UPSVLP 2286
The Vision is not positively prepared because it incorrectly refers to a Plan end date of 2038 whereas the correct approach would be to refer to 31 March 2039. The Vision is not consistent with Paragraph 22 of the Framework given the Plan incorrectly refers to an end date of 2038.
The Local Plan needs to clearly set out that the Plan period is from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039. This needs to be reflected in the Vision and consequential amendments need to be made to numerous sections of the Plan.
The Vision is not positively prepared as it does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, sets out the future growth strategy for both housing and employment uses for at least a 30-year period. Furthermore the Vision is inconsistent with Paragraph 143 c) of the NPPF as it fails to acknowledge that areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, need to be identified in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the Plan period.
The Local Plan Vision needs to acknowledge that land needs to be removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded for longer term needs.
The Regulation 19 Local Plan was published on 4 October 2021 and the revised Framework was published on 20 July 2021 hence the second sentence of Paragraph 22 of the Framework applies to the Examination of the Local Plan. In accordance with Paragraph 22 of the Framework policies within the Plan should be set within a Vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery of larger scale development within Warrington. The Council proposes to remove no land from the Green Belt in order to safeguard it for future development needs . It is considered that a Vision that does not remove land from the Green Belt to meet needs beyond the end of the Plan period is unsound. In summary terms that is because the Council has already demonstrated exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land in this Plan period and it is highly likely that Green Belt land will also need to be released through a future Local Plan review.
DEV1 and the housing trajectory are unsound because the approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs. The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period. The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 15 and 20 of the Framework in respect of ensuring a Plan led approach to meeting development needs and paragraph 73(d) given unrealistic assumptions regarding the rates of delivery and lead-in times for large scale sites. Failure to identify safeguarded land is unsound as it is not positively prepared as it will not as a minimum meet the areas local housing needs. Moreover it is not justified in light of the reasonable alternative approach which involves safeguarding land. Furthermore the approach is not consistent with national policy specifically Paragraph 143 c) of the Framework.
Land at Reddish Crescent/Rushgreen Road should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing for around 60 new homes. Alternatively, the land should be removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded for future housing needs. If further allocations are deemed unnecessary. in light of site specific objections to Allocation Policy OS4 the southern section of that proposed allocation should be deleted and replaced by our client?s site.
2021/2022 completions are likely to be significantly less than illustrated in the Council?s housing trajectory resulting in the need to remove land from the Green Belt and allocate it for housing. The Council must ensure that 2021/2022 completions data is available for Examination of the Plan. The distribution of housing is not justified and outlying settlements appear to simply have been allocated the residual supply once other sources have been taken account of. Whilst we support the largest proportion of development distributed to the settlements being directed to Lymm as the largest settlement outside of Warrington the justification for the number of homes proposed is unclear. The average annual rates of planned delivery are not at all realistic having regard to past performance, the reliance on SHLAA sites and large scale strategic sites and their expected rate of delivery. The Plan over-relies on the provision of housing via large SHLAA sites which are unlikely to deliver as expected. That is because many are not developable
and are unlikely to come forward. The approach of relying on so many unconsented SHLAA sites undermines the Plan led approach. The contribution from SHLAA sites (remaining to be built where development has commenced, consented and unconsented) needs to be clarified and the SHLAA needs to be rebased to take into account completions achieved during 2020/2021 so that it has a consistent base date with the Local Plan. With regard to small SHLAA sites, the Council?s historic data is based on gross rather than net past completions (i.e. the data fails to take account of demolitions) and there is a lack of evidence regarding future trends to substantiate reliance on this source of supply over the Plan period. There are specific lead-in time and delivery issues with the large scale strategic sites proposed to be allocated for housing development and as a consequence they are unlikely to deliver the number of dwellings anticipated by the Council over the Plan period. The Council must publish clear and transparent lead in time and delivery rates evidence for these sites as they are critical to the delivery of the Plan. The stepped housing requirement is simply a product of the sites the Council has chosen to allocate but which will not deliver as expected. The Council could have chosen from a raft of smaller sites which would have been deliverable on adoption of the Local Plan. The stepped housing requirement is not appropriate here. There is a real risk that in the early years of the Plan the Council will be unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Plan fails to adequately remove land from the Green Belt and safeguard it to meet development needs beyond the Plan period. Further land needs to be allocated for housing and further land needs to be safeguarded for future needs. .
GB1 is unsound because the approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs. The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period. The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 15 and 20 of the Framework in respect of ensuring a Plan led approach to meeting development needs. Failure to identify safeguarded land is unsound as it is not positively prepared as it will not as a minimum meet the areas local housing needs. Moreover it is not justified in light of the reasonable alternative approach which involves safeguarding land. Furthermore the approach is not consistent with national policy specifically Paragraph 143 c) of the Framework.
Policy GB1 and Figure 6 needs to be amended to: Provide for safeguarded land; and Provide for the removal of Land at Reddish Crescent/Rushgreen Road from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing or, alternatively, its safeguarding for future development.
Given that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated for this Plan period to justify removal of land from the Green Belt - and in light of the fact that the evidence clearly points to SHLAA sites not delivering as expected and that strategic sites are unlikely to deliver as expected - there may well be affordability issues in Warrington in coming years contrary to what the Council assert based on the Plan delivering as expected and which forms part of the justification for not safeguarding land. Clearly there is an acute need for affordable housing in the Borough which is getting worse year on year. The Council needs to take action to resolve this now by allocating smaller deliverable sites and also needs to safeguard land for the future to ensure that affordable needs and open market needs are addressed for the period beyond the end of the Plan period. Moreover the above points go the heart of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries beyond the Plan period (Paragraph 140 of the Framework refers). Put simply given the above points the Council is highly likely to need to review the Green Belt boundaries again if it does not safeguard land for development now. That is the whole purpose of Paragraph 143 c) of the Framework. The Plan fails to adequately remove land from the Green Belt and safeguard it to meet development needs beyond the Plan period. Further land needs to be removed from the Green Belt allocated for housing
and further land needs to be safeguarded for future needs.
Policy MD1 is unsound for the following reasons: The approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs; The approach is not justified; The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period; and The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 73 (d) of the Framework which requires the Council to: ?make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations).?
Criterion 3 of the policy should be amended to require the approval of a Development Framework and delivery strategy for the site prior to planning permission being granted.
In summary terms there appears to be no detailed published evidence to substantiate the housing trajectory and how this important strategic site will deliver dwellings in the Plan period. The allocation site is dependent on the delivery of the Western Link. Given that a planning application for the road scheme has not yet been submitted the above timescales are considered highly unlikely to be achieved. There is also the uncertainty about funding and a Public Inquiry which may affect timescales. These matters would have implications for lead in times and delivery rates of dwellings across the remainder of the Plan period. On reviewing the SHLAA assessment, there is a substantial amount of technical work to complete before a planning application could be submitted for this site. The potential development yield from the land is also uncertain and there is a requirement for a new bridge to connect the two development parcels which will be a costly structure to install. Given the scale of this site and its strategic importance to the Borough the above part of the policy should be amended to require the approval of a Development Framework and delivery strategy for the site prior to planning permission being granted. It would make no sense for such matters to be dealt with post approval. It is noted that in respect of the South East Warrington Urban Extension and Fiddlers Ferry the Local Plan requirement is for the Development Framework to approved by the Council prior to planning applications being submitted. Given the scale of those developments that seems an entirely logical approach and in the interests of consistency and the proper planning of the area the same requirement should also apply to the Warrington Waterfront.
Policy MD2 is unsound for the following reasons: The approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs; The approach is not justified; The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period; The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 73 (d) of the Framework which requires the Council to: ?make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations).?
Policy MD2 contains multiple requirements and restrictions on the bringing forward of development in advance of infrastructure being delivered. Whilst the Housing Trajectory of the Regulation 19 Local Plan sets out how the Council expects the site will deliver housing over the Plan period this does not appear to be based upon any published evidence. In that respect it is noted that the evidence base document entitled ?South East Warrington Urban Extension ? A Deliverable proposition ? Homes England With Miller Homes (August 2021)? is silent on the matter of lead-in time and delivery rates.
Policy MD3 is unsound for the following reasons: The approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs; The approach is not justified; The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period; The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 73 (d) of the Framework which requires the Council to: ?make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations).?
Policy MD3 contains multiple requirements and restrictions. A Development Framework needs to be approved by the Council in advance of planning applications being submitted. The delivery programme published as part of the Local Plan evidence base considered wildly optimistic for the following reasons: Development Framework cannot realistically be adopted by the Council until the Local Plan is adopted and removal of land from the Green Belt is confirmed; A negative EIA Screening Opinion for demolition of the power station was issued by the Council on 5 March 2021. According to the Council?s website a Prior Notification application for the demolition of the power station has not yet been lodged and hence demolition ? which the Delivery Programme anticipates taking place in 2022 - cannot commence until such an application has been determined. If Prior Approval were required for any matters this would delay demolition activities; The programme envisages an EIA outline planning application for Phase 1 of the development being approved in 2023, however the Council?s website only anticipates adoption of the Local Plan in mid 2023. Given that a Development Framework has to be adopted prior to planning applications being approved there is no prospect that such a large scale application would be approved in 2023; As a consequence of the above, the timescales for the submission of reserved matters applications and the discharge of conditions are unrealistic. Moreover, no allowance appears to have been made for site disposal to house builders, a process which can take many months. In addition, the delivery programme lacks any evidence whatsoever with regard to annual delivery rates and how these will be achieved. For such a complex site the lead-in times assumed are much shorter than the 4 year lead in time (validation of a planning application to first completion) for sites of 150 dwelling plus noted in the SHLAA and dramatically shorter than the 7 year lead time for similar sites noted in the Lichfields 'Start to Finish' Study . To give some context on the redevelopment of power stations for Rugeley B Power Station there was 3 years between approval of the Development Brief and approval of outline planning permission. Clearly it will be some time before the first dwellings are delivered, given the time needed to go through marketing, infrastructure delivery, reserved matters applications and the discharge of precedent conditions. Based on the foregoing there is clearly no prospect of Fiddlers Ferry delivering any dwellings in Years 1 ? 5 of the Plan period and it is very unlikely that many dwellings will be delivered in Years 6 ? 10 of the Plan period either.
Policy MD4 is unsound for the following reasons: The approach is not positively prepared, and does not provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area?s local housing needs; The approach is not justified; The approach is not effective and will not be deliverable over the Plan period; The approach is inconsistent with national policy, notably Paragraph 73 (d) of the Framework which requires the Council to: ?make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations).?
Notwithstanding the appeal in respect of this site being allowed, multiple matters have to be submitted to and agreed with the Council prior to reserved matters applications being submitted, including: a masterplan, design code, phasing plan, sports strategy (in relation to replacement playing fields), surveys of the land for the replacement playing fields and specifications of the replacement facilities, a public open space scheme for the whole site, the mix of market housing, secured by design principles and noise. As would be expected for a development of this scale there are also a plethora of precommencement conditions that have to be satisfied before development can commence, these include inter alia major off-site highway improvements. Additionally local highway works are required to be completed before occupation of the 300th dwelling on the site. Further strategic highway improvement works are required to be completed at the M62/A49 junction prior to the occupation of the 600th dwelling. To be fair to the Council if it is not going to challenge the Secretary of State?s decision then it will need time to work out how the site will be delivered having regard to conditions imposed by the Secretary of State, lead in times and delivery rates. In that respect it is noted that the Appellant in the appeal case is not a house builder. It is noted that there was no lead-in time and delivery rate justification provided for this site in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
If the Inspector finds that no further sites are needed to be allocated for housing, allocation of the southern section of Allocation Policy OS4 should be considered unsound because it is not justified in that it is not an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternative of our client?s site based on proportionate evidence. Allocation of the southern section of Allocation Policy OS4 (in light of the reasonable alternative) would also be unsound because it would be contrary to national policy in particular Paragraph 138 c) which seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment (the alternative of our client?s site has been found by previous Development Plan Inspectors to not comprise encroachment into the open countryside). Furthermore (in light of the reasonable alternative) allocation of the southern section of Allocation Policy OS4 would be contrary to Paragraph 142 of the Framework and the requirement to promote sustainable patterns of development.
If further allocations are deemed unnecessary, in light of site specific objections to Allocation Policy OS4 the southern section of that proposed allocation should be deleted and replaced by our client?s site.
Our conclusion on our client?s site therefore places it on an equal footing with the northern part of the Pool Lane/Warrington Road allocation (north of Warrington Road) (Policy OS4) which has been classified as having an overall weak contribution to Green Belt purposes in the Council?s 2021 Assessment. In Green Belt terms release of our client?s site is clearly preferable to the southern half (south of Warrington Road) of the Pool Lane/Warrington Road allocation (Policy OS4) which has been classified as having an overall moderate contribution to Green Belt purposes in the Council?s 2021 Assessment. However the Council?s conclusion is predicated on a position that this part of the allocation would only entail a small incursion into open countryside; the reality of the situation is that to the west of Statham County Primary School (and south of Warrington Road) the proposed allocation forms part of the wider countryside and is clearly related to it. In fact if developed the allocation would extend built development into the open countryside by circa 140 metres along Warrington Road and by some 340 metres from the rear of Turnberry Close to the western boundary of the site.
it is considered that the designation of the SLG site as Green Belt is unsound as it is not positively prepared as it will not as a minimum meet the area?s local housing needs. Moreover it is not justified in light of the reasonable alternative approach to allocations in Lymm which if necessary (where it is deemed that no further allocations are required in the village) involves allocation the SLG site for housing instead of the southern section of Allocation Policy OS4. Furthermore it is considered that the decision to designate the SLG site as Green Belt is contrary to national policy in particular Paragraph 68 of the Framework (in that insufficient land has been identified to meet local housing needs) and Paragraph 143 b) in that it is unnecessary to keep the land permanently open as it does not perform the function of Green Belt land as set out in Paragraph 138 a) ? e) of the Framework.
Land at Reddish Crescent/Rushgreen Road should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing for around 60 new homes. Alternatively, the land should be removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded for future housing needs. If further allocations are deemed unnecessary, in light of site specific objections to Allocation Policy OS4 the southern section of that proposed allocation should be deleted and replaced by our client?s site.
In summary the SLG site is highly suitable for residential development, and it is preferable to the allocation of the southern section of Allocation Policy OS4. the Regulation 19 Local Plan also fails to plan for adequate levels of housing. Additional levels of Green Belt land therefore needs to be released (as exceptional circumstances have already been demonstrated) and the SLG site could help meet that need in a sustainable location. Our conclusion on our client?s site therefore places it on an equal footing with the northern part of the Pool Lane/Warrington Road allocation (north of Warrington Road) (Policy OS4) which has been classified as having an overall weak contribution to Green Belt purposes in the Council?s 2021 Assessment. In Green Belt terms release of our client?s site is clearly preferable to the southern half (south of Warrington Road) of the Pool Lane/Warrington Road allocation (Policy OS4) which has been classified as having an overall moderate contribution to Green Belt purposes in the Council?s 2021 Assessment. However the Council?s conclusion is predicated on a position that this part of the allocation would only entail a small incursion into open countryside; the reality of the situation is that to the west of Statham County Primary School (and south of Warrington Road) the proposed allocation forms part of the wider countryside and is clearly related to it. In fact if developed the allocation would extend built development into the open countryside by circa 140 metres along Warrington Road and by some 340 metres from the rear of Turnberry Close to the western boundary of the site.
The main text of the Regulation 19 Local Plan is silent on which month in 2021 the Plan starts. The common approach is for Local Plans to begin on 1 April of a given year and end on 31 March of a given year. Indeed that is the approach adopted in the Council?s housing monitoring data and it is the approach adopted in the Council?s SHLAA. It is therefore reasonably assumed that the Regulation 19 Local Plan must have a base date of 1 April 2021 and if it looks ahead 18 years the end date of the Plan should be 31 March 2039. Indeed reference to the housing trajectory shown on page 271 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan shows the final year of completions as being 2038/2039 so presumably the Council must be using an end date of 31 March 2039. If the above is correct, then the Vision should refer to Warrington 2039 and beyond and consequential amendments would be required throughout the Plan.