Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6412

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to the proviso that such development cannot be located on best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land.

Paragraph 180(b) of the NPPF confirms it is also necessary to consider whether a proposal would have a significant effect on agriculture as a result of the loss of BMV land. This is reflected in the fact that Natural England are only consulted on non-agricultural applications (not in accordance with the adopted development plan) that result in the loss of more than 20 hectares (ha) of BMV land. We therefore consider that the reference to BMV land should be deleted from the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6413

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Consider that the proposed contribution towards meeting unmet needs within the GBBCHMA should be far higher. It is disappointing that the Council has sought to amend the plan from the previous Regulation 19 version to reduce the housing requirement substantially. This would appear to be indicative of a negative approach and the opposite of ‘significantly boosting the supply of homes’.

Justification for the 640 contribution to GBBCHMA is not clear when levels of unmet needs are increasing and so the approach is extremely negative and unjustified. We therefore consider that the Council should revert to the previously proposed contribution of 4,000 dwellings, and for this to be agreed through a Statement of Common Ground. Even if the precise extent of the shortfall cannot be established, the plan should seek to deliver thousands more homes based upon the acknowledged shortfall of at least 78,415 homes across the GBBCHMA.

Against a housing requirement of 4,726 dwellings over the plan period, a total housing land supply of just 5,118 dwellings is identified at Table 8 of the plan. Therefore, the supply provides a flexibility allowance of just 392 dwellings, or 8%. We consider that this level of flexibility is insufficient. A flexibility allowance of 20% would be appropriate. The Guildford Local Plan is relevant given that Green Belt was released to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and a flexibility allowance of 37% was provided there.

The plan must provide sufficient flexibility in the housing land supply and there is a need to release additional deliverable sites to provide a five-year housing land supply. Even if there were to be a degree of over-provision, there would be wider benefits of providing a level of housing in excess of the minimum requirement, particularly in the context of the very significant level of unmet need across the GBBCHMA.

The Council will need to publish its latest 5 year housing land supply position with a base date aligning with the adoption of the plan and clarify which evidence it wishes to rely upon for the examination. Once the Council has published its new position, we respectfully request the opportunity to review and comment.

Object

Representation ID: 6417

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy should be amended to name the Tier 5 settlements, either within the policy or a table in the supporting text.

The overall approach of the policy is contrary to NPPF P78-79 and para 67-009 of the PPG.

The approach set out in Policy DS5 is not consistent with the national planning policy objectives of enhancing the vitality of rural communities, or providing opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. The council’s Rural Services and Facilities Audit (RSFA) only considers current service provision and as such it in no way provides a sound basis to justify the proposed distribution of development. The Council’s justification in the Spatial Housing Strategy Topic Paper is also predicated on existing service provision. The Council’s justification is largely based upon reducing reliance upon journeys by private car.The Council’s approach has no regard to the role that cycling, ultra low and zero emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport can play in Tier 4 and 5 settlements, including the opportunities brought about by new development. The Council’s approach would do absolutely nothing to support local services, and it certainly would not provide opportunities for villages to grow and thrive. Rather, the proposed approach would only lead to further stagnation.We therefore consider that a level of development should be directed to the Tier 4 and 5 settlements,

RSFA presents an inaccurate picture of Acton Trussell because it fails to look at the wider picture of sustainability.Taking into account service provision at neighbouring Dunston and Acton Gate, the settlement could be considered as a Tier 3 settlement, or individually as a Tier 4 settlement based on existing service provision. Through development there is an opportunity to make the settlement more sustainable and provide services such as a village shop, and our client is proposing an omission site which could achieve this.

Under the Council’s site selection methodology any site within Acton Trussell was automatically discounted due to it being a Tier 5 settlement. However, given that the Borough is heavily constrained by Green Belt, the Council should be considering all other reasonable alternatives, with a view to minimising the amount of Green Belt release. Furthermore, there could have been consideration of expanding Acton Trussell as a new garden village / settlement, similar to the new settlement considered at Dunston under Option A of the spatial housing options.

The base date used for the monitoring of the housing and employment land supply, as referenced at numerous points within the plan, is April 2023. Therefore, the end date of the strategic policies relating to housing and employment land supply is 31 March 2041. This means for the strategic policies to cover at least 15-years from adoption, it must be adopted by 31 March 2026. The Council’s current Local Development Scheme (dated September 2023) projects that the plan will be adopted in ‘winter 25/26’. That date is extremely close to the final possible adoption date of 31 March 2026 based on a plan period end date of 2041. To avoid this risk, the plan period should be extended. We consider a plan period to 2042 or 2043 would be more appropriate to reduce the risk of the
plan period having to be extended again during the examination process.

Object

Representation ID: 6418

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Our representations to policies DS4 and DS5 raise significant concerns in relation to the proposed housing requirement. To address these issues, our client proposes an omission site for allocation (land at Penkridge Road, Acton Trussell).

There is a major employment site located 1km walking or
cycling distance from Acton Trussell (Acton Gate), there is a primary school located less than 1km walking distance at the neighbouring village of Dunston (a tier 4 settlement). The settlement is also located just 1.5km from the edge of Stafford. In terms of public transport, bus stops are located approximately 180m to the north of the site, Penkridge Train Station is located approximately 4km to the
south. New village shop could be delivered as part of the development proposals, with its long-term future secured through Section 106 contributions. The SHELAA 2023 assessment did not identify any technical or other constraints.

The proposed allocation at Land off Penkridge Road, Acton Trussell provides an opportunity to deliver
thoughtfully designed homes, alongside extensive open space and a village shop, while supporting the
sustainable growth of a rural settlement. These representations demonstrate that the site is suitable, achievable and available and would be deliverable in the short term and the site should be allocated in the emerging Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6419

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy sets a maximum cap of 10% on the amount of market housing required for cross-subsidy. There
is no justification for this cap.There should be flexibility in relation to the proportion of market housing to be allowed, to deliver affordable housing in areas of significant need.

We note that the current Local Plan policy does not specify an upper limit to market housing. The same is the case with the recent Solihull Local Plan Review. By way of comparison with plans where upper limits have been set, the Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies (Policy 9) includes a rural exception policy with an allowance of up to 50% market housing.

Policy HC6 therefore does not meet the soundness test outlined at paragraph 35 b) due to the lack of justification for a maximum cap of 10% on the amount of market housing required for cross-subsidy.

Object

Representation ID: 6420

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The requirement within the policy for there to be “an evidenced need for First Homes exists within the
district which is not already being met within the local authority area” is unduly restrictive and is not
consistent with national policy.

There is then no meaningful analysis to demonstrate that the need for such accommodation will be satisfied purely through the application of Policy HC3. First homes exception sites are not intended to be village or parish specific. Therefore, the suggestion would be that the applicant needs to undertake a district-wide analysis of need and supply. That would be an impossible task given that the Council’s own evidence to the Local Plan is inconclusive on the issue.

We also object to the proposed maximum cap of 10% on the amount of market housing required for cross-subsidy.

Object

Representation ID: 6421

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Part 2 of the policy supports rural employment outside development boundaries, subject to a number of criteria. However, some of the criteria are conflicting. In particular, we object to criterion b, which requires development to comprise the conversion and reuse of rural buildings. If such development can satisfy criteria c (the development is not capable of being located within the development boundaries of a village, by reason of the nature of the operation or the absence of suitable sites) and d (it is supported by an appropriate business case which demonstrates that the proposal will support the local economy, which in turn would help sustain rural communities), then it is an unreasonable constraint for the policy to only apply to the conversion and reuse of rural buildings. We note that the conversion and re-use of rural agricultural buildings is also covered under part 3 of the policy. The policy is therefore unsound on the basis that its criteria are not justified in context of each other. The
plan therefore fails to comply with paragraph 35 b) of the Framework in this regard.

Object

Representation ID: 6422

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy could be interpreted in a way that is unnecessarily restrictive, as the development of any
greenfield site will inevitably result in some level of adverse visual effects on the immediate environment or in longer range views. National policy does not advocate a no development / zero harm approach to landscape character; rather, development should be sympathetic to landscape character and seek to minimise and mitigate against significant impacts.

The policy also continues to state that all trees, woodland, and hedgerows should be protected and
retained.the policy should express their retention as a preference rather than a strict policy requirement.
The Framework does not advocate an approach that all trees, woodland and hedgerows must be retained. The policy is not considered to satisfy paragraph 35 d) of the Framework as it does not reflect paragraphs 135(c) and 180(a) of the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 6423

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst it appears that the Council has attempted to summarise national policy, we are concerned that the
wording of the policy (particularly the second paragraph) misconstrues national policy in a way that the local policy could be interpreted differently from the Framework. For example, the reference to development proposals seeking to avoid, and then minimise harm to heritage assets in the first instance is presumably an interpretation of paragraph 201 of the Framework. But it is not clear from the policy as
drafted that paragraph 201 of the Framework (read in conjunction with paragraph 18a-008-20190723 of
the PPG) is concerned with whether the assessed level of harm to a heritage asset that would be caused
by a proposed development could be reduced by alternative designs. The policy as drafted could lead to
avoidance being read in a wider context inconsistent with caselaw on the issue.

The policy also does not appear to distinguish between designated and non-designated heritage assets. Under national policy and the legislative requirements, a very different approach needs to be taken depending upon whether a heritage asset is designated or non-designated. Therefore, we consider that the policy should simply defer to national policy in relation to proposals affecting heritage assets. On this basis, the policy as drafted is not consistent with national policy and is therefore considered to be unsound having regard to paragraph 35 d) of the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 6424

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Wain Estates

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst the Strategic Growth Study may require updating, the Council acknowledges that there is a very significant shortfall, and furthermore that the extent of the unmet need is only increasing. In that context it is totally illogical to arrive at a reduced contribution of 640 dwellings. If the Strategic Growth Study needs updating then the onus is on the Council to do that immediately, given the context of
the Local Plan Review which is to grapple with this issue. Our client is promoting an omission site that lies outside of the Green Belt. These non-Green Belt options have not been maximised in the chosen strategy.

The SoCG has only been signed by 9 out of 17 parties despite being prepared almost two years ago and retains the reference to a contribution of 4,000 dwellings from the Council. The proposed contribution towards meeting GBBCHMA’s housing needs is wholly unjustified and does not demonstrate effective cooperation. We therefore do not consider that the Publication Local Plan complies with the Duty to Cooperate and further work must be undertaken to resolve this.