Ref: Joint Core Strategy (JCS) - Comments on Gloucester on behalf of Taylor Wimpey

Transcription

1 Origin3 Ref Inspector E Ord Cheltenham Tewkesbury Gloucester JCS C/O Ian Kemp Programme Officer 16 Cross Furlong Wychbold Droitwich Spa Worcestershire WR9 7TA 22 April 2016 Dear Inspector Ord Ref: Joint Core Strategy (JCS) - Comments on Gloucester on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Following the recent conclusion of the Stage 3 Hearing Sessions on the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Examination in Public, this letter provides concluding representations on the matters discussed at the recent hearing sessions. The representations are made on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Strategic) with regard to their interest at land at Whaddon, Gloucester. During the last round of hearing sessions, Origin3 was asked to provide a note with regard to flexibility within the JCS and specifically how this may relate to Gloucester City. To understand the need for flexibility this letter sets out a brief context followed by some practical suggestions. During the apportionment and distribution session it was indicated that a housing requirement of 33,500 would be distributed between Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury on the basis of demographic need with a shared economic uplift based upon known employment locations. The figure for Gloucester was 13,664 houses. Taylor Wimpey supports a basic growth figure of 13,664 new homes for Gloucester and the identification of sites to achieve its delivery. A number of comments were made at the latest hearing sessions however, that questioned whether the identification of sites to accommodate 13,664 dwellings was going to provide sufficient flexibility.

2 Taylor Wimpey does not believe it will provide the level of flexibility that is necessary to ensure firstly that a 5 year land supply will be maintained and secondly that the plan will be sufficiently flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances at Gloucester if necessary. It was noted during the hearing sessions that an over-supply of circa 900 dwellings provided some degree of flexibility to address any changes in housing circumstances at Cheltenham and the same principle should be applied equally to Gloucester. Paragraph 153 of NPPF explains the importance of being able to respond flexibly to changing circumstances through the implementation of a partial or whole plan review. For a plan to be sound, the review mechanism must be effective. Concern remains about the effectiveness of the JCS review mechanism and how the plan can effectively respond in a flexibly manner to changing housing circumstances at Gloucester. During the last hearing session representatives of the Winnycroft site at Gloucester (600 dwellings) and MoD Ashchurch (2,225 dwellings) confirmed their client s position with regard to viability concerns and the impact upon affordable housing delivery. Focusing on the Winnycroft example, which is a live planning application, it became clear that the delivery of any more than 10% affordable housing would be uneconomical and the Applicant was not willing to agree to a higher figure (EXAM 218 now confirms). The current application for the large proportion of the Winnycroft site (420 dwellings) was returned to planning committee on 12 th April 2016 with an Officer recommendation to accept the 10% affordable provision being proposed by the developer. Members did not accept the officer recommendation and stood by the resolution passed in December 2015 to grant planning permission subject to a S.106 agreement which secured 20% affordable provision. Given that Winnycroft is currently relied upon in the JCS 5 year housing supply for Gloucester, the consequences of the current situation are: The site is not developed because the affordable housing requirement reduction cannot be agreed between the parties or; A reduction of affordable housing is negotiated at appeal and it leaves a shortfall of affordable housing land supply. Both scenarios reduce housing delivery in Gloucester and there is no flexibility in the Plan to respond quickly. Focusing further on Gloucester, we have similar concerns about some of the urban capacity sites which by their nature are more complex and susceptible to unknown difficulties. For example, in December 2015, the archaeological remains of Gloucester s medieval castle were discovered on the site of the former HM Prison which is currently identified as forming part of

3 the Blackfriar s development site of 350 dwellings. There is no indication at this time what impact this will have upon housing delivery, but as a significant constraint it would influence the outcome of the SALA and SA consideration of this site; particularly its deliverability. These sites demonstrate the fragility of housing delivery at Gloucester and the importance of flexibility to ensure that alternatives can be brought forward quickly. Looking at the range of sites at Gloucester and their positions in the JCS delivery trajectory, that too has very little flexibility. Take for example the brownfield urban sites, there is currently little or no policy restriction to prevent them coming forward now if available, but many of these sites are reliant upon matters such as land ownership assembly or tenants to vacate premises. Such constraints cannot be removed quickly to bring a site forward earlier if a delivery problem exists. Likewise, the land supply trajectory is reliant upon the strategic allocations to delivery as quickly as practical, so again, there is no capacity to bring them forward earlier if a delivery problem occurs. The plan to meet Gloucester s needs is wholly reliant upon the early review mechanism in the Core Strategy reaching a stage whereby the development industry feels there is sufficient security to make planning application. The local track record demonstrates that Gloucestershire and its constituent authorities perform poorly with regard to timely review and adoption of plans when there is clear evidence of a need to do so. The adoption process of this Core Strategy for example, was started in 2008 and each year an LDS was produced that put the date for adoption further into the future. Notwithstanding the historical JCS local development schemes, the 2013 version on Tewkesbury Borough Council s website indicates adoption in December 2014, whilst Gloucester City indicates October 2015 and Cheltenham Borough Council and the JCS website no longer shows an anticipated adoption date. At a Gloucestershire level, the Third alteration of the Structure Plan was eventually abandoned after a considerable number of years work. This has let to significant levels of planning by appeal over the last 8 years. The concern is that housing pressure already exist at Gloucester and delivery uncertainties are building at sites like Winnycroft and HM Gloucester Prison and the track record of responding to such problems quickly through the development plan is poor. Therefore in order to ensure the Core Strategy is effective in responding to paragraph 153 of NPPF a greater level of direction remains necessary for Gloucester as well as that already put in place at Cheltenham. Having set the context above and demonstrated the local circumstances that are already beginning to affect the up to date nature of the JCS Core Strategy in terms of housing delivery it is suggested that there are three key elements needed as part of a robust review policy and mechanism in the JCS. Taylor Wimpey advocate that the review mechanism also ties in with neighbouring authorities such as Stroud.

4 1. Regular Review The first key element for a robust and clear review policy in the JCS is a point of soundness with regard to national policy and guidance. NPPF paragraph 153 is clear that plans can be reviewed in whole or part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances. The PPG provides further clarity for plan makers at chapter 12, paragraph by recommending a maximum 5 year review mechanism. To be effective plans need to be kept up-to-date. Policies will age at different rates depending on local circumstances, and the local planning authority should review the relevance of the Local Plan at regular intervals to assess whether some or all of it may need updating. Most Local Plans are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every five years. Reviews should be proportionate to the issues in hand. Local Plans may be found sound conditional upon a review in whole or in part within five years of the date of adoption. And; A local planning authority must set out the timetable for producing or reviewing its Local Plan in its Local Development Scheme. The JCS review policy should therefore be clear by setting a date/deadline for a submission version of the review JCS. A clear policy position on the timing of the review is also critical in order to ensure that the JCS delivers an appropriate strategy to align with the Stroud local plan. The NPPG chapter 12, paragraph 008 also provides helpful guidance in this regard. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Local planning authorities should also consider whether plan making activity by other authorities has an impact on planning and the Local Plan in their area. For example, a revised Strategic Housing Market Assessment will affect all authorities in that housing market area, and potentially beyond, irrespective of the status or stage of development of particular Local Plans. The bare minimum for this plan must be the inclusion of a review mechanism that requires the submission of a draft Plan to the Secretary of State within 3 years of adoption, to enable it to be examined and adopted over the proceeding 2 years. Given that the process up to submission is entirely within the LPA s control any resistance to this should be seen as a clear 1 NPPG reference ID:

5 indication that the JCS does not intend to follow national policy and therefore provides even more imperative to insist it is included. 2. Failure of the Plan The second key element for the review mechanism in the JCS is to ensure that an appropriate review is undertaken in a scenario that the plan fails before the end of its first 5 years. In otherwords, if any constituent part of the plan fails to deliver housing (market and/or affordable) or economic development in accordance with the housing and job growth requirements of the plan. The Birmingham Development Plan Inspector s Report (March 2016) provides a useful and up to date monitoring policy to ensure an appropriate review of the plan if undertaken if it fails. The Birmingham Development Plan Inspector s additional policy stated; Policy TP47 Monitoring and promoting the achievement of growth targets The City Council will monitor progress annually towards the achievement of the key targets for growth (housing, including affordable housing, employment, offices and retail) set out in policy PG1. In the event that the supply of land falls significantly behind that required to achieve these targets, the Council will undertake a full or partial review of the Plan in order to address the reasons for this. Key indicators which would trigger a review are: A failure to provide a 5 year housing land supply in any monitoring year with the following two monitoring years indicating no recovery in the position. Housing completions fall more than 10% beneath the targets in the housing trajectory over any rolling three-year period. A failure in any monitoring year to provide the minimum reservoir of best quality employment land with the following two monitoring years indicating no recovery in the position. An inadequate supply of sites for offices to meet the targets set in the Plan. An inadequate supply of retails sites to meet the targets set in the Plan. The JCS needs this level of certainty through a similarly robust and detailed review policy to ensure the plan performs and to motivate the JCS authorities to seek delivery of the plans objectives through development control decisions. Without such a review policy, the JCS will

6 be rudderless and the track record of the JCS authorities in plan making and decision taking outside of appeal underlines the need for a policy which provides unambiguous triggers for a review to be undertaken. The risk posed by not having such a clear review policy on the spatial strategy is a return to strategic planning by appeal. 3. Direction of Travel for Future or Alternative Growth Given concerns about the likelihood of adopting a revised or new plan in a timely manner to address any shortfalls or changes in circumstances, there is significant merit in providing some indication now, about future growth directions, where evidence is available and where flexibility can be positively identified in this JCS plan. By establishing this now, it will assist the JCS in future deliberations about where growth should be focused. It is therefore proposed that a proportionally similar area of land is identified within the JCS as an area of search/ broad location. An area of search is not an allocation and relies upon a local planning authority to use the plan process to define a site through future plan review processes. It does not therefore, need to be limited to an area within the JCS and equally because it is not an allocation does not rely upon a neighbouring authority adjusting its plan immediately or needing at this stage to agree boundaries or quantum s of development. A broad location for Gloucester, indicated on a plan or a direction of growth indicated in text associated with Policy SP2 would provide a similar form of flexibility as safeguarding land from the Green Belt at Cheltenham. It would be a matter for a subsequent plan review to determine whether to use that land in due course and more importantly to define future development sites without revisiting the spatial principles of a JCS plan. Such an approach could be applied to land at Whaddon or other land. Conclusion Taylor Wimpey however, remain concerned about the underpinning work to support a growth option to the north of Gloucester by removing more land from the Green Belt. Paragraph 182 makes it clear that plans must be consistent with national policy in the pursuit of delivering sustainable development. The purpose of paragraph 14 of NPPF alongside paragraph 84 makes it clear (as also set out in the JCS Interim Report), that a sequential approach should be taken with regard to Green Belt land release. Now that the housing apportionment has been established for the three authorities, the exceptional circumstances case for releasing Green Belt land should be carried out on a settlement by settlement basis. With regard to Gloucester, it has been maintained by Taylor Wimpey that the merits of developing land at Whaddon has never properly assessed, even

7 though it is confirmed as a reasonable alternative for the purposes of the Sustainability Appraisal. It has been suggested at previous hearing sessions by the JCS that growth to the north of Gloucester is necessary to assist the regeneration of the City Centre and that Green Belt land around Twigworth and Innsworth performs that function to a greater degree than land to the south of Gloucester. A comparison of proximity between Waddon, Innsworth and Twigworth to the City Centre does not show a material difference and when severance to the north, by the ring road and functional floodplain are taken into account the latter sites perform no better that Whaddon. However, in the case of Gloucester the presence of Green Belt does make a very significant difference to site selection in national policy terms. Paragraph 14 of NPPF, described as the golden thread running through the plan-making process is clear, there would have to be demonstrable harm that significantly outweighs the benefits of delivering housing at Whaddon for the presumption in favour of sustainable development to fall away, whereas; In the case of the proposed 1,900 houses at Innsworth and Twigworth, the policies within the framework prevent Green Belt land benefitting from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Given the following: acceptance that Whaddon is consistent with the Spatial Strategy, no questions having been raised about its sustainability to significantly outweigh the benefits and, that Innsworth/ Twigworth is currently Green Belt, It should be concluded that exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land in this part of the JCS area have not been proven. It would be inconsistent with the Duty to Co-operate to conclude, like the JCS has on numerous occasions, that land at Whaddon is not available because it falls outside the JCS administrative area. The selection of Green Belt land at Twigworth/ Innsworth for development, over Whaddon is not consistent with national policy concerning Green Belt protection and sustainable development. Whereas land at Whaddon has consistently, from the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy onwards, been regarded as sustainable, but simply lies on the outside edge of the JCS in Stroud District.

8 A main modification to include Twigworth/ Innsworth as a strategic housing allocation for 1,900 dwellings is not sound in national policy terms. I trust this letter provides some practical methods of establishing an effective monitoring and management strategy for the plan and goes on to explain the continued concerns about why land at Whaddon should be identified now to meet the housing and employment requirements of the JCS. Yours sincerely Colin Danks MRTPI Director colin@origin3.co.uk