30 July 2013 Delivered by email Mr. Andrew Seaman BA (HONS) MA MRTPI Planning Inspector c/o The Programme Officer 49 All Saints Place Bromsgrove Worcestershire B61 0AX 10 Queen Square Bristol BS1 4NT T: 0117 989 7000 F: 0117 925 1016 www.turleyassociates.co.uk Our reference: TAYA2036 Your reference: Email: amacdonald@turleyassociates.co.uk Dear Mr. Seaman WILTSHIRE CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION - LAND AT STATION ROAD, WESTBURY. I write further to recent correspondence and discussions with Mr Kemp following the Examination session on 11 th July in respect of Westbury. You will recall that at that session, the Council and the representative for Persimmon Homes (Mark Fox of Pegasus Planning Group) both claimed that a trajectory for the delivery of the land at Station Road site was available as an addendum to the Statement of Common Ground for the site. It has since been established with the help of Mr Kemp that this was not the case and you have therefore kindly given me the opportunity to comment on it now that I have been provided with a copy of the document. As you will recall, the context to this is that my clients, Taylor Wimpey, strongly believe that the housing requirement in the Core Strategy is inadequate and, further, that the single strategic allocation for Westbury (at Station Road) is both unviable and unlikely to deliver as relied upon by the Council. This has been clearly confirmed by previous submissions made by Mr Fox during the Core Strategy preparation process including the suggestion that the site would need to be doubled in size to 500 dwellings to make it viable. This is set out in detail in my written Statements to the Examination and are not therefore repeated at this point. However, at the Westbury session Mr Fox conceded that, at this point in time, the site is not viable based on 250 dwellings but he tried to suggest that it may be viable at the point in the future when it is expected to deliver actual completions (2017/2018). It is my view that the promoters of the site will not commit to the planning application process and the costs of upfront infrastructure unless they have certainty that the scheme is viable. A review of the trajectory for the site shows that both the promoters of the site and the Council will seek to ensure the delivery of the site by 2023 with the construction of the railway bridge and link road and first residential completions by 2017/18. Given the viability issues relating to the site I would suggest that this is somewhat optimistic. In particular, the trajectory requires that an outline application is submitted in June 2014, that is to say only some ten months away. In turn, this necessitates that all necessary survey work has been carried out and that public consultation and engagement is completed. This is, of course, an expensive process which in this case must be done on the basis of a scheme that is acknowledged to not B e l f a s t B i r m i n g h a m B r i s t o l C a r d i f f E d i n b u r g h G l a s g o w L e e d s London M a n c h e s t e r S o u t h a m p t o n Registered in England Turley Associates Limited no. 2235387. Registered office: 1 New York Street, Manchester, M1 4HD
2 be currently viable. Any such application will also, of course, fix the parameters for the development but this will be done with little more than the hope that it will prove to be viable in the future. Therefore, having considered the Addendum to the Statement of Common Ground and, indeed, the debate at the Examination, I remain of the view that additional site(s) should be brought forward at Westbury given its status in the settlement hierarchy. This view is based on the need to increase the overall quantum of residential development in Wiltshire, the very great concerns over the viability and deliverability of the Station Road site, the need to provide flexibility and also the availability of deliverable, sustainable and available sites within the Town, including my clients site at Glenmore Farm. I hope that the above is in order, however, please do not hesitate to contact me should you require anything further. Yours sincerely Alistair Macdonald Associate Director
Phil Smith Service Manager Planning Policy Planning Service 4th Floor, Wat Tyler West Swindon Borough Council SN1 2JH Ian Kemp Planning Inquiry Administration Services 49 All Saints Place Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 0AX Phone: 01527 837 920 Mobile: 07723 009 166 E-Mail: idkemp@icloud.com 16 th July 2013 Dear Mr. Smith, Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026 Further to your submission of the Swindon Borough Local Plan on 28 June 2013, the Inspector has now received the document and supporting material. From this, and without prejudice to the progress and outcome of the Examination, he has a number of concerns that he wishes to raise at this stage, which are set out below. He appreciates that, in the short time he has been able to study the Local Plan documentation, he may have missed some vital information which could answer some or all of his concerns. You are no doubt aware as the Inspector is that there is no scope to remedy a failure to satisfy the Duty to Cooperate. In relation to policies, the National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that Local Plans need to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. Plans must also deal with what will be delivered; where it will be delivered; when it will be delivered; and how it will be delivered through the Local Plan and any supporting documents this last point touches on the need for realistic, implementable plans, which are more than just aspirational. In short, taking all these factors into account, the Inspector is seriously concerned that the Local Plan may not provide a sufficiently robust platform for providing new homes in Swindon or an adequate strategy for delivering that objective. He also has concerns relating to the deliverability of a number of other aspects of the Plan, which he sets out below. You will appreciate that the initial concerns the Inspector has raised relate to fundamental matters at the heart of the Plan. It is because of this, and with the aim of avoiding any unnecessary expense in mind, that he has written to draw your attention to these issues now. He also points out that these do not necessarily represent the only concerns that he may identify, and he reserves his position for the time being. I would ask you to give full consideration to the content of this letter and the attached table. To progress matters expediently, I would be grateful if you would provide a response, including any suggestions you may have regarding the way forward by Friday 30 th August. The Inspector has asked me to state that he trusts that you find this letter to be helpful. It is written in the spirit of assistance and to ensure that the Examination is as efficient as possible. Yours sincerely Ian Kemp Programme Officer
Swindon Borough Local Plan Exploratory Items: Initial issues identified by Inspector Ref. Soundness/ DTC issue 1. Duty to Cooperate (DTC) 2. Population projections 3. Housing provision 4. Housing Market Area 5. Affordable housing 6. Gypsy and traveller accommoda-tion 7. Sustainability Appraisal Inspector comments DTC is about evidencing collaboration and not just about who has been consulted, as important as that is. CD21.8 is comprehensive in terms of lists of consultees, but the DTC is an exacting test. What examples are there of active collaboration between SBC and the bodies listed in Part 2 of the Regulations? Are there any memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or minutes of meetings which demonstrate that there has been collaboration as well as consultation? What have been the main issues that have been addressed during this process and what issues remain outstanding? What is the basis for the Plan s zero net migration (ZNM) forecasts? Does this need to be revised in the light of the 2011- based household interim projections? Looking at the period 2006-2026, the Structure Plan (SP) provision was 34,200 dwellings, excluding 3,000 dwellings in Wiltshire adjacent to the Borough. In relation to policy SD2 and various CDs submitted, I have a number of concerns: (i) Current shortfall: Table 1 [CD11.10] shows 7,741 dwellings completed since 2006, i.e. 1,290 dpa. This is significantly less than the SP requirement of 1,710 dpa over the same period. This appears to produce a current shortfall of about 2,519 dwellings (i.e. 10,260-7,741). [CD11.6, table 10.1 seems to indicate an even higher shortfall, but this is dated (2006)]. If the Council does not accept the CD11.10 Table 1 figure, what does it consider is the extent of the shortfall? (ii) NPPF Buffer: If there has been a shortfall in several years (and overall) since 2006, which is the way I read Table 1 [CD11.10], does this mean that the Plan should provide for a 20% buffer instead of the 5% mentioned in # 3.28 of the submitted Plan? (iii) Existing households in housing need: The SHMA [CD11.3] estimates (Table 16) that an existing 6,166 households are in housing need. Where does the Plan make provision for these households or should this extra amount be added to the housing need for the Plan to meet? (iv) The Structure Plan provision for 3,000 homes in Wiltshire: These appear to have been discounted; if so, what is the reasoning behind this decision? (v) SHLAA: The comprehensive 2008-based SHLAA [CD11.4] has been updated in the 2012 Housing Monitoring Report [CD11.8]. Has a 2013-based report been issued, and is there an up-to-date plan showing the sites referred to in the report? (i) What is the evidence to support the geographic extent of the housing market area which includes Swindon? (The Framework # 47 1 st bullet). (ii) If the HMA is just Swindon, how self contained is it? (iii) What is the overall housing requirement based on the HMA? Given the large number of households classed as in housing need, is the threshold of 15 homes in policy HA2 appropriate for effectively addressing this need? DCLG Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012) states that LPAs should set pitch targets for gypsies and travellers and identify developable sites or broad locations. This information does not appear to exist, at least not in policy HA8. Although three alternatives are appraised in the SA [CD21.10] there is little detailed explanation as to why option 2 was chosen
8. Water infrastructure 9. Economic growth 10. Infrastructure provision as the preferred option. It is essential to the soundness of the Plan to demonstrate that the option chosen is not only reasonable but is the most appropriate option in relation to reasonable alternatives. Has the necessary water infrastructure been identified to accommodate the likely level of growth in Swindon to 2026? I note a figure of 60 million for a STW for the short term and nothing thereafter, but nothing in relation to water supply. How will the provision of water supply be secured in such a geologically challenging area, how will it be financed, and what is the programme of implementation? Assuming the 60 million STW has been agreed with Thames Water for 2013-2015, is there any agreement to address the water infrastructure requirements for Swindon over the remainder of the plan period, when the rate of house building is to increase? I see this as a potentially serious issue for the Plan, especially in relation to water supply. Policy IN2 (supporting text) refers to a wider functional context, clearly extending beyond the Borough boundaries. Is there an agreed provision across this functional area on what the need is and how it can be overcome? Is the Plan s housing provision predicated on over optimistic economic growth forecasts? How is Swindon s economic growth scenario squared against zero net migration assumptions? The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) [CD21.14] is comprehensive, but there are no indications as to which schemes are priorities and which, if any, are potential showstoppers. The combined shortfall is just short of 360 million, which firstly needs to be prioritised (in addition to phasing, which has been done), and secondly, it raises doubts about the effectiveness of the Plan to deliver unless realistic sources of finance can be identified. How does the anticipated rate of S 106 funding compare with the track record over the last decade, and what is likely to happen once the use of S106 Agreements is restricted, possibly after April 2015? 11. Rapid transit The IDP refers to rapid transit projects 1-3, and the term appears in the 7 th bullet point to policy TR1. Is there a clear explanation in the Plan as to what is envisaged? The 25 million shortfall is significant and could cast doubts on the effectiveness of these schemes without further information on the projects and their means of implementation. There is something in the LTP [CD15.2], but again little detail for such a potentially important proposal. 12. Use of SPDs There are several village strategies, which, as long as they do not attempt to by-pass the Plan Examination in terms of land use provision, would be appropriate and lawful. The 2012 Regulations make it clear that only Local Plans can contain site allocation policies to guide the determination of planning applications (Reg 5(1)(a)(iv). The NPPF (# 157, bullets 1 and 5 in particular) also requires policies which address proposals for land uses, infrastructure requirements, etc, to be tested in a LP examination and not be hidden in a SPD. 13. Monitoring Appendix 7 covers a number of indicators, but there are no targets, such as for modal shift or renewable energy, or trigger points for remedial action. The monitoring section needs to provide a basis for intervention should the policies not deliver. Monitoring goals should be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable and timely).