the Borough. It is considered that the General Principles of the Policy are in general accordance with Section 14 of the NPPF and are therefore sound. However, to meet the requirements of paragraph 16 of the NPPF, some elements of the Policy need further refinement. Points 10, 11, 12 and 13 all serve to require developments to use SuDS wherever possible and to follow the drainage hierarchy set out in the PPG (Paragraph: 080 Reference ID: 7-080-20150323). This is an unnecessary level of repetition and it is considered that these paragraphs can be merged and simplified to aid clarity.
The inclusion of a requirement to reduce energy needs as policy is superfluous and goes against the Government?s intention that energy efficiency standards should be set through Building
We suggest that the Policy is amended to remove sections of the policy requiring reductions to carbon emissions beyond Building Regulation (Part L) requirements.
It is our position that strategic allocations should also seek to reduce carbon emissions and maximise opportunities for the use of decentralised energy systems. Changes to building regulations implemented from 2021 will require a 31% reduction from current requirements. Furthermore, the Future Homes Standard will require a 75% reduction from 2025. As such, the inclusion of a requirement as policy is therefore superfluous and goes against the Government?s intention that energy efficiency standards should be set through Building Regulations. This will ensure standardisation across the country and the ability for markets of scale to develop in terms of carbon cutting technologies that can be applied more efficiently. Applying bespoke planning policies that vary by area will not achieve this. We, therefore, urge caution from the Council in seeking to introduce building standards which are properly controlled by other legislation outside of the planning system and we stress that there is no impetus for the development industry to avoid providing low carbon energy development. Furthermore, the rigid wording of Policy ENV7 in regards to decentralised energy networks currently prohibits the update of newer technologies and should be revisited. Heat networks are one option when looking to lower carbon emissions when generating heat. As existing technologies become more affordable, such as air source heat pumps, and new technologies are developed, better options may become available to lower the carbon requirement of heating more quickly. It should also be noted that as the national grid continues to decarbonise, the need to decentralise networks to ensure the use of renewable energy will be lessened.
It is clear that the amount of housing proposed within the outlying settlements is not sufficient to meet identified needs. Limited justification has been provided by the Council to determine the appropriate level of development which is required, and the reasoning behind the reduction in housing requirement.
Our Client considers that the Council should identify Land at Mill Lane for circa 400 dwellings, plus 6 acres of over 55?s C2/Extra Care provision through the Warrington Local Plan
The Draft Local Plan currently proposes two allocated sites in Lymm; Pool Lane/Warrington Road (170 dwellings); and Rushgreen Road (136 dwellings). Within the Council?s identification of these allocations, it is considered that the sites make a weak to moderate contribution, which is akin to the Council?s assessment of our Client?s Site. As such, it is unclear as to why these sites have been selected over our clients Site, which for the reasons set out in our 2017 and 2019 representations, performs a weak contribution to the Green belt purposes and is therefore considered to be an appropriate site for allocation. This Section of the representations have confirmed that our Client?s Site at Mill Lane, Lymm is appropriate for residential development. The Site is considered capable of delivery in full within the Plan period and would make a contribution towards the Council?s five-year housing land supply. It?s allocation would diversify the existing supply in terms of scale and location of allocation, enhancing the overall deliverability of the Plan by increasing market choice and competition. The site can provide self build plots, wide ranging open space, land for a new school and footpaths and cycleways through the site. The Site is not subject to any physical constraints that would prevent or unduly limit the potential for the residential development of the Site. The Site relates well to the existing urban edge of Lymm, is accessible to the centre of Lymm of its services and is surrounded on all sides by existing easily definable features. The Site is considered by the applicant to fulfil a weak role within the Green Belt and as such should not be kept permanently open from development. A new stronger boundary along Mill Lane can be created which will prolong the Green Belt in this location.
Our Client supports the preparation of a new Local Plan to replace the existing Local Plan Core Strategy, which was adopted in 2014. Our Client welcomes the Introduction chapter of the Plan and the stated plan period of 2021 ? 2038, which addresses the NPPF requirement at paragraph 22 to consider at least 15 years in plan making. Overall, we urge caution in reducing the Plan?s housing requirement and the removal of some of the previous allocated Green Belt sites. The amount of land proposed to be removed from the Green Belt is 580ha, which equates to 5% of the total amount of Green Belt land in the borough. This is significantly lower than the 1,210 hectares proposed to be removed from the Green Belt in the previous Proposed Submission Version Local Plan, which equated to 11% of the total amount of Green Belt in the Borough. Our Client supports in principle the need for the allocation of sites within outlying settlements to boost homes within the local area. It is our Client?s view that the amount of housing proposed within these outlying settlements is not sufficient to meet identified needs and further land release is required. This is on the basis of overall concerns with the proposed housing requirements and the deliverability of the sites identified within the Urban Area in the Town Centre and at the newly allocated Fiddlers Ferry Site. Indeed, there appears to be a mismatch between the Borough?s approach to employment growth (jobs) and the number of homes to be provided. This is an acute issue in Warrington, as the existing motorway infrastructure already leads to a high level of in-commuting. Birchwood Park is a casing point of in-commuting and experiences significant traffic congestion.