The housing requirement does not fully reflect the economic projections and ambitions for the Borough, demographic changes and affordable housing need. The plan would also not deliver an adequate supply of housing land to meet the proposed requirement over the plan period and it would not deliver and maintain a 5-year supply from adoption. As such there should be a greater amount of Green Belt released to the outlying settlements such as Lymm in order to meet such needs. Lymm in particular has experienced a prolonged period of insufficient housing having been delivered given the Green Belt constraints. This has led to significant unmet needs within Lymm, and worsening market signals, and the release of our client?s site would make a meaningful contribution to meeting the needs of Lymm and the Borough?s 5-year housing land supply position.

Finally, the draft policy refers to First Homes at part 6 and states that a minimum 30% discount will be sought and this reflects the PPG. The PPG at para. 70-004 states that a discount at 40% or 50% can be fixed where the authority can demonstrate a need for this with reference to a range of housing types and tenures and demographic data (different demographic and social groups). The Warrington Local Housing Needs Assessment does not consider different house types, tenures and demographic data in relation to First Homes and it is unclear why the Manchester Ship Canal has been used to delineate different discount areas.

The Local Housing Need Assessment provides a brief analysis of Lymm at Section 9. In terms of the Borough-wide mix, this is calculated solely on the basis of current housing stock and projected demographic projections. It is unclear how various factors have been considered for the Lymm housing mix analysis. The illustrative mix suggested (in Table 3) is predicated upon data on housing stock across Warrington that is now 10 years old. There is no consideration of types of accommodation (e.g. detached, semi-detached, bungalows) or the actual size of accommodation. Instead, there is a sole focus on bedroom numbers and this approach overlooks other factors such as changing workplace and lifestyle trends and an emphasis on flexible spaces that can adapt over the lifetime of the home. There is no consideration of the aspirations or expectations of people across the Borough. For instance, there are likely to have been people living in 2-bedroom accommodation who wished to re-locate to larger accommodation. The lack of available family-sized accommodation is likely to have inhibited the ability of such households to move. The fact that such households occupied such accommodation should not be taken to mean that this is the type of accommodation they aspired to live in. This will be particularly relevant for Lymm where housing has been severely constrained for a prolonged period of time. There is no consideration of migratory patterns into Warrington who are likely to be people of working-age population who typically require family-sized accommodation. There have been structural lifestyle changes over the past 10 years and this includes demand for ?spare? rooms to act as a flexible space. An increasing number of households now work from home full-time or part-time and require a self-contained study/office and this trend has been accelerated exponentially by the Covid19 pandemic.

The draft policy at part 13 also requires all new homes to be compliant with the Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS). The NDSS is an optional standard. If the Government intended to this to be mandatory, then it would have made it mandatory rather than optional.

Policy DEV2 at parts 15-17 requires all new dwellings to be M4(2) compliant. The Warrington Local Housing Needs Assessment (WLHNA) does not substantiate this and there is no evidence specific to the Borough to all new housing to meet this standard. There must be something specific to Warrington to justify the Council?s approach given that the Government has not mandated M4(2) compliance. The WLHNA simply says there is an ageing population and increasing prevalence of disabilities. However, the WLHNA shows that the age structure for Warrington is similar to the regional and national average (18.9% are aged over 65 in Warrington vs. a NW average of 18.7% - see Table 80) and there are lower levels of disabilities and health problems (31.6% of households in Warrington contain someone with a health problem vs. a NW average of 36.6% and 53% of those aged over 65 have a long-term health problem or disability vs. a NW average of 57.2%- see Table 83 and Figure 20). Furthermore, there will inevitably be circumstances where housing cannot comply with this requirement (e.g. topographical reasons or for upper floor flatted developments). There is also no assessment within the evidence base as to what proportion of needs can be met through M4(1) housing, and what proportions of the existing stock can be converted to M4(1) or M4(2) housing.

There are two types M4(3) homes; wheelchair accessible (i.e. readily usable by a wheelchair user at the point of completion); and wheelchair adaptable (i.e. a home that can be easily adapted to meet the needs of a household including wheelchair users). The PPG states that local plan policies cannot be applied to wheelchair accessible homes where the local planning authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling. The Warrington Local Housing Needs Assessment (WLHNA) does not provide ?clear evidence? in terms of the optional M4(3) standard. The only information provided relates to UK-wide data, which is acknowledged through the WLHNA as having shortcomings in terms of its validity. There is no indication that there is a particularly high prevalence of wheelchair users in Warrington and there is no assessment of the existing housing stock across the Borough. The approach adopted is take the average nationwide prevalence of wheelchair households and then assume 25% of those households do not live in wheelchair accessible homes and apply this formula to Warrington on the basis of national averages and compare this to the overall housing requirement for the local plan. Aside from the general lack of robustness and regard for Warrington in the evidence base, this assumes that 25% of those wheelchair households have the means and desire move to a new build house rather than seek to adapt their own homes (e.g. through grants available). Furthermore, the WLHNA at paragraph 10.119 suggests that the need for wheelchair accessible dwellings is much higher for social rented units than it is for owner-occupier units.

Bellway agree that there are the exceptional circumstances necessary for the release of Green Belt in order to meet identified development needs. We discussed this in detail within the context of the Framework earlier in this Statement. Bellway/Mr Waheed fully supports the release of their land from the Green Belt to meet identified development needs.

Part 6 of this draft policy requires masterplans and design codes to be used for larger sites and areas. It is suggested that this may take the form of an SPD or a less formal development brief. It is not clear what threshold the Council would consider it appropriate for a developer to have to pursue a masterplan and design code. It is presumably not the case that such a requirement would apply to the allocation at Draft Policy OS5 given its modest scale and relationship to the land subject to the detailed planning consent 2017/31816. Indeed, Policy OS5 does not make reference to the need for such an approach, which would unnecessarily delay the delivery of much-needed housing within Lymm.

This policy states that site allocations should maximise opportunities for the use of decentralised energy systems with provision made in terms of connectivity. It is not clear how it is intended that developers should interpret this requirement and how it would work in practice. We are not aware of anything within the evidence base clarifying how this policy is intended to work and what is meant by the requirement to connect to decentralised energy systems. The policy goes on to set a target for energy and carbon emissions, although flexibility should be incorporated into the policy to allow for circumstances where this requirement cannot feasibly and practically be met on-site.

In terms of no. 78 Rushgreen Rd, this land is already within the built-up area settlement boundary for Lymm as per the adopted local plan. The bungalow has no heritage value and little architectural merit. The inclusion of this bungalow and its garden land would help to secure an optimal form of development for OS5. In terms of land parcels ?C? and ?B?, the draft plan proposes to remove the land from the Green Belt and include it within the settlement boundary for Lymm. This approach is supported as the land does not serve any meaningful Green Belt purpose following the development of Tanyard Fm. However, it is considered that this land should also be incorporated into the site allocation boundary for OS5 for the following reasons:
? The land parcel ?B? is under the same land ownership as land parcel ?A? and Bellway Homes have an option agreement for both parcels of land. Bellway Homes own the land at ?C?.
? The same points made through Section 3 of this Statement apply equally to land parcel ?B? with regard to access arrangements, site-specific constraints and Green Belt considerations.
? The land parcels ?A?, ?B? and ?C? were subject to the same assessments carried out through the Site Selection Assessment reports prepared by the Council in terms of the site selection process e.g. Development Options and Site Assessment Technical Report (March 2019) and the Sustainability Appraisal by AECOM.
? This land parcel ?B? could accommodate circa. 40 dwellings in a sustainable manner. This would provide further benefits in terms of the delivery of much-needed market and affordable housing in Lymm and would ensure a comprehensive form of development across all of the land parcels.

A designated area for the Lymm Parish was approved by the Council in 2017. No draft neighbourhood plan has been published for public consultation in the intervening period. This policy should not and cannot require compliance with an emerging plan. The emerging neighbourhood plan, once adopted, would form part of the development plan in any case. As such on adoption any planning application falling within the neighbourhood plan area would need to comply. In addition, the Lymm Heritage & Character Assessment (2018) would form a material consideration against which new development would have to have due regard. It is not considered necessary for Policy OS5 to stipulate that development must take place in accordance with this document.

It is not clear what is meant by generalist and specialist housing needs and the how the applicant and decision-maker should interpret this.

It is not considered necessary for the local plan to dictate a blanket density to the site allocation, as this is something that can be best considered at planning application stage in light of relevant considerations such as design factors and market demand.

There is no substantive evidence to justify provision for self-build/custom-build plots and there must be uncertainty as to whether plots on a large new housing estate would be attractive to self-build/custom-builders. Self-build and custom-build plots must be justified in accordance with the PPG at paragraph 2a-017. The Warrington Local Housing Needs Assessment references a waiting list of 168 on the register. However, the report notes that there may be double-counting given that people may request to be placed on the register multiple times, and there will be instances of people expressing an interest across various local authority areas. There is no indication that the Council has sought to understand the preferences of those who have expressed an interest e.g. locational and type of housing. It may be that the Council can perhaps encourage self-build/custom-builders on smaller sites across the Borough.

The draft policy stipulates that a contribution towards primary and secondary school must be made in order to meet demand for school places. However, it may be that a contribution towards school places is not necessary, and this will depend on school capacities and the number of pupil on the roll for local primary and secondary schools.

It has been suggested that the site allocation incorporates the land parcels A, B & C (Image 1 of Statement). This would allow a joined-up and comprehensive approach to open space provision with a LEAP and other types of open space already being provided as part of the consented Bellway Homes scheme for 64 no. dwellings. Parts 9 & 10 of the Draft Policy repeat generalised requirements set out in Draft Policy DC5 and it is not clear why this needs to be repeated in this section of the site allocation policy.

It is not clear what is meant by the site contributing towards the wider objectives of the Mersey Forest. Our client?s site is not one identified in Draft Policy DC4 (e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest or Local Wildlife Site).

The policy requires a measurable biodiversity net gain to be demonstrated through the use of the Defra Metric and provided for all development parcels that come forward for planning approval. This appears to be a requirement on all site allocations. It is not clear why this is not addressed through an overarching policy that applies to all development. Paragraph 180(a) of the Framework states that local planning authority should apply the principle of seeking adequate mitigation or compensation if significant harm in terms of biodiversity would result from a development proposal. Paragraph 180(d) states that opportunities to improve biodiversity should be integrated into the overall design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity where this is appropriate.

It is sufficient to simply require a landscape scheme along the southern boundary of the site appropriate to the Bridgewater Canal setting. It is not clear at this stage whether this would involve retention of all of the hedgerow, and we are not aware of any trees. It may not prove possible or desirable to retain all of the hedgerow through a future planning application. The objective is to ensure an appropriate landscape scheme and the means by which this is delivered should be resolved at the planning application stage.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory measures to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. The PPG states that authorities should set out policies for compensatory improvements informed by supporting evidence and opportunities could include new or enhanced green infrastructure, woodland planting, landscape and visual enhancements and new walking routes. The PPG goes on to say that there should be early engagement with all interest groups to consider matters such as the scope of works required.

There should be some flexibility in the wording of the policy at (b) such that linkages to the canal are made where feasible (rather than it being a mandatory requirement). It is a desirable linkage but flexibility should be incorporated into he wording of the policy. Again, this particular issue can be resolved at the planning application.

It is not clear why the allocation site should contributions towards cycle linkages in Warrington Town Centre and the proposed SE Warrington employment allocation.

In relation to a surface water strategy, a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy would be lodged with any planning application. Given that the site is at low risk of flooding, it is likely that flood alleviation measures would not be necessary although this will be assessed by the Council as a Lead Flood Authority as appropriate. Any drainage scheme would need to be designed in accordance with other development management policies of the plan. It is not clear why this policy seeks to be specific with regard to the drainage strategy at this stage. The same applies in relation to part 21, which refers to groundwater; this would be a requirement as part of a planning application and compliance with Policy ENV8 would need to be addressed.

The wording is rather generalised and it is uncertain how specific development proposals would be expected to comply. There are other relevant policies of the Local Plan relating to these matters.

The Council has already found that the site allocation would not result in harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets and there is no requirement for mitigation. Furthermore, the policy seeks to introduce a ?preserve and enhance? test. This is inconsistent with the statutory requirements and national planning policy.

The site is adjacent to the built-up area of Lymm and it is heavily influenced by urban features to all sides. The site is unremarkable in landscape terms and is well-contained by existing vegetation and surrounding built form. The Local Plan Inspector for a local plan examination in 1990s recommended that this site was released from the Green Belt for safeguarded land. The development needs of Lymm have only increased substantially since then and the site further enclosed by built development and the approved housing scheme now being implemented by Bellway Homes. The Warrington Green Belt Assessment concludes that the wider land parcel as per Draft Policy OS5 makes a ?weak? contribution to the Green Belt. The grant of planning permission for 64 new homes at Tanyard Farm further emphasises the suitability of the release of the land subject to Draft OS5 from the Green Belt. It further undermines any notion that this land performs any meaningful Green Belt function. The grant of planning permission for 64 new homes at Tanyard Farm addressed a number of site-specific issues including remediation of the former commercial premises. The approved scheme, being implemented by Bellway Homes, will provide infrastructure to the benefit of the wider allocation subject to Draft Policy OS5 (e.g. upgraded junction onto Rushgreen Road and the provision of public open space and a LEAP). There is strong market demand in taking this allocation forwards for development and Majornet has an option agreement with Bellway Homes to bring the land forward for residential development. The land can come forward in a comprehensive manner for development within the first 5 years following adoption of the plan. Mr Waheed has already undertaken advanced discussions with GP surgeries for the delivery of the primary health care facility. Discussions will continue with the Council, the GP surgeries and Warrington CCG as the emerging local plan progresses. The evidence base for the local plan highlights the suitability of the land pursuant to Draft Policy OS5 for development, although it should be updated to reflect the grant of planning permission for 64 new homes at Tanyard Fm.

The land parcel subject to Draft Policy OS5, together with land parcel ?B? (see Image 1 of this Statement and our comments above), is considered through the Site Assessment Proformas report 2019 available for the evidence base for the 2019 Local Plan on the Council?s website (Ref: R18/P2/085). The assessment undertaken through the proforma appears dated and it does not reflect the most up-to-date available evidence base. It is agreed that the land is highly suitable as a site allocation and there is no reason to doubt that it could come forward for development in a timely fashion. It is considered that the site is significantly more suitable for release from the Green Belt as an allocation than the Site Assessment Proforma suggests.

A Green Belt Assessment was carried out by the Council for our client?s land, including the land parcel ?B?, in 2018. The Council?s assessment finds that the land subject to Draft Policy OS5 makes a ?Weak? contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. The implementation of the approved scheme by Bellway Homes for 64 new homes only serves to further undermine any notion that the land makes any meaningful contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. As part of the new local plan, the Council has made available the Implications of Green Belt Release Report 2021. This again analyses our client?s land, including the land parcel ?B?, and concludes as follows: ?The site currently makes a weak contribution to Green Belt purposes. Overall, development of the site would not represent encroachment into the countryside as the majority of the site is already developed with a gym and car park, airport car parking, a garage, agricultural buildings, a farm shop and a caf?, therefore the removal of the site from the Green Belt alongside the adjacent site (SHLAA Ref: 1504 / Site Ref: R18/018 / Site Ref: R18/P2/055) will not harm the overall function and integrity of the Green Belt around Lymm. A new recognisable and permanent Green Belt boundary would be created consisting of the Bridgewater Canal and through strengthening the other existing boundaries.?

The Sustainability Appraisal suggests that the land may have significant impact upon the ability to extract minerals (coloured red). However, the Site Assessment Proforma (2019) notes that the area has already been sterilised in terms of the potential for sand and gravel extraction through existing residential development. Furthermore, planning permission has also been granted for the erection of 64 new homes on the land and minerals safeguarding was not raised as an issue by the Council or the Inspectorate through this process. There is no basis for identifying a major impact that cannot be mitigated on the basis of minerals safeguarding. It also suggests that there may be unavoidable impacts in terms of access to natural greenspace although this is already being provided by Bellway Homes on the site itself through the implementation of planning approval 2017/31816 (see the approved site layout plan at EP3). Issues relating to ecology were also fully addressed and found to be acceptable through 2017/31816. There is also no basis for suggesting that there may be unavoidable impacts on heritage assets. The only heritage asset within influencing distance of the land is Tanyard Farmhouse and this was considered by the Council and the Planning Inspectorate through planning application 2017/31816. It was concluded that there would be no harm to the setting of this listed building.

This assessment states that there will be no unacceptable impacts arising from Draft Policy OS5 to the setting of the heritage assets at Tanyard Farm, Lymm Cross, Lymm Hall and Lymm Conservation Area

The Viability Assessment provides a proforma of the site allocation pursuant to Draft Policy OS5. Whilst we maintain that the site is very much viable with a 30% affordable housing provision and the provision a health centre, we raise the following points in respect of the inputs applied to this site allocation: The appraisal does not appear to take into account the requirement for a 1,500sqm new primary health care centre. It is not clear why this has been omitted from the appraisal; The S106 contribution assumes ?11,340 per dwelling. It is not clear whether this includes a contribution towards a new health care facility and, if so, what size of health centre this would equate to; The appraisal does not appear to reflect any requirement for self-build/custom-build provision; The appraisal does not appear to reflect any requirement for Green Belt compensatory measures and potential financial contributions as set out in Draft Policy OS5; It is not clear how the fee for biodiversity net gain and energy requirements has been arrived at; Professional fees and development finance appear to be low; A minimum 20% profit margin should be adopted on all schemes, including affordable housing provision.