Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: Proposed Submission Draft - Soundness Representations
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: Proposed Submission Draft Soundness Representations Taylor Wimpey UK Limited September 2019
© 2019 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd, trading as Lichfields. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England, no. 2778116. 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL Formatted for double sided printing. Plans based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A 41529/04/CM/MWl 17748872v2
Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Structure 2
Accompanying Documents 2
2.0 Policy CS(R)1: Halton’s Spatial Strategy 3
Introduction 3
Consideration of Policy 3
Test of Soundness 4
Recommended Change 4
3.0 Policy CS(R)3: Housing Supply and Location Priorities 5
Introduction 5
Consideration of Policy 5
Test of Soundness 6
Recommended Change 6
4.0 Policy CS(R)6: Green Belt 7
Introduction 7
Consideration of Policy 7
Test of Soundness 8
Recommended Change 8
5.0 Policy CS(R)7: Infrastructure Provision 9
Introduction 9
Consideration of Policy 9
Test of Soundness 9
6.0 Policy CS(R)12: Housing Mix and Specialist Housing 10
Introduction 10
Consideration of Policy 10
Test of Soundness 10
Recommended Change 10
7.0 Policy CS(R)13: Affordable Homes and Starter Homes 12
Introduction 12
Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Consideration of Policy 12
Test of Soundness 12
Recommended Change 12
8.0 Policy CS(R)19: Sustainable Development and Climate Change14
Introduction 14
Consideration of Policy 14
Test of Soundness 14
Recommended Change 14
9.0 Policy RD1: Residential Development Allocations 15
Introduction 15
Consideration of Policy 15
Test of Soundness 16
Recommended Change 16
10.0 Policy RD4: Greenspace Provision for Residential Development17
Introduction 17
Consideration of Policy 17
Test of Soundness 17
Recommended Change 17
11.0 Policy RD6: Custom and Self Build Housing 18
Introduction 18
Consideration of Policy 18
Test of Soundness 18
Recommended Change 18
12.0 Policy C1: Transport Network and Accessibility 19
Introduction 19
Consideration of Policy 19
Test of Soundness 19
Recommended Change 19
13.0 Policy C2: Parking Standards 20
Introduction 20
Consideration of Policy 20
Test of Soundness 20Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Recommended Change 20
14.0 Policy C3: Delivery of Telecommunications Infrastructure 21
Introduction 21
Consideration of Policy 21
Test of Soundness 21
Recommended Change 21
15.0 Policy HE4: Green Infrastructure 22
Introduction 22
Consideration of Policy 22
Test of Soundness 22
Recommended Change 22
16.0 Policy HE9: Water Management and Flood Risk 23
Introduction 23
Consideration of Policy 23
Test of Soundness 23
Recommended Change 23
17.0 Policy GR1: Design of Development 24
Introduction 24
Consideration of Policy 24
Test of Soundness 24
Recommended Change 24
18.0 Policy GR2: Amenity 25
Introduction 25
Consideration of Policy 25
Test of Soundness 25
Recommended Change 25Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Appendices
Appendix 1 Site Location Plan
Appendix 2 Technical Review of Whole Plan Viability Assessment
Appendix 3 West Lancs Policy RS6 - ‘Plan B’ SitesHalton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
1.0 Introduction
Purpose
1.1 Lichfields is instructed by Taylor Wimpey (UK) Limited [TW] to make representations to the
Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan [DALP]: Proposed Submission Draft Document
(incorporating Partial Review of the Core Strategy) published for consultation by Halton
Borough Council in August 2019.
1.2 These representations are made it the context of TW’s development interested in Halton,
namely land at Chapel Lane, Widnes. A plan showing the location of the site is attached at
Appendix 1.
1.3 It is a statutory requirement that every development plan document be submitted for
independent examination to assess when it is “sound” as well as whether other statutory
requirements have been satisfied (s.20(5) of the 2004 Act). By s.19 of the 2004 Act, in
preparing a development plan document a local planning authority must have regard to a
number of matters including national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the
Secretary of State. Such guidance currently exists in the form of the National Planning Policy
Framework [the Framework] and the National Planning Practice Guidance [the Practice
Guidance].
1.4 There is no statutory definition of “soundness”. However, the Framework states that to be
sound a Local Plan should be:
1 Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s
objectively assessed needs, and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that
unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is
consistent with achieving sustainable development;
2 Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and
based on proportionate evidence;
3 Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-
boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by
the statement of common ground; and,
4 Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in
accordance with the policies in the Framework.
1.5 In addition, the Framework1 states that:
“Plans and decision should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For plan-making this means that:
a Plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their
area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;
b Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas, unless:
i The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas of assets of
particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale,
type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
1
The Framework 2019 - §11
Pg 1Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
ii Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as a
whole.”
1.6 This report demonstrates that a number of the policies within the Local Plan require
amendments in the context of the tests of soundness established by the Framework.
Structure
1.7 The report provides detailed representations in relation to the following Local Plan policies.
1 Policy CS(R)1: Halton’s Spatial Strategy
2 Policy CS(R)3: Housing Supply and Locational Priorities
3 Policy CS(R)6: Green Belt
4 Policy CS(R)7: Infrastructure Provision
5 Policy CS(R)12: Housing Mix and Specialist Housing
6 Policy CS(R)13: Affordable Homes and Starter Homes
7 Policy CS(R)19: Sustainable Development and Climate Change
8 Policy RD1: Residential Development Allocations
9 Policy RD4: Greenspace Provision for Residential Development
10 Policy RD6: Custom and Self Build Housing
11 Policy C1: Transport Network and Accessibility
12 Policy C2: Parking Standards
13 Policy C3: Delivery of Telecommunications Infrastructure
14 Policy HE4: Green Infrastructure
15 Policy HE9: Water Management and Flood Risk
16 Policy GR1: Design of Development
17 Policy GR2: Amenity
Accompanying Documents
1.8 Taylor Wimpey has commissioned Cushman and Wakefield to prepare a detailed review of
Halton Borough Council’s Whole Plan Viability Assessment. This review accompanies these
representations (Appendix 2) and its conclusions and recommendations inform the discussion
and arguments set out in these representations.
Pg 2Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
2.0 Policy CS(R)1: Halton’s Spatial Strategy
Introduction
2.1 Policy CS(R)1 sets out the spatial strategy for Halton over the plan period and identifies the
development requirements for the borough, the key areas for regeneration together with a
delivery strategy.
Consideration of Policy
2.2 TW broadly supports the spatial strategy as set out in Policy CS(R)1 including the Key Urban
Regeneration Areas. In addition, TW recognises the Council’s efforts to meet its identified
Objectively Assessed Need [OAN] in full, in line with the Framework. Notwithstanding this, TW
has concerns over the lack of consistency between the proposed housing requirement and the
growth aspirations set out in the Mid-Mersey Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA]
and the Liverpool City Region [LCR] Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market
Assessment [SHELMA]. TW also has concerns that the proposed OAN requirement will not
fully support the vision and strategic objectives set out in the DALP.
Objectively Assessed Housing Need
2.3 The Framework clearly states that local authorities should use their evidence base to ensure
their local plans meet the full objectively assessed needs of market and affordable housing. The
Council has identified a housing requirement of 8,050 net additional dwellings, which equates
to 350 dwellings per annum [dpa] over the plan period. This is based on the Government’s
Standard Method using the 2014-based Household Projections, which identifies a requirement
of 296 dwellings per annum [dpa]. As the Framework is clear that this is a ‘minimum’
requirement, the Council has incorporated a nominal increase to 350 dpa which is “in-keeping
with previous delivery levels and supports the local economy” as set out in §7.27 of the DALP.
Whilst TW welcomes the fact that the Council has increased its requirement above the OAN
figure, it has concerns that this is still significantly below the figures set out in the SHMA and
SHELMA.
2.4 The Publication version of the Plan used the much higher SHMA figure which had an allowance
for economic need and identified the OAN to be 466 dpa. Furthermore, the SHELMA identified
an OAN incorporating economic growth to be 565 dpa. Consequently, TW considers that there
is currently a mis-alignment between the housing requirement and proposed economic growth
aspirations set out in the DALP. Failure to fully align the housing requirement with the
economic growth aspirations will lead to barriers to achieving this growth, and high levels of
inward commuting. On this basis, it is considered that the Council should opt for a higher
housing figure to encourage reasonable level of housing and economic growth in the Borough.
2.5 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on any future changes to the OAN
requirement and associated evidence base.
Key Urban Regeneration
2.6 TW supports the areas identified for urban regeneration, supported by green field expansion.
TW particularly supports the identification of North Widnes as an area for delivering greenfield
expansion and further extension to the urban area to the north of Widnes.
2.7 Ensuring a sufficient housing supply will help to deliver a wider housing mix that is suitable to
meet the market and affordable housing requirements of the local population. This will also
help to support service provision and maintain the vitality of Widnes. In this context, TW
Pg 3Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
supports the allocation of its site on Chapel Lane under Policy RD1. TW previously submitted a
Delivery Statement with its representations to the Publication Version of the DALP which shows
that the site at Chapel Lane would assist in the delivery of sustainable development within
Halton, and would also provide economic, social and environmental gains in accordance with
the Framework.
2.8 It is therefore requested that the Council continues to support the allocation of the site on
account of its suitability, deliverability and sustainability and as it will assist the Council in
meeting its OAN requirement.
Brownfield Focus
2.9 Whilst TW supports the strategy for Halton and the allowance made for an appropriate level of
greenfield expansion, it requests that the prioritisation for re-using brownfield land does not
impact, or limit, the delivery of sustainable development on identified greenfield sites. TW
notes that the supply of previously developed sites is finite and should not prejudice the delivery
of sustainable residential development on other suitable sites. It is also noted that these sites
must be considered as ‘developable’ in the accordance with Annex 2 of the Framework.
Test of Soundness
2.10 Whilst TW is broadly supportive of the spatial strategy, it considers that Policy CS(R)1 fails to
meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: the development strategy fails to reflect the Council’s evidence base in
its entirety and account for the growth aspirations in the SHELMA and SHMA.
2 It is not positively prepared: The delivery of housing will assist economic growth in the
borough; in this respect the plan fails to take account of the SHELMA economic growth
scenario OAN requirement.
3 It is not consistent with national policy: As currently worded, the Policy fails to align
with the Framework which seeks to significantly boost housing supply.
Recommended Change
2.11 In order to address the conflict detailed above, and ensure the policy criteria set out within
Policy CS(R)1 are sound, TW requests that:
1 The Council reconsiders its OAN for the area, in the context of the economic growth
aspirations of the LCR and use this as a basis for calculating its requirement and identify
additional land to accommodate this housing requirement.
Pg 4Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
3.0 Policy CS(R)3: Housing Supply and
Location Priorities
Introduction
3.1 Policy CS(R)3 sets out the quantum of new residential development required by the borough
over the plan period, together with an indication of where development should be directed and
recommended densities for development.
Consideration of Policy
3.2 TW wishes to object to Part 1(a) of Policy CS(R)3 in line with comments made in relation to
Policy CS(R)1 and the lack of consistency between the growth aspirations for the Borough and
the proposed housing requirement. It is not clear why the Council is not pursuing a higher
housing requirement which would deliver growth within the borough and replenish and
improve the housing stock in Halton.
3.3 TW would note that the Framework advises that Local Plan policies and development strategies
be reviewed at least every 5 years, and updated as necessary2. It would therefore be
inappropriate for the Council to assume that its OAN requirement will not change over the plan
period or indeed beyond.
3.4 TW supports the provisions in Part 3(iii) of the Policy and the identification of Strategic
Residential Locations [SRL], in particular SRL8 (North West Widnes). TW also strongly
supports the provision of Part 3(iv) which identifies the housing allocations within Policy RD1 as
another source of housing supply. TW’s Chapel Lane site is identified within Policy RD1 and will
significantly contribute to the overall housing supply.
5 Year Supply
3.5 TW supports Part 4 of Policy CS(R)3 and Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of
maintaining a 5-year supply of deliverable land across the borough. However, TW requests that
further information is provided as to how the Council intends to do this. TW therefore suggests
that the Local Plan introduces a policy mechanism that allows for the release of ‘Plan B’ sites
(such as adopted West Lancashire Local Plan Policy RS6) (see Appendix 3). This will ensure
flexibility and accounts for the potential non-delivery of committed sites and any other
shortcomings in its housing land supply.
Brownfield Land
3.6 Whilst TW broadly supports the principle of Part 5 of Policy CS(R)3 and its aspirations to
deliver up t0 30% of new residential development on brownfield land, this should not be to the
detriment of delivering sustainable development on identified greenfield sites. The supply of
brownfield land is finite and has been maximised to meet the needs of the current plan period.
The availability of such land towards the end of the plan period is likely to be significantly
limited and will likely have a resultant impact upon the ability of the Council to meet the
housing requirement in the latter years of the Plan period. The Council’s ability to achieve a 5-
year supply of deliverable housing land, as required by the Framework3, is also likely to be
compromised on this basis.
2
National Planning Policy Framework §33
3
National Planning Policy Framework §67
Pg 5Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Density
3.7 TW broadly supports the principles set out Part 6 of the Policy in relation to development
density and acknowledges the Council’s efforts to ensure the efficient use of land. However, as
currently worded, the Policy is unclear whether these densities will be applied to the net
developable or gross area of sites. With regards to strategic sites, consideration needs to be
given as to the provision of infrastructure and how this might impact on their development
density. TW recommends that the Council should consider increasing the density requirements
for sites that are required to provide community facilities and social infrastructure. This will
ensure that land is being used efficiently and could in turn prevent viability issues arising in
association with the cost of delivering infrastructure.
Test of Soundness
3.8 TW considers that Policy CS(R)3 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: The development strategy fails to reflect the Council’s evidence base in
its entirety and account for the growth aspirations as set out in the SHELMA.
2 It is not effective: Whilst TW supports the efficient use of land through increased
development densities; further clarification is required as to whether these figures relate to
the net developable or gross areas of sites.
Recommended Change
3.9 In order to address the conflicts identified above an ensure that Policy CS(R)3 is sound, it is
requested that the Council:
1 Provide clarification on the development density figures and whether these relate to the net
developable or gross areas of sites.
2 Considers whether it would be appropriate to increase the development densities on
strategic sites which are required to deliver social and community infrastructure.
Pg 6Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
4.0 Policy CS(R)6: Green Belt
Introduction
4.1 Policy CS(R)6 recognises the importance of the Green Belt and the role it plays in the borough.
Consideration of Policy
4.2 TW broadly supports the principle of defining the Green Belt across the borough and
acknowledges the Policy’s accordance with national policy. Notwithstanding this, TW notes that
the Merseyside Green Belt boundary has not been amended since its original designation in
1983. Since this designation it is likely that the role and function of the Green Belt has changed
and, in some areas, it no longer fulfils the Green Belt purpose in the context of the Framework4.
TW considers it to be out of date, and therefore needs to be reconsidered.
4.3 Having completed a review of the evidence base, TW agreed with the findings of the Green Belt
Exceptional Circumstances Paper. Within the report the Council considers that it is unable to
meet its OAN requirement through development in the urban area or land outwith the Green
Belt. It is therefore considered that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ requiring the release
of land from the Green Belt. TW fully supports the release of Green Belt to meet employment
and housing needs over the Plan Period in line with §136 of the Framework.
4.4 With reference to the Chapel Lane site, TW has undertaken an assessment of the land against
the five purposes of the Green Belt. TW fully supports the removal of the site from the Green
Belt and its identification in Policy RD1. The results of our Green Belt assessment have been
considered below:
To Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of Large Build-up Areas
4.5 The Site is bounded to the south and east by the urban area of Widnes and to the west by the
farm and housing development which fronts onto Chapel Lane. In this context the Site is largely
contained by development.
4.6 The northern boundary is defined by a shelterbelt, established hedgerow trees and a
watercourse. As a consequence, when approaching Widnes from the north the Site is contained
by existing development and landscape features. The provision of woodland planting along this
boundary would provide complete visual separation and enclosure from the wider open
countryside to the north.
4.7 The eastern part of the site is contained by Queensbury Way and is seen in the context of the
housing development to the east of Queensbury Way. There is potential to consolidate the
built development on Chapel Lane with the housing to the east in the future without detriment
to Green Belt purposes.
To Prevent Neighbouring Towns from Merging into One Another
4.8 The Site does not conflict with this purpose; there is an existing minimum gap of 500m between
Widnes and Cronton. There would be no reduction in the size of the gap as result of the release
of the site given that the site represents an indent within the existing defined urban area. The
release of the Chapel Lane Site would enable the maintenance of a 500m gap between Widnes
and Cronton and enable the delivery of the landscape strategy for this area. Future development
could be visually screened along the line of Alder Brook.
4
The Framework - §134
Pg 7Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
4.9 The gap would remain effective to maintain the separation between the two settlements.
Furthermore, the Halton Landscape Character Assessment does not identify that the land has
any particular landscape importance which would add weight to any separation function. There
is a stated strategy to increase woodland/tree planting in order to reinforce a sense of place in
the landscape. This could be delivered through new landscape treatments at the boundary of
new development. The development of the site could effectively deliver a new defensible
boundary in this location.
4.10 In addition, the release of the Site from the Green Belt would have no adverse effect on the
strategic gap between Widnes and Rainhill as the northern site boundary is 2.4km from
Rainhill.
To Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment
4.11 The Site lies in the North Widnes farmland landscape character area. It is substantially
contained by built development and landscape features. Whilst the site comprises agricultural
land, it does not make a significant contribution to the open nature of the countryside. The flat
landscape of the North Widnes Farmland area is identified in the Halton Landscape Character
Assessment as an area for enhancement and restoration through increased woodland tree
planting. This could be delivered through development of the site, and would both safeguard
and enhance the character of the countryside.
To Preserve the Setting and Special Character of Historic Towns
4.12 Widnes does not comprise a nationally recognised historic town and there are no Listed
Buildings in close proximity to the site nor is there a Conservation Area. Therefore, this Green
Belt purpose is not relevant to the assessment of the land.
To Assist in Urban Regeneration by Encouraging the Recycling of Derelict and
Other Urban Land
4.13 The release of the Site from the Green Belt would not prevent the recycling of derelict land and
other urban land because the Council’s evidence base demonstrates that there is insufficient
previously developed land to meet the housing needs of the community. The removal of this site
from the Green Belt does not conflict with this purpose.
Test of Soundness
4.14 TW considers that Policy CS(R)6 is sound.
Recommended Change
4.15 TW considers that no further change to the Policy is required.
Pg 8Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
5.0 Policy CS(R)7: Infrastructure Provision
Introduction
5.1 Policy CS(R)7 identifies the importance of making use of existing infrastructure, the
infrastructure requirement for new developments and the role of the Infrastructure Plan.
Consideration of Policy
5.2 TW broadly supports Policy CS(R)7 and accepts that financial contributions may be required to
mitigate the impact of development proposals on infrastructure and services. However, TW
notes that the requirements for any financial obligations should still enable the development to
be deliverable in accordance with the Framework.
5.3 With reference to Part 2 of Policy CS(R)7, TW considers that any requirement for financial
contributions must be: fully justified and based on a credible and robust evidence base which
identifies an actual need for facilities; reasonable in terms of the relationship to the
development; and, not unduly restrictive so as to affect the viability and deliverability of the
development. TW notes that any financial contributions sought should meet the tests as set out
in the CIL Regulations [§122] and the Framework5:
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• Directly related to the development; and,
• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.4 TW requests that the Policy is updated to make reference to the aforementioned tests and that it
is made clear that any financial contributions required by the Council will be considered in this
context.
5.5 TW notes that the Council does not currently intend to pursue the introduction of a CIL
Charging Schedule, however should the Council be minded to adopt a CIL in the future, they
should ensure that this does not result in developments being subject to double counting and
that this has been robustly tested through the Viability Assessment. If CIL were to be
introduced the Viability Assessment would have to review the existing policy requirements that
impact on the viability of developments.
Test of Soundness
5.6 TW considers Policy CS(R)7 to be sound provided the Viability Assessment is updated to
provide a more robust justification for the requirements set out in the Local Plan and that the
justification is updated to reflect the CIL tests identified in the CIL Regulations [§122] and the
Framework.
5
The Framework 2019 - §56
Pg 9Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
6.0 Policy CS(R)12: Housing Mix and Specialist
Housing
Introduction
6.1 Policy CS(R)12 sets out the type of affordable housing required on each site and the trigger for
this and the mix of housing needed to meet identified need.
Consideration of Policy
6.2 TW is supportive of the need to provide a range of homes to meet the local needs of the area but
would note that other elements would feed into the provision of a suitable housing mix
including viability, local aspirations and site characteristics.
6.3 TW is supportive of the flexibility allowed in Part 1 which states that a mix of property types
should be required on sites of 10 or more dwelling, “unless precluded by site specific
constraints, economic viability or prevailing neighbourhood characteristics.”
6.4 Part 2 states that proposals for new specialist housing for the elderly will be encouraged in
suitable locations. However, neither the Policy or explanatory text makes it clear how this will
be done. Whilst theSHMA recognises an ageing population, sufficient evidence is not provided
which demonstrates a target number of new properties to be designed to meet the needs of older
people. TW would note that all of its houses are adaptable to the needs of future residents and
built to accord with the latest building regulations.
6.5 TW objects to part 3 of the Policy which states, “affordable housing provision in line with Policy
CS(R)13 will still be required where the proposal for specialist accommodation provides self-
contained dwellings”. It is not clear if this has been costed as part of the viability report, as such
robust and clear evidence has not been provided to ensure that this requirement does not
compromise the viability of development proposals.
6.6 In respect of Part 5, it is not clear how the Council will “encourage the delivery of homes which
meet the Lifetime Homes standards”. Following the Government’s Housing Standard Review
local plan policies should make reference to the optional requirements in the Building
Regulations M4(2) and/or M4(3), rather than other standards to ensure consistency. TW has
undertaken a review of the Viability Assessment (Appendix 2) and it does not appear that the
costs of meeting the higher design standards have been adequately justified as the costs are
based on 2015 data with no allowance for inflation. As a result, the Policy, as worded is not
consistent with national policy and is not based on justified evidence. Furthermore, the
statement is vague and it is not clear what the requirement is for developers to achieve this
Policy.
Test of Soundness
1 It is not effective: As worded Parts 2 and 5 of the policy are vague and ineffective. It does
not make it clear how developments would be expected to provide elderly housing in terms
of numbers.
2 It is not consistent with national policy: Reference to Lifetime Homes standards is
not consistent with national policy.
Recommended Change
6.7 In order to address the concerns raised above, TW would suggest the following change:
Pg 10Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
1 Provide explicit targets for elderly housing/specialist accommodation based on a robust
evidence base and ensuring that viability is not impacts upon.
2 Remove or amend Part 5 of Policy CS(R)13 and reference to Lifetime Homes standards.
Pg 11Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
7.0 Policy CS(R)13: Affordable Homes and
Starter Homes
Introduction
7.1 Policy CS(R)13 sets out the requirement for the delivery of affordable housing to meet the
current and future housing needs of the borough.
Consideration of Policy
7.2 TW acknowledges the need to provide affordable housing however any such requirements
should be based on a robust and sound evidence base which in particular demonstrates that
viability is not affected. A review of the Local Plan Core Strategy suggests that historically there
has been a significant undersupply in the delivery of affordable units which was evidenced in the
SHMA 2011. The Council will need to adopt a positive and proactive approach to allocating
additional sites in sustainable locations that can come forward in the short term to provide for a
mix of market and affordable housing.
7.3 Notwithstanding this, having conducted a thorough review of the evidence base, TW is unable to
find any evidence which justifies the need to provide 25% affordable housing units on new
greenfield residential developments of 10 or more dwellings or on sites of 0.33ha or more. TW
therefore objects to Part 1 of Policy CS(R)13 on the premise that is not justified or based on
robust and sound evidence. As noted in Appendix 2, TW has reviewed the Viability Report and
found that throughout the report it has overstated the viability of greenfield and Strategic Sites
through the exclusion of abnormal costs and low benchmark land values. As a result, the
affordable housing provision is not realistic or achievable or based on a robust evidence base.
7.4 TW objects to Part 3 of the Policy and the tenure split between affordable and intermediate
housing (74/26%) which seems high. It is not clear in the evidence base that this is justified or
based on appropriate viability testing.
7.5 In respect of the provision of starter homes, and to ensure consistency with national policy, the
policy and reasoned justification should be expanded to make clear that Starter Homes will be
considered to be an intermediate form of affordable housing.
7.6 In relation to Part 5(c) of Policy CS(R)13, TW supports the degree of flexibility the Council has
taken which allows delivery to be achieved off-site or through financial contributions where it
has been demonstrated that on site provision is not appropriate.
Test of Soundness
7.7 TW considers that Policy CS(R)13 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: The provision for affordable housing is not based on robust and clear
evidence nor has it been costed; the provision of 25% affordable units on greenfield
developments is therefore unjustified.
Recommended Change
7.8 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure that Policy CS(R)13 is sound, it is requested
that the Council:
1 Update the viability report to reassess the affordable housing requirements and provide
justification for the provision of 25% affordable housing to demonstrates that it will not
impact on the viability and deliverability of sites.
Pg 12Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
2 Amend the policy and associated justification to make clear that Starter Homes will be
considered to be an intermediate form of affordable housing in line with the Viability
Assessment.
Pg 13Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
8.0 Policy CS(R)19: Sustainable Development
and Climate Change
Introduction
8.1 Policy CS(R)19 identifies the role that the design and construction of developments can play in
minimising effects of climate change.
Consideration of Policy
8.2 TW is committed to sustainable development and does not object to the need to minimise
carbon emissions or include renewable or low carbon energy sources, where practical, however
TW objects to the current wording of Parts 1, 3 and 4 of Policy CS(R)19.
8.3 Pat 1, 3 and 4 are vague and it is not considered that inclusion of these provisions is justified, or
in accordance with national policy. It is not clear from the Policy how developers are expected
to ensure the development is sustainable and appropriate to the location (Part 1), how they will
incorporate energy efficient building design solutions (Part 3) or maximise local opportunities
for district heating (Part 4).
8.4 It is considered that there is no justification in the Policy or explanatory text to justify these
requirements above those required by applicable nationally described standards; nor is it
adequately addressed as part of the viability report.
Test of Soundness
8.5 TW considers that Policy CS(R)19 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: there is no evidence as part of the DALP to justify the requirements set
out in Part 1, 3 and 4.
2 It is not effective: As worded Parts 1, 3 and 4 of the Policy are vague and ineffective. It
fails to provide a threshold for achieving the requirements.
Recommended Change
8.6 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure that Policy CS(R)19 is sound, it is requested
that the Council:
1 Considers whether the policy is necessary and justified; and,
2 On the findings of the above, amend Parts 1, 3 and 4 of the Policy and the justification to
provide a clear strategy as to how developers are to demonstrate energy efficient and
sustainable design, and how the Council will implement it and at what point during the
application process.
Pg 14Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
9.0 Policy RD1: Residential Development
Allocations
Introduction
9.1 Policy RD1 identifies a number of different sites that are allocated to meet the borough’s housing
requirement. As set out previously, TW’s interest at Chapel Lane, Widnes [Sites W4 & W5] has
been identified for allocation, with the capacity to deliver 432 dwellings.
Consideration of Policy
9.2 TW strongly supports the allocation of Sites W4 and W5 for new housing and welcomes the
Council’s acknowledgement that they are suitable, achievable and deliverable.
9.3 With reference to the comments made in Policy CS(R)1 and CS(R)3, TW has concerns regarding
the lack of consistency between the economic growth aspirations and the proposed OAN
housing requirement. In this regard, the Council has failed to identify sufficient land to meet
the housing requirement of the SHELMA. The allocation and delivery of the site for residential
development will therefore assist the Council in meeting the housing OAN requirement and help
deliver the economic growth aspirations of the LCR.
Development Capacity
9.4 TW welcomes the Council’s acknowledgement that the land at Chapel Lane is suitable and
deliverable in allocating it for residential development. As identified in the preceding
paragraphs, the delivery of housing is important in order for the borough to meet its economic
growth aspirations. The site is identified in the DALP as having a potential capacity of 432
dwellings, however it is not clear why this has reduced from 440 dwellings in the Publication
Version.
9.5 Part 6 of Policy CS(R)3 seeks to ensure the efficient use of land with a minimum density of 30
dph and, “in more accessible locations such as those close to town districts or local centres of
transport interchanges the presumption will be for development achieving densities of 40dph
or greater”. The site is sustainably located on the edge of the urban area of Widnes which
provides access to a range of services, facilities together with education and employment
opportunities all within suitable walking distance.
9.6 The site benefits from connectivity to the strategic road network and public transport hubs and
is well connected to the wider sub region. Cronton Road runs immediately to the north of site
and connects directly to the M62 and M57 which provides access to the wider strategic road
network. A bus service is in operation along Cronton Road which provides frequent access to
Liverpool, Warrington, Widnes and Hough Green; Widnes train station is located 1.5km to the
south east of the site and provides a frequent service to Liverpool and Manchester.
9.7 It is therefore considered that the site meets the criteria set out in Part 6 of Policy CS(R)3 and
should therefore be afforded a higher development density. Furthermore, with reference to the
comments made on Policy CS(R)3, it is requested that the Council considers increasing the
density requirements on strategic sites on the premise that these will be required to make
provisions for community facilities and social infrastructure. This will ensure that land is being
used efficiently and could in turn prevent viability issues arising associated with the cost of
delivering infrastructure.
Pg 15Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
Deliverability
9.8 The Site is fully deliverable and is not constrained by any technical or environmental constraints
that would prevent it coming forward for development or, that would impact on its net
developable area. Furthermore, the site is being promoted by a national housebuilder capable of
delivering residential development at the earliest opportunity following the adoption of the
DALP; the site could be borough forward within the first five years of the plan period.
9.9 It is therefore requested that the Council continues to support the site and its allocation in the
DALP on account of its suitability, deliverability and sustainability, and on the premise that it
would make a significant contribution to meeting the OAN requirement.
Test of Soundness
9.10 TW strongly supports the allocation of land at Chapel Lane for residential development on the
basis that:
1 It is justified: As set out in the evidence base, there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ to
justify the removal of land from the Green Belt; the site has the capacity to make a
significant contribution towards meeting the housing OAN requirement for the borough.
Recommended Change
9.11 TW does not consider the Policy requires any further changes.
Pg 16Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
10.0 Policy RD4: Greenspace Provision for
Residential Development
Introduction
10.1 Policy RD4 recognises the importance of providing greenspace and the contribution it makes
towards health and wellbeing; the policy sets out the greenspace requirements for new
residential developments.
Consideration of Policy
10.2 TW acknowledges the need for new residential development to make a contribution towards the
provision of greenspace. TW broadly supports the provisions set out in the table identified in
Part 1 of Policy RD4 on account of its accordance with national guidance, namely the Fields in
Trust standards.
10.3 Furthermore, TW supports the inclusion of Part 4 of Policy RD4 and the degree of flexibility that
that the Council has adopted whereby it will allow for off-site provision or financial
contributions to be made where it can be demonstrated that there is no practical alternative.
10.4 Notwithstanding this, it is important that any financial contribution made meets the tests set
out in the Framework6 and avoid causing undue impact on the cost of delivering units and, as
such must be considered within the viability report.
Test of Soundness
10.5 TW considers Policy RD4 to be sound provided clarification is provided in the viability report on
the assumptions made in respect of the costs of greenspace provision.
Recommended Change
10.6 TW consider that no further change to the Policy is required, provided further information is
included within the viability assessment.
6
National Planning Policy Framework §204
Pg 17Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
11.0 Policy RD6: Custom and Self Build Housing
Introduction
11.1 Policy RD6 sets out the importance of providing appropriate serviced plots for those who want
to build their own homes.
Consideration of Policy
11.2 TW strongly objects to Part 1 of Policy RD6 and the requirement for development of 20 or more
units to provide serviced plots for the provision of custom and self-build dwellings.
11.3 TW has undertaken a review of the Viability Report which considers the requirement of Policy
RD6, this is discussed in detail in the Technical Review in Appendix 2. The following provides a
summary of the TW’s main concerns as set out in this Technical Review:
1 The plot values appear high at £100,000 (with no evidence to substantiate this) particularly
in lower value areas such as Widnes and Runcorn; and there is no flexibility to account for
plot-specific abnormal costs which will impact on value.
2 It is not clear if there is an actual housing need and demand in Halton for self-build units;
TW considers that further evidence needs to be provided by the Council to support this
Policy.
3 The Viability Assessment does not fully evidence that there is no impact on the viability of
development and there is no robust delivery mechanism to address plots that have not sold
as the development reaches completion.
11.4 The requirement set out in Part 1(d) of Policy RD6 would have significant implications on the
delivery of strategic sites that are required to come forward in line with a masterplan or require
phasing. Furthermore, the reference to plots being “offered to a Housing Associated at fair
value” is vague and ineffective and considered to be too subjective. The Policy therefore
conflicts with the Framework7 which requires policies that provide a clear indication of how a
decision maker should react to a development proposal.
Test of Soundness
11.5 TW considers that Policy RD6 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: The policy requirements are not based on robust and justified
evidence.
2 It is not effective: As worded Part 1(d) of Policy RD6 is vague and ineffective.
Recommended Change
11.6 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure that Policy RD6 is sound, it is requested that
the Council:
1 Considers if the provision of self and custom build housing is necessary and justified and
whether the requirement is based on robust and sound evidence.
2 Provide further evidence within the Viability Report which considers the financial
implications of this policy requirement.
7
National Planning Policy Framework §16
Pg 18Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
12.0 Policy C1: Transport Network and
Accessibility
Introduction
12.1 Policy C1 seeks to encourage and enable a shift towards more sustainable modes of travel to
ensure that a sustainable transport network is in place.
Consideration of Policy
12.2 TW broadly supports the provision of Policy C1 and the need to encourage and facilitate
sustainable travel.
12.3 Notwithstanding this, TW has concerns over the effectiveness of Part 15 of Policy C1 which states
that “the Council will require the submission of a Travel Plan and a Transport Assessment or
Transport Statement for developments proposals that are likely to generate significant
number of trips.” As currently worded the policy is ambiguous in that it does not provide clear
guidance on the threshold of development that will require the submission of a Travel Plan and
a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement. It is therefore considered that the policy
conflicts with the provisions of the Framework8.
Test of Soundness
12.4 TW considers that Policy C1 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not effective: As currently worded, Part 15 of Policy C1 is ambiguous and too
subjective as it fails to provide a development threshold which requires the submission of a
Travel Plan and a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement.
Recommended Change
12.5 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure that Policy C1 is sound, it is requested that the
Council:
1 Considers an appropriate development threshold that requires the submission of a Travel
Plan and Transport Assessment or Statement.
8
National Planning Policy Framework §16
Pg 19Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
13.0 Policy C2: Parking Standards
Introduction
13.1 Policy C2 considers parking standards within commercial and residential developments.
Consideration of Policy
13.2 Whilst TW acknowledges the need to provide an appropriate quantum of parking proportionate
to the proposed development, it objects to Part 1d which states that, development must take into
account “an overall need to encourage the use of ultra low emissions vehicles”.
13.3 Firstly, this element of the policy is vague and it is not clear how developers will achieve this
requirement. The justification (§10.11-10.12) details a requirement to incorporate facilities for
charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles (in line with §105 of the Framework).
However, §10.12 of the explanatory text does not provide further clarity on how this will be
implemented, or how developers should allow “capacity to be built into new development to
allow for upgrading or advances in technology”. It is not clear how many vehicle charging
points are required to meet the policy requirement.
13.4 There is a significant cost to installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new
developments; this is not adequately tested within the Viability Assessment. Furthermore, it is
considered unreasonable to require residential developments to provide electric vehicle
charging infrastructure as the take up of electric cars in the UK is still very uncertain due to the
expense purchasing the cars in the first instance. It may also be the case that alternative forms
of powering private transport becomes more prominent as research into relevant technology
progresses.
13.5 Having completed a thorough review of the evidence base, TW is unable to identify a need for
electric vehicle charging infrastructure into new developments; indeed any such requirement
should be necessary, justified and based on robust and sound evidence. Therefore, TW requests
that the full and realistic cost of installing vehicle charging infrastructure is considered in the
Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
1 It is not effective: The policy as worded is vague and ineffective as it does not provide a
clear justification as to the number of charging points required on developments to meet
the policy requirement or specify how developers should enable capacity to be built into
new developments.
Recommended Change
13.6 To address the conflict above and ensure the Policy is sound, it is requested that the Council:
1 Ensure the Viability Assessment takes account of the full cost of installing this
infrastructure on large scale strategic sites.
2 Provide clarity to guide developers on the Council’s expectations for future proofing new
developments as technology advances and account for this in the viability report.
Pg 20Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
14.0 Policy C3: Delivery of Telecommunications
Infrastructure
Introduction
14.1 Policy C3 sets out the importance of maintaining and implementing effective communications in
the Borough and that this is essential to the development of the local economy.
Consideration of Policy
14.2 TW considers that telecommunication infrastructure is an important part of the integrated
development within an area. Whilst §112 of the Framework establishes that local authorities
should seek to support the expansion of electronic communications networks, it does not seek to
prevent development that does not have access to such networks.
14.3 Part R of the Building Regulations clearly sets the appropriate standards for high speed
electronic networks. TW does not consider there to be justification for Halton to seek additional
local technical standards above this requirement.
14.4 Any developer contribution would need to be fully viability tested.
Test of Soundness
14.5 TW considers that Policy C3 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not justified: there is no evidence as part of the Local Plan to justify this
requirement.
2 It is not consistent with national policy: It is not consistent with the Framework or
Building Regulations.
Recommended Change
14.6 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure the Policy is sound, it should omit reference
to developers being required to ‘deliver the necessary physical infrastructure to accommodate
information and digital communications networks’ as part of the policy requirement.
Pg 21Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
15.0 Policy HE4: Green Infrastructure
Introduction
15.1 Policy HE4 seeks to ensure that new development makes adequate provisions for the protection
and enhancement of Green Infrastructure.
Consideration of Policy
15.2 TW acknowledges the importance of providing an appropriate amount of green infrastructure to
support new development and broadly supports the provisions as set out in Policy HE4.
15.3 TW supports the provision of Part 1 but would note that this cannot conflict with the Council’s
requirement to increase housing density (Policy C(R)3) where Green Infrastructure would result
in a significant loss of developable areas of the sites. In addition, TW considers that the
requirements under Part 1 are too vague. It is not clear how development is expected to
“address climate change” (Part 1b) for example.
15.4 TW would note that in respect of Part 3, any financial contributions as required to provide
compensation for the loss of Green Infrastructure assets will need to comply with the CIL
Regulations.
Test of Soundness
15.5 TW considers Policy HE4 to be sound provided it clarifies Part 1 and provides specific
suggestions for ‘addressing climate change’.
Recommended Change
15.6 TW considers that further explanation is required in respect of Part 1b of Policy HE4.
Pg 22Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
16.0 Policy HE9: Water Management and Flood
Risk
Introduction
16.1 Policy HE9 required all development to manage flood risk from all sources and manage surface
water sustainably.
Consideration of Policy
16.2 TW is broadly supportive of Policy HE9, however it has concerns regarding Part 17 of the Policy
which states that “new development will need to ensure there is adequate water supply, surface
water, foul drainage and sewerage or waste water treatment capacity to serve the
development.” TW’s concerns relate to the wording of the policy, in particular the reference to
‘adequate water supply’; this is particularly pertinent as neither the policy or explanatory text
provides a definition as to what quantifies as an adequate water supply. It is therefore requested
that the Council reconsiders the wording of Policy HE9 to ensure clarity or provides justification
as to quantify the meaning of an adequate water supply. This will ensure that it does not conflict
with the Framework9
Test of Soundness
16.3 TW considers that Policy HE9 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not effective: As presently worded, the policy is too vague and does not quantify the
term ‘adequate water supply’.
Recommended Change
16.4 In order to address the conflicts above and ensure that Policy HE9 is sound, it is requested that
the Council:
1 Amends the policy and justification to quantify the meaning of an ‘adequate water supply’.
9
The Framework 2019 - §16
Pg 23Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
17.0 Policy GR1: Design of Development
Introduction
17.1 Policy GR1 seeks a high standard of design in new development that respects the character and
protects the visual amenity of the area.
Consideration of Policy
17.2 TW acknowledges the importance of ensuring that new developments are of a high quality and
that they respect the local vernacular and character of the surrounding area. In this respect TW
broadly supports the principles of Policy GR1, however it objects to Part 5 of the Policy which
states “all major development proposals involving the construction of new buildings must
demonstrate how sustainable design and construction methods will be incorporated to achieve
resource efficiency and resilience to climate change in accordance with CS(R)19.”
17.3 It is not clear from Part 4 of the Policy as to how developers are expected to demonstrate the use
of sustainable design and construction methods. TW notes that the justification also fails to
provide a clear and robust strategy as to how the Council will impose this and at what point
during the application process. The Policy therefore conflicts with the Framework10.
Test of Soundness
17.4 TW considers that Policy GR1 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not effective: As currently worded, Part 4 of the Policy is too vague and does not
provide a clear strategy as to how developers are expected to demonstrate sustainable
design and construction methods, how this will be implemented and at what point in the
planning application process.
Recommended Change
17.5 In order to address the conflict above and ensure the Policy is sound, it is requested that the
Council:
1 Considers whether the Policy (in particular Part 4) is necessary and justified; and
2 On the finding of the above, amend Part 4 of the Policy and the justification to provide a
clear strategy as to how developers are to demonstrate the use of sustainable design and
construction methods and, how the Council will implement and at what point during the
application process.
10
The Framework - §16 and §125
Pg 24Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Proposed Submission Draft
18.0 Policy GR2: Amenity
Introduction
18.1 Policy GR2 sets out the importance of good planning to ensure that an appropriate standard of
amenity exists between existing and future occupants for all types of land and buildings.
Consideration of Policy
18.2 TW supports the provisions set out in Policy GR2 and recognises the importance of delivering
high quality developments which have been designed and laid out to ensure that a good
standard of amenity is maintained. Notwithstanding this, it is important that any policy
requirements relating to amenity, design and layout of new developments is in accordance with
national guidance and building regulations.
Test of Soundness
18.3 TW considers Policy GR2 to be sound.
Recommended Change
18.4 TW considers that no further change is required to the Policy.
Pg 25Halton Delivery and Allocations Local Plan: : Appendix 1 Site Location Plan
Appendix 1 Site Location PlanYou can also read
